I proposed this. Player interest: apparently zero.

This system was already overpowered and didn't need another buff. If RLML is going to have DPS of the regular medium launchers, at least make it have the same fittings.

Right now a caracal fit with these has everything at the same time: speed, tank, DPS, projection and full DPS on targets of any size. Hurricane was nerfed hard for less than that, nerfed along with the tracking enhancers.

Look, those people just haven't learned to like it yet. Rest assured, CCP know that another scandal or unnecessary change is coming, and this particular problem will soon be forgotten in the face of something else they decide to break just for the hell of it.

Problem Identified: Ammo Swapping takes way, way too long, as pointed out by the community months ago.
Solution: Make ammo swapping only take way too long instead of way, way too long.

:CCP:

So, I take it we can expect a reasonable RLML by Rubicon 1.4? How's that SoE BS coming btw?

Don't underestimate the affect of a proper burst weapon. For the same reason alpha strike is often more important than overall dps, a proper burst missile system would be great for any missile user wanting to pvp. That said, I think this one still need some improvements until it is anywhere near on par with artillery like effectiveness for instance.

Here is a thought.

What if for each missile there was for instance a 2 second reload time. You have two choices, you could either load up a full salvo of 20 missiles and then fire all at once, which in this case would take you 40 seconds. Alternatively if you just need to quickly hit a target you could fire the salvo half way through the loading process which would fire 10 missiles and only take 20 seconds to reload.

I'm not sure if that is possible to code but it sounds like it would be quite fun to use. Then we can have a proper burst weapon with the flexibility and option during a reload still available for the pilot to fire their burst of missiles when they choose.

Careful you guys dont whine these launchers into OP hell\heaven...they will change\break the game.
Burst damage>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sustained dps.

Compare burst damage dealers in other games and you will see how they change the meta,careful what you wish for.

Scenario 2, you have a friend too. However, the enemy ship has a MWD, you guys only have long points, so even with webs they'll jump in 40 seconds. Now which one is useless? The answer is neither is useless, just successful at different times.

Long point keres is great for first tackle on a large gate while heavy tackle retribution is useful to hold long enough for logi to save you from gate guns. Tools for a job.

Any scenario you contrive which gives the target time means sustained dps is better. Any scenario which reduces the time dramatically will then favour the burst/alpha, for the downtime that reduces it's sustained dps isn't spent in fight.

I agree that indeed the current weapon system needs a lot of tweaking before it can actually be considered anywhere near on par with the effectiveness of artillery for example. I am just wondering why more good PVPers like you and your own corp are not more in favour of working with this burst mechanic for missiles.

I would say the concept which CCP Rise has put out is certainly sound and also needed for missiles to keep on par with gunnery systems. If anything all the angst should probalby be directed toward improving standard heavy missiles launchers instead of asking for RHML to be made into a replacement for them.

I see what you are saying, in those examples the burst option isn't going to be as effective as overall dps, but then the point still remains, why should missile users not have an option to deliver burst damage if the wish to. Of course if you are flying solo against a similar class of ship with equal tank then overall dps is often going to be a better choice. But against smaller targets, and in larger number, then at least we have the option to use these missiles.

Right now if the only reason to use rapids where due to a trade of between dps and lower fitting reqs then that seems a bit of a poor choice to me for missile users.

So.. use hams then and stop bitching. Rapids use an ammo type smaller than any other cruiser weapon. No other weapon system has this advantage. That would be like 180 autocannons or 650 arty having a Sig resolution of 50, instead of the current 120.

Its like CCP knew that heavies and hams didnt hit frigs great and tweaked a launcher specifically to kill frigs. Hams and heavies when fitted properly can apply all their damage to cruiser size targets. So there is no need to use rlml for this job anymore. Do heavies need a buff? Yes. But rlml are far from worthless.

If my bellicose can kill frigs with rlml, your Caracal should as well. Never said I was an elite pvp'r, but I seem to grasp missile concepts better than most missile users.

This brings up a good point though. All I ever see are complaints from Cal pilots. Perhaps the caracal and cerb should be looked at for some tweaking.

I fought against triple lse rlml caracal often in null. I find it odd a t1 cruiser could hit my vagabond perfectly out to 60 to 80km and still having a 30k ehp tank. And still put out decent dps. And still blap frigs without problem. See anything wrong here? There is no risk with the old rlml. Now frigs can actually have a window to kill you, and not be rofl stomped.

I think it's fair to say that a target standing still is a very special case. I don't think I've ever seen a frigate stand still in a firefight.

With that out of the way, signature radius does indeed have a very large effect on gunnery hit chances. Halving sig radius is approximately equivalent to halving the tracking speed (see equation on eve uni site). Gun damage is affected by this in two ways. First, the hit chance itself and the the actual damage that is applied if the shot hits.

As mentioned, gun damage is applied in a all-or-nothing manner, which is different to the missiles' constant-damage-over-time approach. Which you prefer will dictate which weapon system you take that day.

The idea that there is a guns v missiles argument is false. These two weapon systems are complimentary. It's not a idealogical war for most of us.

Why not simply admit that the whole idea was crap and get this Rapid Light Missile Launcher back to 10 secs reload time. Before, the T2 launcher had 80 missiles. If you want to give this thing burst with rate of fire, ok. But balance it with the amount of missiles, not with reload time.

20 missiles (down from 80) double the rate of fire (12ish, now 6ish) but without screwing with the reload/change ammo ability?


Because even with 35 secs reload time, no-one is going to use this. Not in PvE and not in PvP either.

Yes, that means turret users actually have to do something to get damage on target (mitigating transversal), where missile pilots just have to avoid getting caught. We have to add TE or TC to get fall-off at a reasonable distance, missiles do not. Missile users just add BCU's and thats it. Then complain that their hams or heavy missiles apply for ****.

You want max tank and gank, then complain when missiles hit poorly. Yes, heavy missiles and hams don't apply max damage to FRIGATES. Thats what RLML are for. Just like medium turrets don't track frigates well (unless the frig pilot is stupid and burns straight towards you).

With 2 webs, thats it, HML can apply max damage with fury ammo to a ScyFI. So your daredevil web would be adequate for HML against a cruiser.

With HAMs, web/scram apply very close to max DPS, maybe 1-2% drop. So, if your issue is with the caracal, then start saying you want it bufffed. And stop whining about RLML/HAMs.

OK... let's start again. In order to remove any ad-hominem element from this exchange I'm going start start by saying that I believe you and I both have a very strong grasp of mathematics. We both implicitly understand the damage application and tracking formulae and we are both able to envision damage graphs in our minds through understanding of the formulae.

I also believe that you and I both therefore implicitly understand the areas on this hypothetical mental multi-dimensional graph where each weapon system performs better than the other.

I think it's fair to say that when comparing HM with any short range medium gun, at short range, the short range gun will perform better than the missile. But that's because we're not comparing like with like.

Against a smaller target, both guns and missiles perform fairly closely to each other *on average*. HMs deliver consistently poor damage whatever the (moving) target does, long range guns deliver zero damage for most of the envelope, but can deliver a killing blow if the transversal velocity is sufficiently close to zero.

This is all provable through elementary mathematics if one has the time and inclination to do so (I trust we have both been through this process).

Where you and I may differ might be in our evaluation as to whether this situation is acceptable. For myself, I accept it. And I use both missiles and guns.

Yes.. lets use the most extreme case to rationalize your argument. Because every frig pilot flies in halo sets. And you really think a turret will track an orbiting, a/b fit dram with halos any better?

Hurling abuse at people with an opposing point of view is a good way of ensuring that their view will never change.

You're clearly an intelligent guy, but this does not come across in the above exchange.

Your point that HMs do not so much damage to a stationary AF is accepted. We will have to differ on whether it represents an extreme case. A stationary AF with a full set of halo implants would certainly seem like an extreme case to me.

Nevertheless, even then, HMs are not a great weapon against this target. No one is denying this. In the more normal case where that AF is moving or orbiting, a railgun, beam laser or artillery cannon is not an optimal weapon either.

Blapping frigates that are heading straight towards you is an ability that is really only useful in PVE, with very few exceptions, no?

aaaaaaaand BOOM!!!!!

With this buff we're back to Caracals everywhere.


Oh, and this also kills HML's again as it completely muscles them out.



EDIT: WTB light missile bonuses for Drake and Cyclone please

Here is a potential solution to the switch ammo and partial reload problem. Instead of having a fixed 40 or 35 second reload time. Have a fixed 10 second reload time and a variable Cooldown timer.

Every time you fire a missile the Cooldown timer clocks up 1.5 seconds. Every time you stop firing the Cooldown timer starts winding down. You can only reload when the Cooldown timer is at 0.

So lets give some examples, assume you start with 20 missiles loaded:

1. At the start of the battle, you want to change the ammo type. No cooldown timer, 10 second reload.

2. You fire all 20 missiles in one burst. 30 second Cooldown, 10 second Reload.

3. You fire 5 missiles in one burst then want to top up or change ammo type. 7.5 second Cooldown and 10 second reload.

The beauty is that you are not committed to the reload during the Cooldown period assuming you still have some missile left. You might stop firing midfight due to range issues, the initial target pops, you get ECM'd or damped out. The Cooldown timer runs down automatically. If you start firing again later, your Cooldown timer is not fully wound up firing off the last of the missiles, thus the reload is quicker.

The basic gist is that you're not satisfied...well let me clue you in. NO ONE is satisfied. I was messing around with a RLML Cerberus on Sisi like the week or two before Rubicon came out...and the "Last minute" changes were not implemented on there. Could have told us about the PG requirement change too when you introduced them to us. Maybe if these concepts were tested fully before throwing them at the community(or even partially as it seems) we wouldn't be in this shituation. Where did you see people "start liking them" ? Where was this? Fencing in the community with no other viable alternatives does not constitute people "liking" them.

Seriously, 20 missiles or RLML? I literally laughed out loud when I read that.
35 seconds reload time?

SO CUTE.

Don't worry CCP, I've been playing for like I dunno...over TEN YEARS now.... guess I'll just have to wait a few more for a working missile weapon system...

*HINT* Find the middle ground from the old HML system and the new...
*HINT* Fix HAMs so we don't NEED a gang of people to scram and web and TP our targets.

These systems should be able to be used solo.

Lastly, PLEASE, do not change turret systems to be anything like this... I threw up a little just thinking about that.

-Max

I'm sure there are advantages to remote armour repairers in solo play, I just can't find them...

Are we sure that this module is intended for solo play?

ok since were again on the strange ideas train i propose we make rapid launchers keep their stats as they are but add an aoe shock missle specialy for those just like the old torpedoes - usefullness factor 5 fun factor over 100

I think the issue for most players is with the Caracal. Once you start getting into the $200-$300 million range, you have a lot more options for both DPS and tank.

After playing with the module a bit I find that I both like and hate it. The ammo swap problem is the main issue I have with the current rlml. The ability to select a damage type is one if the defining traits for missiles and this feature makes it impractical to use that trait. The alternative (heavy missles) is poor enough to perhaps keep rlmls in play but that should not be interpreted as happiness with the rlml. Please consider fixing the ammo swap, if that were done the module woukd be in a much better place.

The big problem with this is that currently you have two options in the drop down, one for reloading the same and one for switching to a new type. If we did what you're talking about we would need three options, one for reloading current ammo to full, one for swapping to new kind of ammo but same amount of charges, and one for swapping to new type of ammo at max charges. We could do that, but it would add anywhere from one to several rows to the right click menu and would also probably be pretty confusing to a lot of users.

I would prefer if we could find something like making the reload time only 10 seconds unless you have a weapon timer. This exact solution doesn't work because of how NPC timer works, but from the user perspective it's much cleaner. We wouldn't have to clog up any menus or make any new explanations about how the mechanic worked.

please stop adding arbitrary rules just because it somehow balances things. Soon we will have ships which move slower with aggression timers etc. Try to explain that to a noob. Eve ships don't cast magic fireballs, those are weapons out of a scifi universe. The less explainable and arbitrary the mechanic is the more immersion breaking and less new player friendly it is.

Seems solid

Cut the clip size and the reload time by 2/3rds. So a rapid light has 6 charges, rapid heavy has 8 charges, reload's 13 seconds.

Yup it becomes a bursting missile firing system, since the reloads cut down to about.. oh 13 to 14 seconds, you can reload or change your damage type, and you are only 5 seconds longer than projectiles. Your clips smaller so you only fire for maybe. 20 seconds.

So about 20 seconds of uptime, 13 seconds of downtime.


Addresses the issue of reloads, addresses the issues of switching missiles without a new dropdown.

probably would have to address the rest of the missile systems also, as this post makes no concern towards balance.

This doesn't solve the problem of reloading for Precision/Fury/FOF during combat, or if you've already aggressed and your timer hasn't run out yet. And I have to echo others that this would be adding an arbitrary rule to how the weapon works that most people won't know about, so you will definitely have to explain how the mechanic works.

If making varied reload times for different weapons, and swapping ammo types around is going to be a good experience, it needs a better UI than just right click menus on the turret/launcher. Especially if this "burst" design is going to be expanded to some of the gunnery turrets.

I find this thread hilarious.

If you're struggling to use RHML's that's your issue. I have been flying around low sec in a RHML Raven for weeks now. Still haven't lost it. Still haven't got any kills with it but I have been winning fights when contesting DED complexes. I even took on an Ishtar and a Deimos at the same time in a site and forced both to disengage. Both were extremely lucky not to get killed before they entered warp and they even told me this in local chat.

The RHML works absolutely perfectly (ignoring ammo swapping)

RLML's seem to be working just fine in their role too. You can even stretch the role to fight cruisers (sometimes).

I don't see how being speed tanked by battlecruisers and the odd battleship is even remotely comparable to railguns in deep falloff. When planning for an assault ship what points do we consider? Don't you too find mono damage types to be a bit narrow and penalising - especially on caldari ships which lose 25% of their dps when nit shooting kinetic?