I think 35 s is still too long - it's too still frustrating to use and hence too un-fun. Personally I'd aim for reload time being half that of the shooting time, adjusting ROF and capacity as needed to get reasonable burst and sustained DPS.

When people are playing a game like EVE in PVP they want fast moment to moment reactions and control in a fight, long waiting periods where you effectively useless are the worst ideas in MMOs, this is the same reason you see people frustrated over stun-locks in other games.

I really like the sound of these rapid missile launchers. Going to have to try them out and see what they are like in practice as have not had a chance yet. Nice idea though, I like the concept of doing massive burst damage and then a long reload time.

This is Eve, not WOW. I'm sure most Eve players are patient enough to realise that despite a long reload time they are still doing good dps and massive burst damage which is sometimes more useful particularly in situation where you need to break past a shield recharge rate or surprising an enemy.

The way you describe it is as if Eve players are sugar infused 12 year olds foaming at the mouths because there are no pretty explosions happening on the screen for 35 seconds.

This is Eve, not WOW. I'm sure most Eve players are patient enough to realise that despite a long reload time they are still doing good dps and massive burst damage which is sometimes more useful particularly in situation where you need to break past a shield recharge rate or surprising an enemy.

The way you describe it is as if Eve players are sugar infused 12 year olds foaming at the mouths because there are no pretty explosions happening on the screen for 35 seconds.

This is Eve, not WOW. I'm sure most Eve players are patient enough to realise that despite a long reload time they are still doing good dps and massive burst damage which is sometimes more useful particularly in situation where you need to break past a shield recharge rate or surprising an enemy.

The way you describe it is as if Eve players are sugar infused 12 year olds foaming at the mouths because there are no pretty explosions happening on the screen for 35 seconds.

Physically they may be older than 12, but mentally/emotionally ..... I'm not so sure sometimes.

Hello

I posted an update recently in the old rapid missile thread on this topic but I assume many of you haven't been watching that so I'm making a new thread for the time being with some updates for 1.1.

The basic gist is that we aren't satisfied with some of the pain points resulting from the change (especially ammo swapping) and want to continue to iterate until they are in the best possible place. For this patch we weren't able to get in a fix for the ammo swapping. 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.

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, so, rather than make drastic changes so quickly we want to give it more time and see what happens with usage and feedback over the next couple months. Large changes are still on the table and I won't be finished with this until we address the ammo swapping issue.

Thanks for reading and responding

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

I'm sure EVE players are patient enough the problem is in EVE a fast kill is normally a better kill.
35 Seconds where you can't apply any DPS is time your opponent can.
* Repair any damage if active tanked.
* Nuet more of you cap if using neuts.
* Get more cycles on ECM mods/drones if they're being used, if one of these lands at the 34 seconds mark ... ouch!
* Call in reinforcements if the fights not going well.
* Have adaptive hardeners adjust to your damage type.
* Continue to damage your ships making a close fight not so close.

I'm sure EVE players are patient enough the problem is in EVE a fast kill is normally a better kill.
35 Seconds where you can't apply any DPS is time your opponent can.
* Repair any damage if active tanked.
* Nuet more of you cap if using neuts.
* Get more cycles on ECM mods/drones if they're being used, if one of these lands at the 34 seconds mark ... ouch!
* Call in reinforcements if the fights not going well.
* Have adaptive hardeners adjust to your damage type.
* Continue to damage your ships making a close fight not so close.

Adding all that to the fact missiles are not greatest of weapons systems in all cases any way and it's too much of a gamble for most people to want to use. There was a vast amounts of feedback and pointing out the flaws before the initial changes were made (the major one being we can't switch damage types more than once a minute) but the missiles were pushed out any way and to my knowledge been a flop.

CCP Rise: Okay we'll shorten it by 5 seconds.

Players: NO! 20 SECONDS!

CCP Rise: 5 seconds.

Players: 20 SECONDS!

CCP Rise: 5 seconds.

Players: 20 SECONDS!

CCP Rise: 5 seconds.

Players: 20 SECONDS!

CCP Rise: 5 seconds.

Players: 20 SECONDS!

CCP Rise: 5 seconds.

Players: 20 SECONDS!

* CCP Rise has left the conversation.

The people who have mentioned ECM are spot on - a single successful jam cycle of ECM is 20 seconds. That is frustrating enough as it is because it is something outside of your control. Now imagine that you're unable to shoot for almost twice that length of time, with the difference being that you did it to yourself.

That's what using the rapid launchers is like. It's voluntarily jamming your ship for the equivalent of multiple ECM cycles.

Out of ammo? You just jammed yourself for 2 cycles.

Don't forget the high burst you had before you "jammed" yourself.

Hello

I posted an update recently in the old rapid missile thread on this topic but I assume many of you haven't been watching that so I'm making a new thread for the time being with some updates for 1.1.

.............

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, so, rather than make drastic changes so quickly we want to give it more time and see what happens with usage and feedback over the next couple months. Large changes are still on the table and I won't be finished with this until we address the ammo swapping issue.

Thanks for reading and responding

Please focus on the part of the post where I said we considered bigger changes because of how people felt about the extended reload in general, but decided to make a tweak and wait for more data and feedback rather than reversing things too quickly.

If you want to help us out on this topic, try to give specific reasons or examples and then just hang in there and watch for updates heading into the next few months.

Also, a small response to the comparison with jamming: I think parts of the experience are obviously the same (not being able to fire for a period of time), but there a lot of other parts to compensate (or at least that is the idea). With RML you get to choose when that period of time will be, you get to control a lot of factors that contribute to how significant that period of time is (how your ship is fit, where you're located in space, what targets you choose etc), and you get the huge benefit of very high front-loaded damage. Not disregarding the fact that not being able to shoot doesn't feel good, just pointing out that they are different situations in some important ways.

"We have one good weapon system so lets make it **** so it matches the others"

Now clean the mess Rise

We're not allowed to focus on the part where you proposed a silly, we told you it was a silly, you did the silly, and we all still hate the silly?

Please do not focus on the part where a developer proposed a terrible idea that was not only terrible but impossible to implement workarounds for from a technical perspective. Oh and by the way the workaround involves it somehow taking less time to unload 20 missiles and then load 20 new missiles into a launcher than it takes to put 20 missiles into an empty launcher. Because that makes sense! If you implement your "fix" will we also be able to put containers inside of containers inside of containers? Because personally I've always resented that little pop-up that appears telling me that "PHYSICS SAYS NO."

How about you just change rapid launchers back into normal launchers that happen to use smaller missiles and call it a day? You know, because you won't have to bug fifty programmers to implement some nonsensical workaround for a problem that should never exist in the first place, and we can all enjoy shooting hardly-interrupted streams of missiles at things again? I swear to god reading these forums is like spending your day in an insane asylum sometimes, but weirder.

Please focus on the part of the post where I said we considered bigger changes because of how people felt about the extended reload in general, but decided to make a tweak and wait for more data and feedback rather than reversing things too quickly.

Miz's guide to fixing your own RLML
With 1.1 stats

1. Split your launchers into 2 groups
2. Start shooting with one of the groups
3. After roughly 40s of shooting start the 2nd group
4. When the first group hits reload, let it reload and start shooting right away
5. Enjoy sustained dps

Protip: If you start with 2 different ammo types you can start shooting with the one that matches your target's resishole while reloading the other one to the correct damage type.

(plus they can repair heat damage at the same time TRIPLING the efficiency!!!!)

Miz's guide to fixing your own RLML
With 1.1 stats

1. Split your launchers into 2 groups
2. Start shooting with one of the groups
3. After roughly 40s of shooting start the 2nd group
4. When the first group hits reload, let it reload and start shooting right away
5. Enjoy sustained dps

Protip: If you start with 2 different ammo types you can start shooting with the one that matches your target's resishole while reloading the other one to the correct damage type.

Awesome idea, will be cool dps with that idea, not firing the first 20s with 50% of the guns!

@Rise: Well I do see a problem with the rapid damage type change - probably the same you do, when you allow people to change ammo type within a smaller timeframe then people would exploit this to change to ammo B and back to ammo A. I get the idea of it, high initial damage but less dps due to reload time. But wouldnt it make more sense to give the missiles a higher damage, lower ROF and higher velocity. So that you get a high alpha, fast application and no issues with reload time, damage type, etc.? You could make that work at least for the BS sized RM...

Just an idea.

I originally proposed that ammo changing should work like this:

you change ammo instantly (or in 5/10 seconds, but isnt there enough waiting), but if you have 1 charge left before reload your new ammo type will still have 1 charge left before reload.

ALMOST! >You cannot repair heat damage while reloading.

Awesome idea, will be cool dps with that idea, not firing the first 20s with 50% of the guns!

all posts are not created equal, all opinions do not carry the same weight. if you want to change things then it is YOUR responsibility to come up with reasonable and valid reasons and counter arguments and put those arguments under scrutiny of the developers and of your peers.

you know... like how the re-balance team does every time they announce changes by posting one of these threads, its not like we hurl abuse at them like toddlers when we don't get our way.

HAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

...seriously?

Comes into a thread accusing me of not providing useful criticism, after I and a quadrillion other posters all provided Rise constructive criticism only to be repeatedly ignored outright. Then gives me a stern talking to about blaming a dev for the ideas that that dev introduced to the community and that that dev then proceeded to ram through despite massive community outcry from people like me who have been paying for, playing, and providing ideas and constructive criticism for for eight years.

Seriously.

This just happened.

CLEARLY the reason this thread exists and concessions are being made is that the usage stats on these rapid launchers indicate people's general displeasure with the changes. If the "majority-of-players-who-are-definitely-not-represented-by-Ganthrithor's-views-or-the-views-of-any-other-8000-people-who-don't-favor-these-changes" approved of the 1.0 changes, this thread would not exist. If Rise were at all confident that these proposed 1.1 changes would solve things, he wouldn't be leaving the possibility of "other major changes down the road" on the table.

Kindly find a more acceptable object for your white-knighting, sir.

Hello

I posted an update recently in the old rapid missile thread on this topic but I assume many of you haven't been watching that so I'm making a new thread for the time being with some updates for 1.1.

The basic gist is that we aren't satisfied with some of the pain points resulting from the change (especially ammo swapping) and want to continue to iterate until they are in the best possible place. For this patch we weren't able to get in a fix for the ammo swapping. 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.

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, so, rather than make drastic changes so quickly we want to give it more time and see what happens with usage and feedback over the next couple months. Large changes are still on the table and I won't be finished with this until we address the ammo swapping issue.

Thanks for reading and responding

I think some people are not understanding basic mathematics.

If you fire 2 guns each at 200% damage, and then they stop and another 2 guns fire at 200% each , that is equal to 4 guns firing continuously each at 100% damage.

Miz's guide was written tongue in cheek to show how it is misguided to complain about the reload time.

Are you sure?
Has that been changed?
This did work on ASBs/AARs... (the module is not active while reloading)

HAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

...seriously?

Comes into a thread accusing me of not providing useful criticism, after I and a quadrillion other posters all provided Rise constructive criticism only to be repeatedly ignored outright. Then gives me a stern talking to about blaming a dev for the ideas that that dev introduced to the community and that that dev then proceeded to ram through despite massive community outcry from people like me who have been paying for, playing, and providing ideas and constructive criticism for for eight years.

Seriously.

This just happened.

Kindly find a more acceptable object for your white-knighting, sir.

Its still works but scrubs gon b scrubs

Please focus on the part of the post where I said we considered bigger changes because of how people felt about the extended reload in general, but decided to make a tweak and wait for more data and feedback rather than reversing things too quickly.

If you want to help us out on this topic, try to give specific reasons or examples and then just hang in there and watch for updates heading into the next few months.

Also, a small response to the comparison with jamming: I think parts of the experience are obviously the same (not being able to fire for a period of time), but there a lot of other parts to compensate (or at least that is the idea). With RML you get to choose when that period of time will be, you get to control a lot of factors that contribute to how significant that period of time is (how your ship is fit, where you're located in space, what targets you choose etc), and you get the huge benefit of very high front-loaded damage. Not disregarding the fact that not being able to shoot doesn't feel good, just pointing out that they are different situations in some important ways.

Buddy, not firing 40s with 50% of the guns will be 50% less dps within the first 40s. Simple math. So why the hell would somebody want to do that in PVP?

CCP Rise listened to your feedback and then choose to ignore it. Or are you such a snowflake that you think the Devs have to jump as soon as you click your fingers. Judging from your outcry in this thread so far then I would say that you do indeed think that you are.

I'd rather CCP Rise, who remember already has a track record of producing awesome balance changes

Also the reason for low usage stats doesn't necessarily mean that CCP Rise came up with a bad concept. Delivering burst damage isn't really something which most everyday PVErs need, these are really designed for small gang and solo PVP it seems to me which would account for the low usage.

go back, have a think and if you can manage it put together a coherent argument against the rapid light launchers under this new iteration then I'll happily provide you with the respect to appear to demand, I'll even concede points if they're reasonable :P

Why don't you go back and read the previous thread yourself. The points are already written down there for you to ignore. I don't see why I should have to go do your research for you. While you're at it, you might make note of the tremendous number of other players expressing frustrations similar to my own, and Rise systematically ignoring them.

ignoring them so much that he posts a new thread proposing an adaptation to the original concept to be released in 7 days from now on the understanding that the initial proposal was inefficient?

It's you who fails at math. Remember that the RLML do more burst damage now than they did before.

RLML and RHML are so unusable for anything, you will usually run out of missiles a long time before you kill your target so not very good for 1v1 pvp (not even that sure how usable for small fleets ) and a 35 second reload means that your target has probably just recovered all its shield or armor (assuming an active tank of some kind) . A 15 to 20 second reload is a more reasonable solution.

Larger launcher capacity is probably the only thing you got right with this change.

Since they don't do twice the damage and you still have the disadvantage of damage type (in your example, let's say you've chosen the 2 wrong damage types, still sucks to reload 40s on each group).

And not firing a gun 40s is still stupid, sorry but it is.

Given that the original changes were an abject failure by CCP's own criteria, would you agree that it would be sensible for the developers to summarily disregard all feedback from those who supported the previous changes since they have amply demonstrated themselves to be incapable of reliably predicting how balance changes will affect the game?

The old RLML was still OP.

The old RLML was still OP.

If the RLML stuff was like 21 charges and 30 second reload i think it'd be a very attractive solo/small gang option to pwn tackle/frig gangs

do it

That may be your opinion, but there are absolutely no objective data to justify it - it was selling far less than other medium missile launcher types, and for that matter far less than other competing medium weapon systems. Likewise, the hulls that used RLMLs were selling at comparable rates to other hulls of their type and were never the most popular ships in their classes. Based on the aggregate opinion of the player base as reflected in the sales volume going through Jita, RLMLs were pretty unremarkable.

Please focus on the part of the post where I said we considered bigger changes because of how people felt about the extended reload in general, but decided to make a tweak and wait for more data and feedback rather than reversing things too quickly.

If you want to help us out on this topic, try to give specific reasons or examples and then just hang in there and watch for updates heading into the next few months.

What gives you that idea?


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.?

Hello

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

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.?

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

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.

Instead they should work on bringing the HAM and HML back in line again.

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,

so, rather than make drastic changes so quickly

we want to give it more time and see what happens with usage and feedback over the next couple months.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Bringing back old Rapid lights

So please, if possible, let us script them. Let us decide how fast we want them to work, and that that be through scripts. Rapid launch? OK longer reloading time. Faster reloading time? Ok, lower rate of fire then. The longer reload time only dissatisfied some players and made others happy. So let the players decide, let the launchers be script-able.

On the other hand, Rise asks for specific causes or motive of why should we go back to old rlml or why the new one suck.

We were looking at a really wide range of options for these systems

The initial changes to RLML were probably too much, so with this little buff I actually think that RLML are exactly what they are supposed to be. They are a support weapon rather than a main weapon

But those talking about "oh no 35 seconds during the fight" - the point of front loaded dps is DEAD before you reload. It is precisely like artillery - dead in the first shot. It's meant to be the missile version of alpha, doing heavy damage quick, with a penalty for failure (lower overall dps). It isn't a 1 shot like artillery but it makes up for this by being much more applicable dps than the standard sized missiles for the ship class (eg HML/HAM on a caracal).

Also, a small response to the comparison with jamming: I think parts of the experience are obviously the same (not being able to fire for a period of time), but there a lot of other parts to compensate (or at least that is the idea). With RML you get to choose when that period of time will be

To me it seems strange that people are calling for shorter reload times, if you want shorter reload times then why not just use the standard HML's. To me it seems a complete misunderstanding of the concept if you are asking for shorter reload times.

Scripting is actually not a half bad ideaGǪ Just for rapids, or all missile launchers?

Please focus on the part of the post where I said we considered bigger changes because of how people felt about the extended reload in general, but decided to make a tweak and wait for more data and feedback rather than reversing things too quickly.

If you want to help us out on this topic, try to give specific reasons or examples and then just hang in there and watch for updates heading into the next few months.

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, so, rather than make drastic changes so quickly we want to give it more time and see what happens with usage and feedback over the next couple months. Large changes are still on the table and I won't be finished with this until we address the ammo swapping issue.

Thanks for reading and responding

There was only one problem with the original RLML and RHMLs: excessive ammunition capacity.
Simply reinstate the original versions, keep the fitting requirements and dial back the capacity to what CCP Rise proposed. Voila - problem solved. 10 second reloads, less powerful weapon systems - and most importantly - resolves the ammunition swap problem. I think almost everyone could get onboard with this idea...

There was only one problem with the original RLML and RHMLs: excessive ammunition capacity.
Simply reinstate the original versions, keep the fitting requirements and dial back the capacity to what CCP Rise proposed. Voila - problem solved. 10 second reloads, less powerful weapon systems - and most importantly - resolves the ammunition swap problem. I think almost everyone could get onboard with this idea...

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.

==============================
Responding to CCP Rise's challenge.
==============================

PROBLEM:
1. RLMLs are designed to be an anti-frigate weapon on a missile cruiser (the reasons for why we would want such a thing are for another discussion).
2. Giving a weapon the same EXP radius and velocity as a light missile launcher but higher DPS, along with lower fitting requirements than HMLs (a crucial point) begins to obsolete medium sized missile systems, since it gives RLML-fitted ships the opportunity to fit stronger-than-designed tanks while murdering smaller ships and damaging larger ships very effectively.
3. Making it into a burst weapon enrages the player base (bad commercial move).

SOLUTION:
a. Give RLMLs exactly the same damage and application stats as light missile launchers, with exactly the same capacity and damage multipliers, flight times etc etc.
b. Make them "medium weapons" so that they benefit from the bonuses on medium hulls only.
c. Give them the same fitting requirements as heavy missile launchers.

SYNOPSYS:
x. Missile cruisers can now become effective anti-support cruisers without going beyond their initial design in terms of power projection and tank.
y. A cruiser fitted for anti-support will be good at it, but not so good for tackling another cruiser or larger - desirable.
z. Calm restored, [all] players happy, CCP revenues safeguarded.

I might not get it but why wouldn-¦t I just fit normal small missile launchers?

and still have the fitting bennefit?

So overpowered that its sales all around new eden dropped 48%? Its such a horrible system that we woudl probably kick any member of ours if it flew with those things.

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?

we know a thing or 2 about small scale PVP, and we do not allow our members to use such horrible and useless weapon.. for a reason. Because its only effect its psycological. It is inferior to all other missile options on the absolute majority of realistic scenarios..

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.

Alpha strike is only relevant if it can KILL the target on that single shot. Same way for burst weapon (that given the standard in eve of high alpha weapons having low sustained DPS).

Do not underestaimate the fact that a LOT of people that REALLY know PVP have pointed how horrible this weapon system is in the absolute majority of cases.

Blank statements.. devoid of scenario are as useful as a bag of salt in middle of the ocean.


Scenario: enemy ship has 100K EHP and will be able to jump in 100 seconds. You can choose 2 weapons. One is a very high alpha strike weapon.. that does 80K damage but that can fire once every 120 seconds. Other is a weapon that does 1.1K damage per shot, but shoot once per second.

Which one is useless?

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.

Because in small scale PVP you usually CANNOT kill the enemy before you reload with rapid weapons. Therefore having a lower DPS becomes a very very bad tradeof.

When you have a blob, even a tiny blob of 12+ ships (yes 12 ships is a blob for me because it scales to the level where personal skills become less relevant) then alpha strike start to become relevant, because usually 12 alpha strike ships an kill another instance of the same ship in 1 volley, therefore gaining something from the alpha strike.

Even before the rapid laucnhers changes, the ONLY reason we used rapids were because of lower fittings.

We have no problem killing frigates with HAMs in our tengus, rapids were there only for range and better fittings.

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.

The fact is that we LOST the fitting advantage and LOST dps. Now there is no reason to use rapid launchers.

Because ALMOST EVERYTHING that we would kill with rapids, we can kill with HAMS. But with HAMS we can kill A LOT things that with rapids we cannot.

Rapids allowed us to use 100MN cerberus, now that ship is gone.. and non usable anymore. Give me the low fittigns back and rapids are useful again

About the ammo switching problem. why not make the reload time proportional to the amount of ammo left in the launcher?

50% ammo left in the launcher, 50% reload time.
Full ammo? Instant reload.

Really well suited to skirmish : D-Scan, D-Scan, D-Scan, OH, I see an Enyo closing in, better get those Scourge Lights out and replace them with Nova.

Or just pull range when youGÇÖre getting low on ammo for a tactical reload, save some reload time and quickly (relatively speaking, base 35s reload is still damn long) get ready for a next -½ burst -+ of action.

Hello

I posted an update recently in the old rapid missile thread on this topic but I assume many of you haven't been watching that so I'm making a new thread for the time being with some updates for 1.1.

The basic gist is that we aren't satisfied with some of the pain points resulting from the change (especially ammo swapping) and want to continue to iterate until they are in the best possible place. For this patch we weren't able to get in a fix for the ammo swapping. 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.

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, so, rather than make drastic changes so quickly we want to give it more time and see what happens with usage and feedback over the next couple months. Large changes are still on the table and I won't be finished with this until we address the ammo swapping issue.

Thanks for reading and responding

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.

So speaks the minmatar republic expert on PVP that surely must be right goign against about everyone that did PVP a lot with the Rapids before....

cannot see why theis would be wrong... can anyone?

What if you had a missile launcher that took up significant fitting (say 5k power, 300 cpu for RHML) that fired off a burst of missiles to do a massive alpha (say 20-30k damage for the RHML) but could only fire once per minute. Thus, you're only doing an average of 300-500 dps or so, but the huge alpha allows you to break a tank or kill off a smaller ship. Then, you can still fit say 4 regular launchers and 1 rapid launcher on a ship, have the huge alpha but then still be able to do some amount of sustained dps with your other launchers. Heck, you could even fit two on a ship if you wanted, but you would have very little room for other modules.

What if you had a missile launcher that took up significant fitting (say 5k power, 300 cpu for RHML) that fired off a burst of missiles to do a massive alpha (say 20-30k damage for the RHML) but could only fire once per minute. Thus, you're only doing an average of 300-500 dps or so, but the huge alpha allows you to break a tank or kill off a smaller ship. Then, you can still fit say 4 regular launchers and 1 rapid launcher on a ship, have the huge alpha but then still be able to do some amount of sustained dps with your other launchers. Heck, you could even fit two on a ship if you wanted, but you would have very little room for other modules.

So a doomsday device for battleships?
Yeah, as much as it sounds like a great idea and would probably be a lot of fun to use, I don't see any possibility of CCP giving us anything close to that.

Good idea though


Mournful, I think you missed his point. He was talking about it as a support weapon, so only 1 used together with, possibly cruise missiles.

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.

Benefit of Minmater and Amarr missile boats is that they have HUGE dronebays. Are you useing RLML ? no problem, have Hammerheads with you, and if you encounter cruisers, you can still do stuff. Are you useing Ham or HML? no problem, load Warriors or Hobgoblins and you can still fend off small stuff. For those ships the RLML changes hurt less then on the caldari hulls that have 10 mbit drone bays.

As for you vagabond: Kinetic damage is generally the weakest point of a vagabond. So its true that compared to other ships it does good damage vs a vagabond. Changeing a working weapon system to "let frigs have a window to kill you" can also be applied to Autocannons. How much trouble does your vagabond have against frigs? Autocannon ships have been dominateing against frigate sized for years. Your advocateing that a missile nerf is warranted just because you had to actually fight against a caracal instead of rofl stomp it like before?

Fact is that if you really wanted too you can tripple LSE a vagabond as well, put 220's on it and you get a 38 km range with Barrage, while haveing 45k effective hp. (1,5x the caracal) Has a 140 more dps (250 more dps if you count reloads), is capstable (the caracal isn't) and does 600 m/s more. [i](also noteworthy, if the caracal has to chase you (wich it can't) you can outfly its missiles a lot, with a max of 3.5km/s overheated on the standard vagabond, its 7.5 km flight time allows you to travel 26 km, wich needs to be deducted of its only 63km range (not 60-80) makeing its effective range only 37 km. WICH IS WITHIN your 220 falloff.

I dare anyone to name me one single attack or combat line cruiser that can't beat the caracal in some or all of it stats, even if ALL the changes were reversed. (i am in favor the increased fittings btw).

The only thing why everyone is screaming bloody murder is due to their inability to adept to a 10% increase of a missile system thats been around for YEARS.

I'm sorry but i'm getting sick and tired of everyone shouting OP because for the first time in a decade a T1 caldari cruiser hull wich is not a blackbird can actually be used effectively in a single role. Because THATS what were talking about. Its effective in shooting Frigates, Destroyers and MAYBE cruisers. Gun and Drone ships have been able to do multiple roles and targets with the same fittings for Years.

Benefit of Minmater and Amarr missile boats is that they have HUGE dronebays.

Who said you had to fit RLML to a caracal? You have other options.

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.

Also no, by your earlier statement you have no CLUE about missiles, or at least why they are affected differntly. You cannot comapre missiles to guns with nubmers like you made, the formula of application is completely different. Turrets do not get as screwed by signature as Missile do. Because turrets have a single component on the formulae, while missiles have the MINIMAL between sig/exploradius and the ratio of explosion velocity/speed over sig/explosion radius. That means a missile can do very little damage to a target standing still, while a turret will hit it full power.

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.

Does nto need to be standign still. Just be webbed by a daredevil andyou have effectively the same scenario. Missiles will still loose a LOT of damage, while turrets will be able to hit almost Full damage on that scenario

Explosion size / sig is an independent element on missile formulae (in one of its options). You cannot compensate it with range and speed compensation like turrets can.

Also turrets are NOT all or nothing. They have degrees of hit quality that ARE influenced by the track formulae.

Also your deductions are wrong:


in the trackign formulae, if transversal is ZERO then the effect of signature is removed from the equation effectively. Then only range falloff chance applies.

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.

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.

...Also your deductions are wrong...

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.