Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 138 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
Sushi Nardieu
Encapsulated.
170
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 19:36:00 -
[241] - Quote
I like this idea. Creates some choice mechanics in EVE fits.
Still think special dictor bubble launcher fitting that doesn't encourage creativity and choice in fits is a mistake but rapid lights/heavies change is certainly very cool for skirmish PVP. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1636
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 19:37:00 -
[242] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Michael Harari wrote:If anything should have a "burst" mechanic with a long reload time, it should be remote reps. =D =D =D =D Cap stable logi have no real resource for depletion. RR should have ammo and long reload timers. This adds additional decisionmaking to fleet fights, where a side that can properly stagger reps gets a big advantage over an unorganized fleet that just spams all their reps at once.
Yes.
I like the idea.
I hate the way logi works now.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2821
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 19:37:00 -
[243] - Quote
Huorek wrote:If the sustained DPS is roughly half the burst with all launchers going, could the Cerb have a sustained DPS of 2/3s the burst after 20~ seconds if cycling the launchers on in groups of 2 every 20~ seconds? Meaning after 20~ seconds you will always have 4 launchers going that have 54% increased DPS. I'm sure my math is off, but it seems that you have the option to either burst DPS or ramp up to about the same DPS as previously.
Obviously a large change, but I see a lot of arguments about the loss of sustained DPS, when cycling the launchers could be a way around this.
All toggling launchers does is decrease the burst dps to create a more continual dps output, but this is sub-optimal in most situations. Think of it as akin to an arty-alpha situation, were ungrouping your arties allows you more consistent damage over time, but doesn't change your long term damage over time. Generally speaking, more upfront alpha is generally better as it gives the target less opportunity to negate it.
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
467
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 19:39:00 -
[244] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:For this to be appropriately balanced, the "high dps window" needs to be long enough to bring down a typical target. Then the reload window needs to be long enough to make it un-ideal when sustained dps is important. I think your 20s attack, 10-15s reload is too short on both accounts, and the 50s attack, 40s relaod is just about ideal. So you're saying as proposed is probably balanced? |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
467
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 19:43:00 -
[245] - Quote
Can we at least get missile velocity applied to RHMLs on battleshup hulls? |
zbaaca
POD Based Lifeforms DarkSide.
59
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 19:54:00 -
[246] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:zbaaca wrote:problem is that no1 wants to use overnerfed HM. And yet I still see HML Drakes everywhere I go... just compare HML HAML and now-RML on something like caracal. what point to use HML ? |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
468
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 19:56:00 -
[247] - Quote
zbaaca wrote:just compare HML HAML and now-RML on something like caracal. what point to use HML ? Range. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2821
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 20:02:00 -
[248] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:For this to be appropriately balanced, the "high dps window" needs to be long enough to bring down a typical target. Then the reload window needs to be long enough to make it un-ideal when sustained dps is important. I think your 20s attack, 10-15s reload is too short on both accounts, and the 50s attack, 40s relaod is just about ideal. So you're saying as proposed is probably balanced?
Honestly, I haven't run the numbers completely.... but in my experience PvP'ing (I do a large amount of solo and small gang PvP), 20s is too short for a cruiser / BC / BS gank, unless you have numbers. I'd almost look at it in terms of expected EHP of your target:
For an AF, I'd want to dish out 15k damage before the reload to "bring it down". at 400 dps, this is 37.5s, which means the current 50s time period of the RLML is excellent, allowing me to drop one (or more weaker targets) between reloads. -- I chose 15k, because your tanky AF's have this much EHP, and when talking over a 50s window, your Active tanking AF's can have around this much potential EHP.
For a cruiser, I'd want to dish out 50k damage before the reload. At 900 dps, this is 56 s, which means the current RHML may be a tad too short activation time. Unfortunately, there is a pragmatic limit on the patience of pilots, and 40s is close to that cusp. As such, the application time should probably have a cap around 60s.
|
Ranamar
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
26
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 20:02:00 -
[249] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Ranamar wrote:Do RHML-launched heavy missiles get the range bonus from Raven hulls, now that some of the "like other battleship launchers but better" concerns have been addressed by making rapid launchers significantly different?
Other than that, this sounds interesting and I'm looking forward to seeing how it pans out. Not in the last iteration, anyway. Just damage and rate of fire bonuses (although there was some question as to whether the Golem not receiving it was an oversight).
I know, which is why I'm asking if they get them, now that the other changes have been made... since a Caracal applies its range bonus to rapid light launchers. |
Drahomi'r Bozi'dar
0ne Percent.
0
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 20:03:00 -
[250] - Quote
Overall, im not a fan of the proposed 50s shooting, 40s reloading aspect. Mathematically it might be "fair" but sitting around waiting on 40s reloads doesnt sound "fun" to me.
With ASB/AAR the long reload actually introduces some very interesting decision making opportunities for pilots when they go on reload: do i try to get out? do i try to reload in combat? do i keep pulsing the module and hope to get through the rest of the fight before my cap dies? This missile change doesnt come with any interesting decision making. You drop your load of missiles and hope you won, but if you didnt, you probably just sit there and watch yourself die without the option to fight back.
One of the strengths of missiles as a weapon type is selectable damage types. This proposal will either require some sort of weird change to the way ammo switching works, or will kill that advantage in these launchers.
Because of flight time, its pretty common for launchers to end up cycling an extra time after the target is dead (ie you have 2 flights of missiles in the air and the first flight kills the target before the 2nd set lands). Its always been a minor annoyance because it costs you extra ammo for no purpose, but it also accelerates you towards that reload point, which now is going to be extra painful. The high ROF of rapid launchers makes this much more likely (and in the case of RHML the range creates potential for having more than 1 wasted volley in the air). Yes, its possible to turn off turrets before the target dies, but that can be a pretty risky option when you are trying to break remote reps, or racing against an ASB reload or something similar.
side question, has anyone crunched the numbers on these to see how they look as suicide ganking options? How does the front loaded damage on these compare to common suicide ganking ships (tornado and catalyst) and how much dmg can these things put out inside the normal concord response times? (might be completely irrelevant, i havent ever looked at the numbers for suicide ganks, but i feel like suiciding is already easy enough that we dont need to make it any more efficient than it already is). |
|
Joan Greywind
No Swag Initiative
184
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 20:05:00 -
[251] - Quote
So why don't you just ungroup your weapons and shoot half of them while the other half reloads, you will still have the same sustained dps as you had before the change. Now you have to option to burst someone before his friends arrive, or break his active tank. I mean it still has the same stats over a long period of time, just use your imagination a little and this could add some very nice options. Now at least you are able to kill those ****** active tanked hawks.
Also adding some flavor to weapons is what need, not just playing around with their damage and damage projection. A new mechanic always adds good play, like for instance the ASB. |
Kat Ayclism
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
88
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 20:06:00 -
[252] - Quote
Justin Cody wrote:Mr Floydy wrote:Undecided on the weapon change, it's not a class of weapon I'd likely use much - more of a turret person. I like the idea in principle however. However one thing I think needs to happen if you have a 40 second reload.
The ability to cancel it, or pre select the ammo to load on the next reload. Sitting and waiting 40 seconds for it to reload the ammo you don't want is just gonna be massively annoying. Its a bad idea to start this on weapons. Ohhh how about we do this to 220mm AC's! double dps...half ammo and 40 sec reload! Or Artillery! Or Blasters! Sure you'll do 1800 dps but you won't be able to sustain it enough to make a difference! This is like taking viagra with the added side effect of it making you prematurely ejaculate. Sure its extra heavy and creamy but now you have to wait an entire day to do it again! This man is a good man and quality poster. Wrecking these terrible terrible modules while I sleep. Godspeed good sir. Godspeed. |
SOL Ranger
SOL.
62
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 20:08:00 -
[253] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Can we at least get missile velocity applied to RHMLs on battleshup hulls?
I think the better idea would be to scale the rapid launchers down in terms of fitting costs, now these launchers have a clear weakness so the up sized fitting requirements are no longer needed, then we can also add a rapid cruise launcher into the lineup.
That way you'd get the bonuses for each size rapid missile launcher almost by default for each ship, applying battleship bonuses to heavy missiles seems out of place in the current balancing theme EVE is in, I think the only way to get something similar yet acceptably functional is with a rapid cruise launcher.
|
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
758
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 20:08:00 -
[254] - Quote
Joan Greywind wrote:So why don't you just ungroup your weapons and shoot half of them while the other half reloads, you will still have the same sustained dps as you had before the change.
No, you dont. |
Ranamar
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
26
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 20:10:00 -
[255] - Quote
Drahomi'r Bozi'dar wrote:side question, has anyone crunched the numbers on these to see how they look as suicide ganking options? How does the front loaded damage on these compare to common suicide ganking ships (tornado and catalyst) and how much dmg can these things put out inside the normal concord response times? (might be completely irrelevant, i havent ever looked at the numbers for suicide ganks, but i feel like suiciding is already easy enough that we dont need to make it any more efficient than it already is).
I've heard 700dps thrown around as a number for T2 catalysts. It says here that you probably get ~500dps from a Caracal. That doesn't seem worth it, especially with how Caracal insurance works right now. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
471
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 20:13:00 -
[256] - Quote
SOL Ranger wrote:[quote=Arthur Aihaken]I think the better idea would be to scale the rapid launchers down in terms of fitting costs, now these launchers have a clear weakness so the up sized fitting requirements are no longer needed, then we can also add a rapid cruise launcher into the lineup.
That way you'd get the bonuses for each size rapid missile launcher almost by default for each ship, applying battleship bonuses to heavy missiles seems out of place in the current balancing theme EVE is in, I think the only way to get something similar yet acceptably functional is with a rapid cruise launcher. RHML Tengu, I'm in. I still want the missile velocity bonus on my Ravens, though. |
Huorek
Blood Stripe Resistance
3
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 20:17:00 -
[257] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Huorek wrote:If the sustained DPS is roughly half the burst with all launchers going, could the Cerb have a sustained DPS of 2/3s the burst after 20~ seconds if cycling the launchers on in groups of 2 every 20~ seconds? Meaning after 20~ seconds you will always have 4 launchers going that have 54% increased DPS. I'm sure my math is off, but it seems that you have the option to either burst DPS or ramp up to about the same DPS as previously.
Obviously a large change, but I see a lot of arguments about the loss of sustained DPS, when cycling the launchers could be a way around this. All toggling launchers does is decrease the burst dps to create a more continual dps output, but this is sub-optimal in most situations. Think of it as akin to an arty-alpha situation, were ungrouping your arties allows you more consistent damage over time, but doesn't change your long term damage over time. Generally speaking, more upfront alpha is generally better as it gives the target less opportunity to negate it.
I agree with you that high alpha is generally better, I was attempting to find a solution for some that are arguing that "Yes upfront DPS went up, but if that isn't enough to kill them in the first 40-50 seconds then you are SOL for 40 seconds". It's obviously not an optimal solution to that but it is a plausible one. Generally that will be an issue only with fighting cruisers, which is something they are intentionally making the RLML worse at. This solution would be harder to implement for ONIs and Caracs.
As it stands I like the front heavy DPS change. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12296
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 20:22:00 -
[258] - Quote
Drahomi'r Bozi'dar wrote:Overall, im not a fan of the proposed 50s shooting, 40s reloading aspect. Mathematically it might be "fair" but sitting around waiting on 40s reloads doesnt sound "fun" to me...
By way of comparison, 1400mm artillery users have to wait 29 seconds between each shot.
|
Shade Alidiana
PROSPERO Corporation MinTek Conglomerate
57
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 20:23:00 -
[259] - Quote
Looks interesting, but I liked the original idea a bit more. Switching charge type takes too much time, everything else is ok for me. What about keeping both comcepts? |
Octavian Madullier
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
10
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 20:23:00 -
[260] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote: i think it should be designed so if your charges reach 0 it takes 40 seconds to reload but to switch charge types (albeit without going back to a full reload) it would take the normal amount of time. (or no time, i dunno, that could be another bonus of using them) This is a very valid point.
exactly what i was thinking also ....
but still ... 40 seconds ??? ... |
|
Shade Alidiana
PROSPERO Corporation MinTek Conglomerate
57
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 20:24:00 -
[261] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Drahomi'r Bozi'dar wrote:Overall, im not a fan of the proposed 50s shooting, 40s reloading aspect. Mathematically it might be "fair" but sitting around waiting on 40s reloads doesnt sound "fun" to me...
By way of comparison, 1400mm artillery users have to wait 29 seconds between each shot. My tempest didn't know that and shoots every 16 sec |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
473
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 20:27:00 -
[262] - Quote
Octavian Madullier wrote:but still ... 40 seconds ??? ... It's something different, which as far as I'm concerned is a welcome change for missiles. |
Octavian Madullier
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
10
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 20:28:00 -
[263] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Fires for 50s, reloads for 40.
I surely can't be the first person to think two weapon groups allowing for either constant, sustained damage yet with the option of massive spike application.
LOL ... no you are not ... its the obvious way to use them ...and u have different missile types in each group thus avoided having only kinetic loaded when facing Caldari ...
|
Iris Bravemount
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
259
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 20:29:00 -
[264] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Kat Ayclism wrote:Holy crap that's terrible ******* idea Would love if you expanded a bit.
Ancillary shield boosters were OP from the start (active tank immune to neut, can fit more than one). Did you remove them? No, you buffed them (introducing smaller versions of navy cap boosters). You tossed a bone at armor tankes with AARs that are'nt neut immune and you can't fit several of. Now you add ancillary missile launchers.
Please stop with this ancillary madness. The only selling point of the concept is that it allows to "burst". Overheating already covered this. It is redundant and balance braking. Just stop it. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
473
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 20:30:00 -
[265] - Quote
Iris Bravemount wrote:Overheating already covered this. Oooh, thanks for mentioning that. RLML's get a 15% rate of fire bonus, so that translates into about 27 seconds of overheated firing time then a cooldown of 40 seconds while it reloads. Awesome! |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12299
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 20:31:00 -
[266] - Quote
Shade Alidiana wrote:Malcanis wrote:Drahomi'r Bozi'dar wrote:Overall, im not a fan of the proposed 50s shooting, 40s reloading aspect. Mathematically it might be "fair" but sitting around waiting on 40s reloads doesnt sound "fun" to me...
By way of comparison, 1400mm artillery users have to wait 29 seconds between each shot. My tempest didn't know that and shoots every 16 sec
Oh hello RoF bonus. I didn't see you come in there. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2822
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 20:31:00 -
[267] - Quote
Octavian Madullier wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Fires for 50s, reloads for 40.
I surely can't be the first person to think two weapon groups allowing for either constant, sustained damage yet with the option of massive spike application. LOL ... no you are not ... its the obvious way to use them ...and u have different missile types in each group thus avoided having only kinetic loaded when facing Caldari ...
While there are a few situations that this is a good plan, this is also similar to "ungrouping" your artillery weapons. More often than not, you want to put as much damage on your target as quickly as possible.
|
SOL Ranger
SOL.
62
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 20:37:00 -
[268] - Quote
Shade Alidiana wrote:Malcanis wrote:Drahomi'r Bozi'dar wrote:Overall, im not a fan of the proposed 50s shooting, 40s reloading aspect. Mathematically it might be "fair" but sitting around waiting on 40s reloads doesnt sound "fun" to me...
By way of comparison, 1400mm artillery users have to wait 29 seconds between each shot. My tempest didn't know that and shoots every 16 sec
Tempest simply doesn't care. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12299
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 20:38:00 -
[269] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Octavian Madullier wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Fires for 50s, reloads for 40.
I surely can't be the first person to think two weapon groups allowing for either constant, sustained damage yet with the option of massive spike application. LOL ... no you are not ... its the obvious way to use them ...and u have different missile types in each group thus avoided having only kinetic loaded when facing Caldari ... While there are a few situations that this is a good plan, this is also similar to "ungrouping" your artillery weapons. More often than not, you want to put as much damage on your target as quickly as possible.
That's exactly what makes this an effective buff, at least for PvP.
|
Octavian Madullier
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
10
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 20:39:00 -
[270] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Awesome change. Provides the ability for a battleship to screen a fleet against interceptors, though you have to overcome the extremely long lock time of a battleship. People will need to get on Singularity and fly fleets of frigates, cruisers and battlecruisers against their navy ravens with RHMLs in order to understand the difference between a burst of 1000DPS against an interceptor with RHMLs versus sustained 1000DPS with cruise missiles against the same target. CCP Rise, what about the possibility of reducing the reload time and reducing the firing rate, and shifting the high-DPS mode of this weapon system to overloading? This means the pilot has the option of:
- firing for, say, 70 seconds until the RHML burns out
- firing in bursts and applying paste to prepare for the next burst, or
- firing a sustained stream of missiles at far lower DPS without heat.
Just move the DPS bonus and "40 second reload timer" to the overheat mechanics of this weapon system. And then provide some means for battleships to lock frigates in reasonable amounts of time so the front-loaded DPS can actually be applied. The "screen" ability would especially be enhanced with a special targeting system, similar to a passive targeting system, which allows any ship to "save up" a triple-speed target lock. This targeting assistance module would be exclusive to sensor boosters, sensor amplifiers or sensor links, with a penalty of one-third target locking speed while recharging. So interceptor arrives, tries to light cyno. You (the pilot of the fighter-screen battleship) use the targeting assistance module to lock the interceptor, and you overheat the RHMLs to bring the interceptor down. Once the interceptor is dead you are now "down for the count" while repairing your launchers and recharging the targeting assistance module.
as someone who loves using missiles ... that is a VERY good idea and use of the RHML on the screeninng battleship ... CCP RIse ... please consider this ... |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 138 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |