They should probably make medium missiles not crap then,

Read the post I linked above for a comprehensive analysis of the missile damage formula and why it is currently very flawed.

That's exactly what I said about the edge case.
Yet, 18 volleys of missiles from a caracal will do 14850 damage.

AB and T2 frigates can be a problem, but that's far from what you are saying it to be. The window is worth 5kehp and I doubt many frigates fall inside it, but extending the magazine a bit is worth considering.

Heres a situation that is not an edge case scenario:

You are in a caracal with rlms, you engage an enemy cruiser, while shooting this enemy a frigate suddenly lands on field. Because of the new rlms, you do not have enough missiles to be able to kill the frigate straight up and must now wait an additional 40 seconds before you can remove tackle. This forces you to either immediately leave the fight or likely die as the frigate comes in and scrams you while you have no way to respond to it because you've only got a half dozen shots which wont kill it and then a 40 second reload.

Yes rise did say that was a concern, he also specifically stated that it wasn't a deal breaker and only introduced 'interesting and tense' play.

Why in the world would I want to fly rlms under this change outside of some very specific situations when I could very easily be completely and arbitrarily forced to disengage or die should I get caught with a low clip of ammo? Sure it would be overpowered vs t1 frigates but against cruisers and in any situation where I need to swap targets or god forbid swap ammo I am essentially flying a useless ship. What is the point of flying it compared to an omen or a rail thorax? All of these ships do well vs tackle but the rlm ship will have so many limitations that it just isn't something you can rely on to do its job well when compared to these other ships.

Please enlighten us. Is this a ship stats + modules + hull bonus + ammunition and weapon system together is TO POWERFUL. Or! Is this a ammunition is overpowered argument? If the later then please explain in detail why that is; and if the former. Then things get complicated.

I have YET TO READ A DETAILED explanation AS TO WHY LIGHT MISSILES ARE OVERPOWERED.

all eve pilots want is the RLML's to be left alone and the RHML's to be given the 1st set of stats but include all battleship bonuses

I'd rather they just fixed missiles

What I find most objectionable about this proposed set of changes is the 40 s reload interval (combined with insufficient clip-size).

The "just split your weapons" argument doesn't solve the problem, because instead it roughly halves your sustained dps... and this reduced output is particularly relevant when discussing these changes in the context of skirmish links usage (I'll get to that a little later).

Further, 40 s isn't a "tension inducing" interval. It is a deal-breaker. And I say this as a pilot who often flies as the bait for small-gangs (especially when flying against more numerous opponents).

The people who don't give two craps about the proposed 40 second refractory period are the types who fly in larger groups and who can envision just how devastating the additional 53% burst damage will be... i.e. they are blobbers who intend to rely on a largely range and piloting independent weapon system that can apply disproportionately high damage in a short time-frame from skirmish ranges in anticipation of their fleet-warp exit... and they will, along with their numerical advantage, field specialized fleet-tacklers so that the mainstay of their own role will be that of damage application... That is, you are opening up an entirely new can of worms, here. I don't see the point of further enabling a target-size-independent missile sniping doctrine (albeit a sniping doctrine that needs to accommodate for missile travel time). So much for 'encouraging interesting choices'...

The bottom line is that those who are excited about these changes do NOT represent the interests and concerns of people who fly in small gangs. 40 s is such a long interval of time (when in combat) that it conceivably inhibits one playstyle when considering the usage of the affected missile-based ships... and meanwhile promotes another arguably more abusive playstyle. Numerically advantageous blobs don't need any more 'help'. Eve doesn't need more in the way of 'sniping' either... especially not enabling a type of sniping that is target-size independent and outclasses the HML alternative.

I will concede that the merit in this balance vision is in attempting to ween players off of a weapon system that performs exceptionally well against smaller craft irrespective of range or transversal... wherein said weapon system is almost always the best choice for a fitting and wherein actual piloting has almost no way to mitigate incoming damage (i.e. the missile formula is governed by signature size and velocity)... However, part of the reason that these concerns are at the forefront of a small gang pilot's mind is due to the pervasiveness of skirmish links. Once committed to an engagement, linked tacklers are often exceedingly difficult to evade... Thus, the strategy when dealing with linked frigate class tangos switches from evasion to removal. A pilot and his gang will need to address the role of anti-tackle comprehensively, or otherwise be unable to combat swathes of opponents that are common to face when flying in a small gang. Interestingly, links are still such a 'problem' that certain frigate setups can nonetheless permatank the damage output from even specifically designed anti-frigate RLML cruiser platforms (even under webs and TPs). When comparing the performance of HMLs or HAMs against such linked targets, the picture becomes even more bleak... so bad, in fact, that one probably simply wouldn't elect to field HML or HAM missile ships in an anti-tackle role (while retaining the expectation of success).

What you are introducing with the burst and refractory mechanics are artificial intervals of vulnerability... as a means to circumvent the inherently flawed missile damage application formula. To suggest that the missile formula needs to be revamped is an vast understatement.

As other commenters have suggested, players won't adapt by seeking to fulfill the anti-tackle role with an artificially vulnerable missile platform. They will abandon it in favour of better alternatives. Meanwhile, the front-loaded damage burst change will merely promote 'sniper' doctrines that are target-size and target-piloting independent. Worst of all, if you rely on metrics to give you an indication of what is going on, you will see that RLML usage has increased and that people are 'loving it' (thanks to factors like Nullbloc adoption). What this balance pass calls for is some intuition and judgement... not artificial vulnerabilities... not an incomplete release with the intention of metrics-driven iteration.

If (!) the power level of the current RLMLs is deemed too strong relative to the HML and HAM alternatives, then nerf the RLMLs suitably either through fitting compromises or more straightforward damage reduction... not by completely hampering an entire non-blob oriented playstyle for missile based ships.

In summary, I am very concerned about the implications of morphing RLMLs into a largely piloting and target-size independent front-loaded 'sniping' weapon system... and as a small gang pilot, and I am dismayed by the proposed 40 second reload interval.

http://i.imgur.com/nK8quTd.jpg
Twerk on my D

...does anyone actually use fof?...
...this delay creates new kimds of decision making...
...the ships using these systems are kinetic bonused which means you don't switch that often...
...switch on the way to a fight based on what damage type might be best. You still have the option to switch as you run out of charges and would be reloading anyway...

Alright, so far I feel like I'm seeing 3 major areas of complaint, alongside a lot of people who think this will be a good change. Those areas are:

40s reload is boring and will be miserable to use please don't do it

Switching ammo types (other damage types or to FOF(does anyone actually use fof?)) will be very difficult which is key for missile users

This is a nerf to RLML and I love them so please don't do it

I'm not convinced at all by the first complaint. As I've said before, this delay creates new kimds of decision making, it creates spikes of tension in fights rather than a flat amount of damage moving around and beyond those things it can be completely mitigated if you want. As others have pointed out, simply splitting your launchers into two groups and alternating them means you are never stuck in reload. It also means you lose the advantage of having your damage front-loaded into a very high DPS number. Still, if you can completely bypass this 'downside' I don't see how you can argue that this mechanic alone ruins the system.

I commented earlier on the missile switching - I think it is a valid complaint and I'd like to find a work-around for it as an iteration but I don't think it's a show-stopper. Several of the ships using these systems are kinetic bonused which means you don't switch that often. You still have time to switch on the way to a fight based on what damage type might be best. You still have the option to switch as you run out of charges and would be reloading anyway. But again, this is a legit complaint and I want to look into it.

Most of the complaints about it being a straight up nerf make me feel like going ahead with the old plan and leaving RLML in their current state would have been a mistake. I think most of you feeling this way are just disappointed with the idea of losing a slightly over-powered weapon system, which is understandable. Please keep in mind that this change represents a 15-20% damage drop over long fights but offers a new advantage in trade. I suspect that ships like FW Caracals with RLML will remain very strong. Also, if they don't, it's very easy to tune the reload time down slightly or the rate of fire up slightly to bring them into balance and we would absolutely watch that and make necessary adjustments. I would be extremely unhappy if the numbers were bad and rapid launchers disappeared from Caracals and Fleet Scythes completely.

Broader complaints about missiles vs turrets or training time often have merit, but they represent much bigger projects that we fully intend to take on, just not during this rebalance. We hear you though and hopefully we can start working on major module balance projects in the coming releases as we are closing in on finishing our first lap of all the ships in the game.

Hope this answers some of your concerns

Reload time for both groups set to 40 seconds.

T2 Rapid Light Launchers can carry roughly 18 charges
T2 Rapid Heavy Launchers can carry roughly 23 charges

the OP at least was better timed than say, the marauder thread, since only 1 1/2 weeks is hardly enough time for the playerbase to mount 200+ pgs of rage, properly earning ccp rise a good thumping on his brow. To his credit, he is at least learning from his past mistakes!
just /o\

I think it's sweet how missiles are always getting to short stick. I don't care how you "balance" them, but making reload 40sec, that is just crazy. Missiles already have the longeest reload time 10s, guns 5s, or 1s" Lasers". I don't care what you do, but find another way but 40s reload, and 23 missiles loaded? come up these are suppose to hold more then their small brothers, that makes no since at all. Find another way, and give these back their high loads and 10s reload. Find another way!!!

As missiles have the least amount of options