Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 25 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Sigras
Conglomo
659
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:42:00 -
[91] - Quote
Have you thought of relating the reload time to the number of missiles needing to be reloaded?
Something like: reloading takes 10 seconds + 1 second for each missile the launcher is missing.
this would fix the ammo swapping problem, and it would reduce the pain in top-up reloading quite a bit . . .
thoughts? |
Platypus King
Doughboys Shadow Cartel
15
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:42:00 -
[92] - Quote
This is a topic that has affected my gameplay hugely (in a negative way). However I feel changes in the right direction are being made.
The main things that come to mind for me is ammo swapping. The reason I use missiles is damage selection makes the lower dps than lasers and hybrids worth it. So I really look forward to ammo swap time.
Another thing is when RLML were reworked so were there fitting, making it impossible to effectively fit an XLASB on anything but a cerb. If the goal is burst damage with high reload that mocks the ASB gameplay it should mock the ASB gameplay completely and be able to fit a decent burst tank. I believe that would make RLML a very high speed choice that is effective for quick hit and runs.
Lastly with RLML changes I think on the cruiser hulls that previously used them it would make sense to take a second look at their drone bays. Most cruisers have a way out of frigate fights, be it neuts drones or constant dps from close range guns. I think it would make sense to have a bit of constant dps in the form of a single flight of light drones or the choice for a flight of ec-300s. Since all but the navy osprey lack any type of utility slots |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1100
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:45:00 -
[93] - Quote
I don't think the old RLML was OP as such. I think the problem was more that it was so easy to fit, meaning that you could whack on a decent tank as well, such as an XLASB on a Cerb, for example. But the extra PG fixed that problem.
Also part of the problem was that HMLs are trash, making it not attractive to up-missile from RLMLs to HMLs. The HML nerf was justified when LR med turrets were rubbish, but not any longer. |
Mike Whiite
Stupid Stunts The Wolfpack Nexus
323
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:46:00 -
[94] - Quote
Mizhir wrote:
What gives you that idea?https://forums.eveonline.com/themes/ccpEveOnline/pix-trans.png
seriously, I'd love to understand what was so O.P. about them?
also because you tell one post earlier that 2 old ones couldn't braek the tank on a dual rep navy exeq.?
The old RLML could not only easily deal with frigs and dessies as it was designed for, but it was also very good against cruisers and somewhat good against larger. The paper dps aren't high, but the fact that they could do nearly full damage to anything within a rather large range (can't remember the number).
RLML caracals were very strong solo ships, and no matter how horrible you flew, you could still project a decent amount on damage on the target. And in small gangs their combined dps was able to wreck havock against much stronger forces. I still remember a fight I had where we were 6 caracals who attacked a 20-30 man nullsec defense force and still managed to break both scimis and battlecruisers while only losing a single caracal to a bombing run. I don't think we would have been able to do it with any other medium weapons. Because the only weakness of the old RLML was the low dps against large targets.
Navy Exeqs are beasts as dualrep. But I might be wrong when I said that 2 old RLML caracals couldn't break it on the long run. The new RLML still offers a better choice in killing active tanked stuff. [/quote]
First thanks for the serious reply.
I will not deny the Caracal was a good ship with RLML, if that makes RLML O.P. is an other question.
It could mean the Caracal is O.P. I believe it was Gipso that made a case about the gang links causing much of the problems.
it also not that high in the most used weapons list in eve kill.
And even if, if it was over powered, that doesn't mean there is a need remove the entire mechanic an bring in something entirly different.
especialy with the other missile systems in sucha mess as they are now compared to turrets. |
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
5646
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:50:00 -
[95] - Quote
I think what CCP needs to decide is this: Is this a weapon designed to fight smaller ships, IE: Frigate hunting caracal. Or is it designed to be a volley weapon like artillery, where you unload a lot of ammo onto a target really fast, but then have to wait to fire again? I don't think you can exactly have it both ways and that's what it feels like to me now.
In my opinion, you need to about quadruple the ROF and ammunition capacity of these launchers, in order to make up for the long reload time. You want a hit and run weapon, give us a hit and run weapon. Give us a real macross missile massacre weapon. Where you do tons of damage and might very well wipe out a target in the first volley, but if you don't, you're going to be hard pressed trying to survive until the next one. If each volley is poweful enough, you can even increase the reload time up to a full minute, and have it still work well.
Torn from grace, gotta find your faith or the devils gonna claim your soul
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
16
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 19:01:00 -
[96] - Quote
Platypus King wrote:This is a topic that has affected my gameplay hugely (in a negative way). However I feel changes in the right direction are being made.
The main things that come to mind for me is ammo swapping. The reason I use missiles is damage selection makes the lower dps than lasers and hybrids worth it. So I really look forward to ammo swap time.
Another thing is when RLML were reworked so were there fitting, making it impossible to effectively fit an XLASB on anything but a cerb. If the goal is burst damage with high reload that mocks the ASB gameplay it should mock the ASB gameplay completely and be able to fit a decent burst tank. I believe that would make RLML a very high speed choice that is effective for quick hit and runs.
Lastly with RLML changes I think on the cruiser hulls that previously used them it would make sense to take a second look at their drone bays. Most cruisers have a way out of frigate fights, be it neuts drones or constant dps from close range guns. I think it would make sense to have a bit of constant dps in the form of a single flight of light drones or the choice for a flight of ec-300s. Since all but the navy osprey lack any type of utility slots
Agreed. Caldari cruisers lack utility/drones for defense. That is the issue for Caldari and rlml. This is something I mentioned in the original rlml thread. would adding a few drones help? Sure, but people will still cry about the reload since they fail to understand the new concept.
Ammo swap isn't a big deal to me. I generally have a good idea what ill be fighting thanks to this revolutionary tool called d-scan, or scouting around. Yes it needs to be fixed, but isn't the end all for rlml.
Yes I solo with a rlml scyfi and belli. I've fought single or multiple frigs, never had an issue. If there's incoming blob, I OH mwd a |
Jureth22
Vanguard Frontiers Black Legion.
154
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 19:02:00 -
[97] - Quote
this update doesnt help.the reload time is still too big,and the magazine isnt nowhere big enough.either decrease the reload time or increase the magazine.
p.s : heavy missiles suck,thats the main prober of rapid heavy launchers |
Anomaly One
183
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 19:04:00 -
[98] - Quote
1 frustrating example is missions, with the change of RLML in rubicon they are completely obsolete in missions. Never forget. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8sfaN8zT8E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l_ZjVyRxx4 Trust me, I'm an Anomaly. DUST 514 FOR PC |
Mizhir
Mangala Solaris's Fan Club
51350
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 19:06:00 -
[99] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote:
First thanks for the serious reply.
I will not deny the Caracal was a good ship with RLML, if that makes RLML O.P. is an other question.
It could mean the Caracal is O.P. I believe it was Gipso that made a case about the gang links causing much of the problems.
it also not that high in the most used weapons list in eve kill.
And even if, if it was over powered, that doesn't mean there is a need remove the entire mechanic an bring in something entirly different.
especialy with the other missile systems in sucha mess as they are now compared to turrets.
Hmm, good points. And Gypsio also had some good points with the PG.
Caracals weren't the only ships that was strong with the RLML. The Cerb and ScytheFI was beasts as well.
However the new RLML system opens up for new possibilities and interesting gameplay so I still think they shouldn't trash it. Instead they should work on bringing the HAM and HML back in line again.
One Man Crew - The official Bringing Solo Back contest
SCL5 Winner |
I am disposable
Republic University Minmatar Republic
82
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 19:19:00 -
[100] - Quote
They are still going to suck and are going to remain infuriating to use, just slightly less so. I wish I could say I'm surprised by this weak attempt to fix what was a massive overnerf, but I'm not. |
|
Mike Whiite
Stupid Stunts The Wolfpack Nexus
323
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 19:31:00 -
[101] - Quote
Mizhir wrote:
Hmm, good points. And Gypsio also had some good points with the PG.
Caracals weren't the only ships that was strong with the RLML. The Cerb and ScytheFI was beasts as well.
However the new RLML system opens up for new possibilities and interesting gameplay so I still think they shouldn't trash it. Instead they should work on bringing the HAM and HML back in line again.
I'm not against a burst system on it self, just not for removing the other system.
not now anyway, not before missiles as whole are ballanced.
this range of ballance rounds wheren't realy soft on missiles. (cruise got a good buff though)
most smaller ships gained speed (pianfull for all missiles)
Heavy's got a big nerf, where a smal nerf and a look at those power hulls was pobbably more appropriate.
meanwhile all meduim turrets got boosted.
Torpeados's are also a serious problem, mask by the succes of the stealth bombers. (which need 3 direct missile bonuses and a covert ops cloak without targeting delay to work.)
I think a burst weapon would do great when you fit them on hulls of the same size. Kestrel with a rlml, then there is a real choise in tactic instead of a niece. |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
831
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 19:31:00 -
[102] - Quote
Mizhir wrote:Instead they should work on bringing the HAM and HML back in line again.
Paradoxically, if they had just fixed HAMs and heavies in the first place, RLMLs would never have looked overpowered. The truly stupid thing was that you could do more damage to everything up to battlecruisers using the missile-equivalent of... well, the lowest DPS missile choice.
If missiles worked more sensibly, with HAM's and heavies having similar damage application-- IE both appling near-max DPS to other cruisers and bigger, but losing application on smaller ships-- but doing different amounts of DPS at different ranges, then classical RLMLs could return to their old "lowest DPS, best application" niche rather than simply being better than the other two launchers for shooting anything with a sig smaller than a battleship. I'd imagine the same would go for torps/cruises/RHMLs, given the graphs of BS launcher damage to various-sized targets that came out during the last threadnaught process... RHMLs were again better 90% of the time. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2991
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 19:37:00 -
[103] - Quote
It's a partial rollback of a wrong move; I guess that's something.
I'm pretty sure this was said in the original thread by others if not by me; rollback the rapid launcher changes to broadly how they were, and introduce a new range of "salvo launchers" across the missile range which work along the same 'high burst, modest capacity, long reload' principles you tried to introduce with your original RLML changes. That way, you introduce the new concept whilst giving rather than removing options from your players.
For added awesomeness, or at least comedy, include Citadel launchers as well. Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong. |
Garrett Howe
Caldari Militia Task Force
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 19:41:00 -
[104] - Quote
I always thought the purpose of these rapid missile launchers was to kill an enemy in one loading cycle i.e. reloading should take place between battles, not during them. I still understand the issue of changing ammo types before a fight. Maybe something where you have a 10 second reload time if you have a full "clip," but a 35 second reload time if you've fired any would help in this aspect. |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
2347
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 19:46:00 -
[105] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: We were looking at a really wide range of options for these systems since the initial reaction was so negative, but over the last few weeks
During which you completely ignored the existence of the other thread, avoiding commenting in it totally.
Quote:we started seeing more and more people adjust to using them and even start liking them,
Because Stockholm Syndrome is good, kids.
Quote:so, rather than make drastic changes so quickly
Like you did with these things in the first place, you mean?
Quote:we want to give it more time and see what happens with usage and feedback over the next couple months.
So you're officially abandoning this new thread, too? Rifterlings pirate corporation is now recruitng members for lowsec PvP operations. Newbie friendly, free T1 frigate and dessy hangar, solo tutoring and PvP classes for new members. Join our in game channel 'weflyrifters' and speak to a recruiter today. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3101
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 19:55:00 -
[106] - Quote
It would be a lot better if rapid launchers were identical RoF & damage to non-rapid launchers, save for a much larger bonus only when overheated, and a much higher heat tolerance.
Just a thought. |
I am disposable
Republic University Minmatar Republic
83
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 20:08:00 -
[107] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:It would be a lot better if rapid launchers were identical RoF & damage to non-rapid launchers, save for a much larger bonus only when overheated, and a much higher heat tolerance.
Just a thought.
A really terrible thought. |
stoicfaux
3869
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 20:09:00 -
[108] - Quote
Garrett Howe wrote:I always thought the purpose of these rapid missile launchers was to kill an enemy in one loading cycle i.e. reloading should take place between battles, not during them. I still understand the issue of changing ammo types before a fight. Maybe something where you have a 10 second reload time if you have a full "clip," but a 35 second reload time if you've fired any would help in this aspect. But then things would die too quickly and everyone would fly glass cannons full of Rapid Launchers.
In my useless opinion, Rapid Launchers should be a utility item (i.e. doesn't require a launcher slot,) something akin to a one shot weapon that burst fires a slew of missiles at a critical moment in the fight.
WASABI: Warp Acceleration System Ancillary Boost Injected(Gäó)
|
Beckett Firesnake
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
29
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 20:14:00 -
[109] - Quote
This is exactly what I asked for so I am really happy. I think that these changes are great. |
Garrett Howe
Caldari Militia Task Force
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 20:14:00 -
[110] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Garrett Howe wrote:I always thought the purpose of these rapid missile launchers was to kill an enemy in one loading cycle i.e. reloading should take place between battles, not during them. I still understand the issue of changing ammo types before a fight. Maybe something where you have a 10 second reload time if you have a full "clip," but a 35 second reload time if you've fired any would help in this aspect. But then things would die too quickly and everyone would fly glass cannons full of Rapid Launchers. In my useless opinion, Rapid Launchers should be a utility item (i.e. doesn't require a launcher slot,) something akin to a one shot weapon that burst fires a slew of missiles at a critical moment in the fight. But if a full load of heavy missiles only does say 50k damage, anything with more health than that (strong BC or BS) is secure, or at least better off in the long run. RHML makes you stronger vs cruisers, weaker vs BC and BS. Similarly, RLML makes you stronger vs frigates, weaker vs other cruisers. I think that is balanced enough. |
|
Capqu
Love Squad
409
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 20:24:00 -
[111] - Quote
whats the point in shooting if you don't have the right ammo loaded
rlmls are so garbage right now for that raisin alone http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Mario Putzo
Welping and Dunking.
53
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 20:28:00 -
[112] - Quote
Nice! thank god. 40 seconds was gay...now 35 seconds isn't much better but at least I do get a few more shots. So frustrating watching a ship rep from nearly 0 shield or armor all the way back to full while I am reloading. Thanks for taking my complaint the other day seriously! |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
488
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 21:00:00 -
[113] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:There's a common misconception that the old RLMLs were "OP". They were relatively good at applying damage to small and medium targets, which is as it should be - since this is a light weapon system after all. Missile players have typically far fewer choices for weapon systems than lasers, hybrids and projectiles - and the RLML and RHML filled these gaps nicely. If there was any problem with the original RLMLs it was that they had an insane ammunition capacity - somewhere around 85 for T2 launchers if memory serves me.
Yah, the clip size on them was insane. I could bring a thousand rounds and exhaust them in one engagement. Every reload was 400 rounds. They weren't kidding when they said it was a cruiser-sized weapon using small ammo.
Free Ripley Weaver! |
Rengas
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
302
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 22:02:00 -
[114] - Quote
Dislikers gonna dislike.
Personally I don't mind spending most of a fight waiting for my weapons to reload.
Gives me time to catch up on paperwork and sportsball scores. |
Gorski Car
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
209
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 22:30:00 -
[115] - Quote
Rengas wrote:Dislikers gonna dislike.
Personally I don't mind spending most of a fight waiting for my weapons to reload.
Gives me time to catch up on paperwork and sportsball scores.
Implying you actually play Eve.
CCP Rise you choose to ignore 200 pages of people telling you what's wrong with rapid lights and it's not rapid lights. It's the fact that hmls are **** and links remove way 2 much missile dmg. I suggest you and I hit the club, go blaze some and then work out your problems.
Also rhmls are still so bad they are using a ****** ammo type. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2806
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 23:17:00 -
[116] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:We tried a few versions and all of them had enough issues that we didn't feel comfortable deploying. For 1.1 we are going to do the following:
All rapid missile launchers will have 35 second reload timers rather than 40 seconds Rapid Light Missile launchers will have their capacity increased to 20 missiles per magazine for tech 2 and 19 missiles per magazine for tech 1 Rapid Heavy Missile launchers will have their capacity increased to 25 missiles per magazine for tech 2 and 24 missiles per magazine for tech 1 This change is meant to increase their power slightly, and make them feel a little better to use by cutting down the reload time. Any chance we can keep the reload time at 40 seconds and just buff the ammunition by 55% instead? 28 rounds for T2 RLMLs and 36 rounds for T2 RHMLs. The overall DPS is still less than the original RLMLs and 1st iteration of RHMLs, and 35 seconds is basically 40 seconds for all intents and purposes anyway. Also, is it possible to get light and heavy Defender missiles added as support ammunition to both launchers? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University Minmatar Republic
181
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 23:19:00 -
[117] - Quote
As it stands I only use them on fits with those semi-useless "spare" missile slots on ships designed for something else.
I have never fit them to a dedicated missile ship. Whilst the idea of a "burst" weapon has some merit it is hard to justify dropping down a size category in your main weapon system and then giving yourself 35-40 seconds of no damage on top of that. A burst system that fired the same missiles as the ships normal weapons would be a different matter altogether (though potentially very OP)
At least these proposed changes will be a step in the right direction. |
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Origin. Black Legion.
424
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 23:40:00 -
[118] - Quote
Quote:We were looking at a really wide range of options for these systems since the initial reaction was so negative, but over the last few weeks we started seeing more and more people adjust to using them and even start liking them
citation needed No sig. |
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University Minmatar Republic
181
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 23:43:00 -
[119] - Quote
You could of course drop the separate launchers altogether and just make them a scripted mode of standard launchers. |
Omega Crendraven
Hyperfleet Industries xXPlease Pandemic Citizens Reloaded Alliance.Xx
140
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 00:22:00 -
[120] - Quote
Bringing back old Rapid lights [ xXPlease Pandemic Citizens Reloaded Alliance.Xx } ] HISEC / NULLSEC / LOWSEC Mercenary Alliance |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 25 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |