|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
8
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 09:39:00 -
[1] - Quote
This change is likely going to happen to rlm, although it's probably going to be a 20 second reload. Heres my reasoning:
It been mathmatically proven (there are several graphs and hard numbers) that hml are not viable against smaller targets (frigates and cruisers) when compared to nearly all other weapon types in a solo/small gang situation. Hams face potentially severe application issues that also make them unused on many hulls for solo/small gang. Buffing hmls by giving them enough damage application to be used consistantly vs smaller targets would make blobs of hml ships too powerful. This leads to the awkward situation where you have hulls such as the caracal/scythe fleet issue/cerb that are very good for kiting but have no really ideal damage application outside of flying in a specific gang or having to use standard crash the majority of the time. Rlms solve this problem, allowing these hulls which are very good for kiting and facing off against multiple ships a way to actually apply damage.
What ends up happening is that rlms seem to be the go to choice for everything because there are no other options that produce any similar results. Without being able to unnerf hml application it gets to the point that rlm is amazing for solo/small gang and hml/hams are really only great on hulls that can support it well such as the cyclone which will likely have a web and crash, or a cerb using standard crash and relying on the hulls projection bonus. When you look at the stats it appears that rlms are best for the majority of situations because the majority of situations are smaller engagements. Changing rlms does not mean people will switch to hmls or hams because as previously mentioned, these weapon systems just aren't flexible enough to be used with as much regularity compared to other weapon systems.
When this change happens I expect a number of solo/small gang attempts to make it work although it seems far more likely that people will merely change to flying ships such as the navy omen instead. Front loading the damage also makes it terrible in any extended fight which isn't an uncommon occurrence. They can be used to a much greater extent in large gangs but become terrible when working as anti tackle in a small gang extended fight and can easily be manipulated into either not firing and waiting for tackle, or having a significant window for tackle to come in unopposed. In this situation replacing the caracal with a navy omen solves this problem very easily and gives relatively no benefit to having the caracal in your gang.
Sure it can be useful to have front loaded missile damage on the rare occasion but that's not really something an anti tackle ship is generally needed for and even then you can still do similar damage with the navy omen. Turning frigates and intys into mincemeat but not really being usable vs cruisers essentially makes the rlm system obsolete compared to medium lasers and even medium rails.
The problem with rhml still isnt solved because you still have subpar application compared to cruise launchers. There are graphs and hard numbers to back that up as well. Allowing rhmls to work with ship application/projection bonuses would actually fix this problem although ccp seems to have no intention of doing that at the moment. Having rhmls work with ship bonuses and leaving rlms as they are would be the best option in my eyes as that keeps the caracal/scythe fleet/cerb/osprey navy as viable solo and small gang ships without having them potentially overpowered vs frigates in very small fights or difficult to actually pull their weight and therefor having decreased viability in extended fights.
As I said though I expect this change to go through in some form (especially after what happened with the hurricane) so it will probably be far more likely that small gang shifts more into ishtars with navy omens supporting, and really hurts newer players as they can't fit into fleets and be as useful in a longer fight.
The damage selection thing is also an issue I almost forgot about and now that I consider it I would not expect to see many rlm ships in solo/small gang mostly due to that alone. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
10
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 17:55:00 -
[2] - Quote
Rise, did you seriously say you had no idea that people actually used fofs? From my understanding you used to be a solo and smallgang pvper and I find it incredibly hard to believe that you've never seen the benefit to fofs at all especially with rlms. It completely floors me and the only reason I can think of that you would say this is because you don't use fofs, don't know anyone who does use fofs, or just don't believe fofs are actually ever worth using, or some combination of the three.
If it has anything to do with not believing fofs are worth using then perhaps buff them in some way to make them a more viable choice in your mind. Many people would say that buffing fofs would likely be a horrible idea as it could easily make them too powerful but since you are clear that nobody really uses them these people are obviously crazy or something.
I really dislike how you want to force this change through and your response only solidifies my concern that this change is going to happen regardless of what the playerbase, or anyone who flys these ships often enough to understand the advantages and disadvantages will tell you. Being able to no longer swap ammo reliably not being a deal breaker, being useless for an extended amount of time as 'interesting and tension creating', it seems that you're balancing based on the amount of people using something and not giving any attention to why they are using it.
If this change happens, ask yourself if someone would rather have all the new disadvantages of rlm or just use a different ship. If I wanted to pick off frigates there are weaponsystems such as arty that allow me to do that without being pigeon holed into x amount of shots then useless for 40 seconds, or being unable to swap ammo types. If I want to play the role of antitackle then I can just as easily get and omen, rail thorax, even an arty rupture and still have far far more flexibility than these proposed rlms. I will never be unable to shoot a target for fear of being caught in an insanely long reload, I will be able to swap ammo types freely with minimal inconvience (especially as the omen and thorax) and even though my damage would not be frontloaded, it actually lets me play the role of anti tackle to a much greater effect, while still allowing me to shoot heavier ships without worry.
Now the thing that you seem to forget is that the omen, thorax, arty rupture all can presently be viably used in place of the caracal in most fleets. The major reason you have rlms so prevalent is that they are very easy to train into and are amazing ships for new players even when they have lower support skills. They dont require t2 guns as lasers do for scorch, they dont require multiple support skills to be filled out such as rails and arty for tracking, dmg, rof. These new players then can go straight into a cerb, which means even less training time as they already have an easily skilled into weapon system, they get cruiser 5 along the way which benefits the caracal, and other than navigation/capacitor they have no reason to branch out so much to make advanced fits work.
With the rlm change new players would have to learn when to shoot, wether or not to split guns, and a number of other things that no other ships have to worry about. I would much rather advise a newer player against rlms with this change because even though something like lasers take more sp to get into it keeps you from dealing with any of the problems rlms will have, and you can still do the same thing as the caracal, only better because you don't have to worry about a 40 second reload. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
13
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 21:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
Im going to have to agree that rise is certainly attempting to sell the rlm change. Downplaying the disadvantages as 'not a deal breaker' or nonexistant 'who even bothers using fofs?' while pushing ideas like 'youll do far more spike damage' and 'the 40 second reload creates tension and interesting gameplay' while ignoring how easily this can be manipulated with 'its ok just split your guns' is absolutely cringeworthy.
If you want to nerf rlm, increase its power grid requirements, this means that rlm boats will be forced to have less tank in exchange for better applied damage. This change only pushs rlms close to nonviability in fights against more than one or two ships especially when compared to anything else. People will simple use standard missile launchers instead, which by itself points out how hysterically bad the current missile damage algorithm is. I can't really think of any cruiser that is forced into using frigate modules in order to actually respond to anything smaller than a cruiser. With this change however, it is likely to happen.
Perhaps this stems from the perception that small gangs and solo should only function on a hit and run basis, being unable to engage larger groups for any extended amount of time. I dislike this perception because the benefit of having a small gang is its ability to tie up the larger force, meaning it has to either respond to you in some way or slowly lose ships. Having a 40 second reload merely means the ship might as well not even be on grid while reloading and does not pose any large threat to multiple ships. Omen, thorax, and rupture however have the ability to switch targets without any worry of 'uh I don't have enough ammo to kill that without reloading I may have just uselessly wasted my entire clip and will soon be useless for nearly a minute' and can do a much higher 'sustained' damage when compared to the proposed rlms when you split weapons.
So by comparison there is no reason to use the proposed rlms outside of very specific situations where even then any other weapon system would still match and potentially be more effective. Considering that you can increase powergrid requirement as I have previously stated and make rlm boats easier to deal with on the field since they likely wont have as much tank, this proposed change is bad, especially when you combine it with the fact that the majority of newer players will be unable to quickly train into a weapon system that is viable in an extended engagement which seems unfair. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
18
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 00:57:00 -
[4] - Quote
Heres a situation that is not an edge case scenario:
You are in a caracal with rlms, you engage an enemy cruiser, while shooting this enemy a frigate suddenly lands on field. Because of the new rlms, you do not have enough missiles to be able to kill the frigate straight up and must now wait an additional 40 seconds before you can remove tackle. This forces you to either immediately leave the fight or likely die as the frigate comes in and scrams you while you have no way to respond to it because you've only got a half dozen shots which wont kill it and then a 40 second reload.
Yes rise did say that was a concern, he also specifically stated that it wasn't a deal breaker and only introduced 'interesting and tense' play.
Why in the world would I want to fly rlms under this change outside of some very specific situations when I could very easily be completely and arbitrarily forced to disengage or die should I get caught with a low clip of ammo? Sure it would be overpowered vs t1 frigates but against cruisers and in any situation where I need to swap targets or god forbid swap ammo I am essentially flying a useless ship. What is the point of flying it compared to an omen or a rail thorax? All of these ships do well vs tackle but the rlm ship will have so many limitations that it just isn't something you can rely on to do its job well when compared to these other ships. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
23
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 21:09:00 -
[5] - Quote
Even if you have a kinetic bonus you still have to switch to mjolnir or nova if you encounter a caldari or gallente t2/t3. Otherwise you end up doing next to no damage because of their resist profiles. Additionally these ships that you have to switch ammo for are quite common in pvp, so you can't get away with saying 'edge case scenario'. You can still say 'it's not a deal breaker' but you can use that as a generic response to anything without explaining why.
There are so many more important things you could be doing instead of putting the resources into changing rlms. These things include drone assist, completely revamping the terrible mechanic that is ecm, and so much more. Instead you are going to change a system that is currently just as viable as lasers, rails, arty, etc at what it does. Sure the hulls that use them have the fitting room for extra tank so requiring extra powergrid to fit rlms might be a good idea so things like the triple lse caracal or the lse+xl asb cerb are toned down a bit. Currently this proposal is a kick in the teeth to solo and small gang while not really even changing large fleet play because they have enough ships dedicated to providing application bonuses in the form of tps and webs that they can use hmls and hams to do more damage anyway.
As I have said before the rlm metrics are likely because they are so easy to train into for new players to be effectively on par and viable as anti tackle in a small gang while still being able to solo, all without having to put nearly as much sp into t2 turrets for the same effect. Rlm is also hardly used in larger fleet pvp to my knowledge mostly because in larger fleets they have dedicated application bonuses in the form of bonus web and painters. You dont normally have the ability to include that in small gangs and especially not solo which is why rlms are so popular.
Forcing rlms to require application bonuses and such will only mean that they will hardly be used at all since small gangs can't take advantage of them easily and larger fleets are already able to use higher damage missile systems. Pigeon holing rlms like this proposal suggests is also a terrible idea because it just hurts the people currently using them and they would be forced into laser/rails etc, effectively limiting their choices when at present rlms are no more powerful than other systems. Best idea would be to add more pg cost to rlms instead to lower the effective tank on the ships using them without just killing rlms as an option compared to other systems. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
24
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 03:36:00 -
[6] - Quote
Right now if I want a ship to act as anti tackle in a small gang or even run solo, I have a choice between caracal, omen, rail thorax. This change to rlm will mean that I will never have any reason to use a caracal since the omen and thorax become flat out better due to not running into any severe limitations such as a low ammo capacity and long reload.
Rlm currently are not a viable weapon for blobs because they will have the ships with bonused webs and tps to apply hml and ham damage, and since you only choose rlm when you have no outside means of increasing missile application, they are stuck as a solo/small gang thing. If you are balancing on metrics then it simply is a combination of quick training time for new players (t2 rlm is basically as fast as t2 small turrets) to get into a ship that is roughly equal to other cruisers for solo/small gang play and more solo/small gang pvp happening than large fleet pvp.
This is why it would seem that rlm is always the right choice, it is the only missile system for cruisers that does not require additional modules to apply it's full damage. The strange thing is that hml do less damage against most ships than rlm so for small gangs they usually skip the chance at going for a dedicated application ship in favor of another rlm ship. Doing this is understandable because in a small fleet if you are relying on 1 ship to hold it all together and that ship goes down the rest of your fleet is useless and that's just terrible. Larger fleets can afford multiple application ships so this is not an issue for them.
The proposed change really really hurts new players, as they wont have a quick train into a good weapon system for solo/small gang. It hurts vets slightly less because they likely just have the support skills to go straight into an omen or thorax. For new players caught without this as an option, it has been noted earlier in the thread that you will be able to use Standard Missile Launchers to achieve something close to viable while they train rails/lasers to be more useful. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
24
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 04:45:00 -
[7] - Quote
Using your post rubicon kite caracal fit, if you drop the iffa for a nano you should be able to swap the small cap booster for a web. If you can manage your cap properly (should be relatively easy since you are no longer worried about tank given you have the xl asb) the defensive web can be massively helpful.
Fitting scram/web is actually detrimental as you are removing mobility, which is one of the caracals greatest assets. If you are using hams then scram/web is almost required as it is needed for damage application but it's just completely unneeded on a low damage mobility focused set up that you get with light missiles. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
25
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 17:30:00 -
[8] - Quote
Even if you further increased the damage of the proposed rlms, standard launchers would still be better. Why? With the proposed rlms, your ship is useless nearly half the time, and believe it or not most of the time in pvp with missiles it is a very good idea to switch your damage type or missile type to the most effective form for the part of the fight that is happening. For example, if I see a couple frigs and a cruiser I will switch to either navy or percision in order to deal with the frigates, then to fury to deal with the cruiser. As more targets come on field or the fight changes I may have to change ammo again to respond to the situation.
Even if standard missile launchers end up doing less sustained than 'new rlm' standard launchers will be better because you will be able to actually respond to a potentially rapidly changing situation with the best ammo type possible. Otherwise you end up getting caught during reloading or with the wrong ammo type (fury vs intys for example) more often than not and forced to leave the field or die in many currently common situations.
Currently if I am in an omen, I don't feel like I have to switch to a different ship to be effective. Same if I am flying a thorax, it is just as good at its job, with minor variables that make each choice have a slightly different flavor, as the current omen or caracal. With the proposed changes, if I am in a caracal I will not be able to actually do anything nearly half the time at which point I just throw the ship away and go get an omen or thorax which do the same job but don't have any crippling limitations.
I could put standard launchers on and fly it anyway but outside of smallgang if I would need something absurdly tanky to help screen for oracles and ishtars, it's far easier for me to just get an omen or thorax. New players will be forced into standard launchers or potentially be a liability in a fight should they have to reload which is really really bad design imo.
|
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
25
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 18:26:00 -
[9] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Its not even just swapping damage types. If things land on grid partway through a fight (like say, interceptors who undocked 30s ago, 2 jumps out), you almost certainly cant kill them, so its basically just warp off or die. You are forgeting that you will have fired a lot faster than you would have with a regular weapon, and hence you might also be able to kill your target before the interceptor land on grid. You only see the glass half empty here.
So rlm should only be able to kill 1 or 2 ships if you are lucky and then be forced to leave no matter what? Also compare this to an omen or thorax who can just shoot and kill the inty when it arrives and never gets caught with the 40 seconds of uselessness. If the origional target has more hp than the caracal can do damage in a single clip and the tackle lands in the middle of the fight the caracal is stuck being unable to kill the tackle before being stuck in a 40 second reload which is a death sentence and unable to finish the cruiser before it gets tackled and dies in a fire before it can finish reloading.
Meanwhile the omen and thorax can just force the tackle off field while still being able to finish off the origional target. This change to rlms just makes the other weapon systems flat out better by comparison and removes any reason to fly a ship with rlms if you expect to be fighting more than 1 opponent. Nobody has to fly an rlm boat since other ships perform just as effectively currently and only train into them because of ease of use and quick training time for the versatility they get. The change will make rlms so sub par that people would rather just not use them at all. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
25
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 19:29:00 -
[10] - Quote
Even if the caracal does not have a rof bonus to standard launchers the new rlms still put you in a position where you can't actually adapt to any changing situation at all. Standard launchers are still able to do this, but ultimately outside of edge case scenarios where you are against only one or two people the caracal is pushed further into obsoletion in terms of solo and small gang pvp viability when compared to other ships of its class.
Cerb and scyfi still remain semi viable for solo and small gang being forced to use standard launchers in order to adapt to changes in a fight. Hmls and hams are still nearly worthless because in solo and small gang you don't normally have the ability to apply their damage. This puts other ships such as the omen and thorax so far ahead of it in terms of viability for solo and small gang that the caracal has no real use. Besides, instead of taking a ship designed solely to allow the caracal to apply it's damage, I can take an omen or thorax and then take another omen or thorax and achieve double the result of hml or ham caracal+application ship.
Between locus rigs and frentix/drop the omen and thorax are able to hit out to linked pointrange which is more than enough to deal with tackle. Pulse omen gets less range then rail thorax however scorch and locus rigs/frentix fix this problem easily. Not to mention the navy omen and it's build in range bonus netting you around 40-50k with scorch if shield fit. |
|
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
25
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 20:10:00 -
[11] - Quote
@chessur: He was making the point that indeed on ships without a direct missile damage bonus it will be better to use the new rlms and split guns for better sustained dps. This is proven true. However I still feel that giving up the damage of 'new rlms' in favor of standard launchers is still worth it because you can change ammo to adapt to the situation at hand, and you can stay on field long enough to apply it because you get to fit xl asb+lse which is insane.
Ofcourse this does mean you can't really deal with active tanked frigates or cruisers but the new rlms would suffer the same problem as well as the 40 seconds of reloading which will kill you or force you to leave far more often than not.
@bouh: There are many situations, a few of which I have listed in previous posts that are very common and will result in rlms being terrible compared to lasers and rails. There is currently nothing pointing to rlm being overpowered other than it is fast to train into and currently allows the caracal to serve the same purpose as a pulse omen or rail thorax for solo/small gang. It has been pointed out many times that hml and ham are terrible against tackle if you don't have some way of increasing applied damage and you really don't usually get that option in solo/small gang.
Destroyers are fine, the only problem they have is that the combination of speed and sig they have makes them fodder to most cruisers and above. This limits their engagement profile but does not really prevent their use, you still see fleets of talwar and algos. Equally the thrasher, coercer and catalyst are all very good for engaging frigates and other destroyers. You don't see them used as anti tackle in fleets because cruisers will just blap them. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
25
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 23:37:00 -
[12] - Quote
This is an entirely different mechanic than artillery. The polarizes rlms into being either borderline op by killing frigates twice as fast to being completely useless when reloading or if caught with a low clip, or in a situation where you are using the wrong ammo.
Imagine you are firing on a cruiser. As you run low on ammo a frigate lands on field and starts burning for you. If it tackles you the cruiser you are shooting at will be able to get on top of you and kill you. You do not have enough ammo to kill the frigate or the cruiser without reloading.
An omen obviously does not have this problem as it can just shoot and kill the frigate. A thorax can reload and kill the frigate before it tackles you. The new rlm caracal has to leave immediately or die because it has to wait 40 seconds before being able to respond to this new situation. During this time it will have been tackled by the frigate and the enemy cruiser would have likely torn it to shreds.
This is not 'interesting' or 'tense' gameplay, this is a terrible terrible idea. Sure with enough people rlm burst might be viable but by then you can drop 1 guy to fly an application ship and use hmls or hams for more damage instead. If you are flying as antitackle in a gang there becomes no reason to have rlm because you will likely need to adapt to a changing situation at some point and the new rlms will be unable to do so. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
25
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 21:19:00 -
[13] - Quote
Can you imagine what would happen if a frigate landed as he was shooting that battleship. If he didn't have enough missiles remaining in his clip he would be unable to effectively do anything about the frigate for over 40 seconds. What if it's an enyo, ishkur, harpy or hawk? Then even with a mostly full clip he still has to swap out of kinetic to be able to break their tank. 40 seconds in a long time and this mechanic will get you killed often enough that there becomes no reason to use rlm at all when you can use something like a pulse omen or rail thorax and be able to, well, not actually die in a fire if a frigate suddenly appears at random. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
27
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 21:53:00 -
[14] - Quote
Yes a caracal can survive 40 seconds of af fine, but you seem to be looking at this in the vacuum of 1v1. Frigates and afs are popularly used as tackle by other ships. If you get scrammed by this tackle, 40 seconds is a very long time allowing every other ship on the field and from atleast 1 system away to be able to land and get secondary tackle. You tend to die when that happens.
As people have stated before this makes the weapon system non viable for engaging multiple ships in any situation where it wouldnt be overpowered against them. Such as killing 2-3 atrons. This would be far too powerful but the second it stops being powerful you have a significantly higher chance of getting killed because being tackled for 40 seconds in a ship built around being able to use mobility merely due to the fact that you ran out of ammo is terrible.
I can use an omen or thorax (which work just as well as the current caracal mind you), have the exact same effect of killing tackle and never run into such a limitation as the new rlm provide. This is going to negatively effect solo and small gang rlm usage for these reasons and I have no idea why you didn't take another course of action such as reducing light missile dmg or increasing rlm powergrid usage to prevent the ships using them from fitting things like the triple lse caracal and lse+xl asb cerb. This just seems to be the wrong way to nerf rlms because I don't see anyone wanting to use these if they have the option of using any other weapon system in the game. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
29
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:14:00 -
[15] - Quote
Sure a pg increase on rlms wouldnt be widely accepted by everyone but they would atleast still continue to use rlms. Omen, thorax, and 'new rlm' caracal all can kill frigates for about 50 seconds. At the end of that time the caracal stops shooting.....giving up any field control it had allowing newly warped in tackle to come and end it. Meanwhile the omen and thorax are still killing tackle, no matter when it lands on field during the fight the other ships can deal with it. The new caracal won't be able to. It becomes a one trick pony and you still haven't given me any amazing reason why anyone should fly new rlms over pulse lasers or rails if they have a choice.
New rlms can not adapt to any changing situation without a 40 second downtime which is more than enough time for tackle to come in and either make the caracal leave or hold it long enough for things to just kill it. Every other system has atleast some presence against tackle.
Please give me a convincing argument why I should use new rlms when they do the same as pulse lasers and rails only with 40 seconds of downtime and complete inability to switch ammo depending on a changing situation without said 40 second downtime. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
32
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:36:00 -
[16] - Quote
A 10% rof nerf and a decent increase on powergrid would actually be great for rlm. It tones down the damage slightly while still alowing the ship using it to adapt to a changing situation. It would be massively better than poarizing the damage output in the way you have presently done.
I keep using the example of a frigate warping in mid fight while you have a low clip. This happens, people die and reship, they will get back in a new frigate and you will be stuck reloading. 40 seconds, as shown in the video is a long time, especially with the new warp changes. While you might be able to get similar dps with split weapons you are still ignoring the fact that light missiles especially because of their relatively low damage output (compared to pulse lasers and rails) need to be able to have the option of firing into a resist hole to actually deal the majority of their damage.
If you can not react to a changing situation in a ship, you have a very good reason not to fly the ship if you have any possible other option. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
32
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 23:16:00 -
[17] - Quote
@bouh: My example was more specifically geared towards if I were to engage another cruiser and it calls its friends, or perhaps I am doing a fw plax and am having to shoot rats. If I were just using the caracal to shoot lightly tanked or untanked tackle and warp out the new rlms would be far too good at this, giving the opponents much less response time. This again turns it into a 1 trick pony where in the majority of situation the omen or thorax will be flat out better.
Even a powergrid increase for rlm that would force the caracal to reduce its tank to a similar level of the omen or thorax would be much better because then it will be able to deal with a changing situation and adapt via being able to swap ammo easily.
As far as the thorax and omen having tracking issues, standard drop fixes this issue very easily for the omen. You need standard drop and a defensive web for a rail thorax to deal with tackle well if it lands on you. Both of these ships can easily handle tackle at range and unlike the new rlms, they are gaurenteed to atleast be able to shoot at it (barring the enemy gang using various ewar) every single time. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
32
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 02:01:00 -
[18] - Quote
This change increases the power of the rlm caracal in the situation where it was already powerful enough, which is killing frigates. It massively decreases it's ability to fight cruisers (as they have enough buffer to survive the initial clip) and it's ability to deal with multiple opponents, or react to any immediate change in a situation (well it can but it takes 40 seconds to do so).
While it has ammo it is no better than an omen or rail thorax. When it runs out of ammo (which will happen quickly) it's reload time make it completely useless and unable to react to new things appearing on field. I keep asking why I would have any reason to use rlms outside of shooting 1-2 lightly tanked frigates and warping out when the omen and thorax are able to give the exact same damage only the caracal is unable to sustain it or react via changing ammo without rending itself useless for an absurd amount of time.
If you dont think 40 seconds is an absurd amount of time, please watch the video someone was kind enough to link earlier and tell me how that would play out in a pvp situation vs multiple opponents. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
32
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 16:03:00 -
[19] - Quote
So heres a bit of a comparison: Imagine you have an omen and a new rlm caracal shooting a target for 50 seconds. They end up doing relatively the same dps.
Now for the next 40 seconds, the caracal does 0 dps while the omen continues doing damage. Rlms currently have the 'interesting decision making' of "hmm, x, y, and z are on the field, what is the best ammo type to use here?'. Don't believe me? Shoot a jaguar with mjolnir fury, or try doing much damage to some afs and intys without swapping to percision ammo. The new rlms would have to wait 40 seconds in order to do this, which is long enough that you might as well leave the field because youll be chased off anyway. This means the only decision making in using new rlms will be 'can I kill the tackle in under 50 seconds assuming I have the right ammo preloaded to do so?' That is not an interesting choice to me.
If the fight lasts longer than 50 seconds, the omen becomes better and the caracal has a random chance of becoming useless or having to leave because suddenly something lands and you cant just reload to the right damage or missile type to kill it. In a small gang situation the new rlm caracal wouldn't want to shoot the primary, it would be too busy reloading incase the tackle that it just killed feels like reshipping. The omen and thorax are able to apply damage to a target regardless of how much ammo they have used and what point of the fight they are at.
I would much prefer a rof nerf and a pg requirement increase as a nerf to rlms. That way I still am able to make decisions about what ammo to use to get the best effect, and with an rlm nerf I would need to make the right ammo choice to be able to kill a number of things at all. Please reconsider this change, there are better ways of nerfing rlm than preventing people from reloading fast enough that missile type is actually a choice you can make during a fight and not something you have to hope you got right when you started engaging. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
32
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 19:00:00 -
[20] - Quote
Mr Gojira wrote: So as I stated to another person: what part of Rapid launchers being for use against smaller ships than the one your firing from is not being comprehended?
Perhaps the error of CCP RISE is that he is not properly explaining what a smaller ship is.
What I am saying is that in a number of situations that may be completely beyond your control you might end up with a useless ship. I will have mjolnir percision loaded vs a merlin for example, what happens if he has a friend in a jag warp in before he dies? Even with percisions I wont be able to kill the jag because of it's resist profile. So I would have to give it atleast 40 seconds before I can start trying to force it off me. It likely won't die to a single clip so thats 50 seconds and another 40 second reload. During this reload the jaguar has probably has a decent amount of its shields back so it might take most of the next clip to finish him off. This isn't even taking into account the merlin pilot who has had well over a minute to reship, and may very well have come back in something that I will need to swap ammo for again in order to apply substantial damage to.
This is 130 seconds, over 2 minutes and I still haven't finished the jaguar off because I had mjolnir loaded to kill a merlin. Nerfing the rof of rapid lights and increasing their pg use would mean that it takes me longer to kill the merlin but I can properly react to the jaguar, or whatever additional tackle lands on field during the fight that might present a bigger threat then what I am currently dealing with.
Ships like the omen and thorax, even if they end up shooting em into a jaguar or kin/therm into an ishkur will be able to properly respond to things landing. This is an exceptionally strong case to not use an rlm boat in my eyes and instead use any other weapon system because it will be effective against tackle all the time, with the added bonus of being able to fight things larger than frigates as well as multiple people without having to change the guns its using. |
|
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
32
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 21:30:00 -
[21] - Quote
Normally if you have the time to swap to fury vs cruisers you will ultimately be doing more damage than if you had stuck with cn. You tend to swap to percisions to remove intys off the field faster (yes it is generally worth doing this when you see it coming in) and for the most part you stick with cn to deal with random tackle until you are at a point where swpping to fury or percision becomes the ideal choice.
Switching to fofs when jammed is not horrible, it pays off if you get jammed for a second cycle immediately and given the rng nature of ecm it's usually the safer call to do so. If you are damped and expect to stay damped for atleast 2 cycles then swapping to fofs is also the safe call in tis case as well.
Yes most people likely don't swap ammo types, but those that do make that decision can gain what may end up being a significant edge. In the case of fofs it's either a great idea or a 'meh' idea but it's nearly always the better call just in case. Ammo switching and reloading is actually an interesting decision making mechanic and I would hate to see it removed as an option for rlms. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
33
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 21:54:00 -
[22] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:I would as well, it should remain an option... but I understand that revision involves mechanics that may take a bit longer. Not to derail, but unless the jammer/ dampener is the only person aggressing you FOF's are of extremely limited value. They go for the closest person damaging or activating a module on you, and they only go after those within their range. This means that usually the go after any drones on you, possibly a tackler (usually ineffectively in either case), or if you are really lucky they'll go after someone repairing or boosting you on your own team.
If those drones are ecm drones then this is actually helpful. Also great vs sabre/falcon camps and such. Really though this would make a good argument that fofs need to be changed in some way to make them worth carrying as you said yourself theres a decent change they wont do much. If they only shot at the source of the jam/damp then everyone would likely be carrying them.
Breaking the reload and damage swapping option, even if just to reiterate on it down the line is still a poor idea imo. People have suggested just straight nerfing the rof of the rlm (perferabley increasing its pg use as well) and implementing this 'ancillary launcher' as a new weapon system hopefully implemented after you take a hard look at the missile dmg application equations. This way people using rlms do take a hit, but if they swap damage properly (even though they wont have to do it often) they will still be reasonably competitive vs other cruisers both at killing tackle and handling cruiser sized ships with the same weapon system.
Changing ammo based on target is great, changing weapons based on target is nonfeasable in many situations and makes me feel that just using a different weapon system that performs decently in both areas as the superior choice. If cn hmls applied more damage to cruisers than fury light missiles and percision hmls applied as much damage to frigates as cn lights then hml would be the right choice 100% of the time. This problem stems from the missile dmg equations and fixing those should be a rather high priority. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
33
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 22:18:00 -
[23] - Quote
Nerfing rlm rof and increasing their pg requirement would actually work to make the decision of ammo change have more impact. Currently people can get away with not changing ammo at ideal times, but lower the dps a bit and suddenly that edge that you get with proper ammo swapping becomes much more important.
People might regret not changing ammo to fury to deal with the cruiser that came in after they finished killing the tackle with cn or percision. As harari said a number of posts ago having the right ammo preloaded is incredibly important. But by just reducing the rof on existing rlms, you create a situation where people can actively switch between ammo during a fight and be rewarded for making the right choice, or punished for making the wrong one.
If an rlm pilot think 'man, I totally should have reloaded to x' or 'hmm reloading to x ammo was a poor decision there' then congratulations you have both nerfed rlms and made the mechanic more interesting and decision based. Also you get to make an entirely new launcher with the ancillary feature (it's a good idea but not worth throwing away current rlms for imo) that can ideally come out alongside an in depth missile rebalance. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
33
|
Posted - 2013.11.14 20:30:00 -
[24] - Quote
If you could switch the ammo in the launchers instantly without reloading them then yes, this does become a good weapon system that has it's own benefits and drawbacks. However it has been rather clearly stated that this will not happen in the initial release of the weapon system and this, while not being a dealbreaker for making the changes, is a dealbreaker for using the new system for many people.
Being unable to load, say, percisions when an interceptor comes on field without waiting 40 seconds is not fun. Mostly because in those 40 seconds the interceptor could easily run me down and I would be unable to force it away since split weapons using cn will not quite have the ability to worry an inty. If i could instantly switch to percisions then yes, I would have to keep my guns split but I would be able to react to a changing field. Hand waving this issue away and saying you can warp out and back every minute to reload just does not sit well with many people, because it seems like you are ignoring a potential issue that should be addressed before release.
The idea of the system itself, as many others have said is good. The biggest issue is the reload time without being able to switch missile types to adapt without being useless for 40 seconds. If you can fix this problem before throwing it on tq then I don't think many people will be upset. However implementing something like this and saying 'don't worry well fix it later' results in a large amount of backlash and negativity.
Swapping ammo types is important, removing the ability to do so just to implement it later is, atleast in my opinion, a very half assed way of doing things and terrible design. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
33
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 02:49:00 -
[25] - Quote
It should be noted that unlike missiles, a turret ship does not have to completely change its weapon system or fit to be able to deal with both cruisers and frigates. If you fit a missile ship to be able to kill frigates you tend not to be able to deal with cruisers, and vice versa. Turrets don't have this issue (well they do but it can easily be overcome by manual piloting in the majority of cases) and the question becomes why not use a turret ship instead because you don't end up in the 'either or' situation that's won or lost before even undocking that you do in a missile ship.
Rlm were high on the metrics because they were so easy to train into to be just as effective as things like the omen and thorax. They were nerfed based on these metrics but CCP wanted them to be good vs frigates but not as good as heavy missiles against cruisers. The problem stems from issues in heavy missile application, as light fury missiles will actually do similar damage to cn heavy missiles on a fast moving cruiser hull. Equally the rlm allowed the caracal to fit a second lse, which actually let it stay on field against the omen and thorax. Normally a single lse caracal does not have the application to be able to fight something like an omen or thorax unless it uses hams, and even then it is very close.
Heavy missiles would theoretically be the go to launcher for fighting both cruisers and frigates but run into severe application problems to the point where they just really aren't worth using in place of a turret ship unless you have some outside source of webs/tps so you dont have to sacrifice the little tank you have. This leaves hams which despite having even more application issues tend to do more damage and actually can fight against other cruisers yet still do little to nothing against fast moving frigates outside of web range without making sacrifices that again, put them at what may be too much of a disadvantage against cruisers.
Nobody in the thread has once said the rlms were not too powerful and couldn't use a bit of tweaking down. The issue is that what was released, on short notice, was an incomplete weapon system (you cant change ammo during a fight when you need to without 40 seconds of doing nothing) that would have arguably served better as an entirely different weapon system once the missile damage application formula was looked at and hopefully redone.
I'm not saying that iteration on a weapon is bad, but having to iterate to fix what is likely a critical design flaw that was pointed out during testing and released anyway is frustrating. Then again so is balancing based mostly on metrics without going into the deeper question of why the metrics are skewed in such a way. Rlm were powerful, but they were also used because the alternatives were not comparable to the majority of other ships due to the way missile dmg is applied. So while nerfing rlm was the right call, changing them to an entirely different weapon system and effectively polarizing them as great or horrible with promises to possibly iterate later to make them less frustrating without really plumbing through the guts of missile application or really giving much notice is the biggest reason that there is so much negative and hostile reaction in the thread.
It would be great if rise posted here more and we all actually had a civil discussion about application, fitting, and general usefulness as well as intended missile design goals since that is the point of a feedback thread is it not? |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
33
|
Posted - 2013.12.09 15:30:00 -
[26] - Quote
On the subject of metrics, I do remember at one point while the ferox was being discussed that a dev said something to the extent of 'rail feroxs are being used, it is mostly meta 4 rails and it's mostly for pve but it is being used'. I may be misremembering that and feel free to correct me with the exact quote if I am wrong. At any rate my point is that you need to know why the metrics re the way they are and not just look at the numbers to decide wether something is good or bad.
In the case of the rail ferox being 'fine' because it was used in pve by people who likely had no other option when training for rokhs, you have to question wether it really is 'fine' or is just being used because there really isn't any other effective option. In the case of cruisers and hmls, they aren't very effective in solo or very small gang because even percisions don't apply their damage to other cruisers well. Rlm still not only effectively apply damage to cruisers but frigates as well and they happen to be very ppolarized now.
If you see something you can kill you know you can kill it and it's not going to take long at all, alternatively you know that if you have to swap ammo you need to leave because in the majority of situations when you are in a fight, taking 40 seconds just to respond to a change in the fight is not exactly fun and will probably get you killed. Furthermore there are still many newer players who have trained into rlm because they used to be the fastest train to something that could work well in a solo or small gang pvp situation and are now stuck using them because they have nothing else skilled.
I find it slightly disheartening that we finally get dev responses but they have nothing to do with any of the extensive math or discussion in the thread. Was hoping for there to be more than just 'we are still reading the thread and watching metrics'. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
35
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 04:00:00 -
[27] - Quote
You have 2 heavy neuts, and you say that it has nothing to do with how fast you kill a dual rep deimos? Assuming he mistimed his cap booster yes hes going to die very quickly to just about anything because he relies entirely on having cap to be able to tank any damage at all.
Basically you are showcasing how polarized the weapon system is: if you can kill something with it you fight it and if you have to ever reload you don't take the fight. Against cruisers dual heavy neuts take out nearly their entire capacitor, 1200gj neuted total. This turns off any active tank they may have and any active resists, additionally they are scrammed and webbed so you can actually apply the majority of your damage with percisions or cn.
The problem here is it is basically useless if you end up having to reload or swap ammo, and even then you have to fight under ideal conditions for you which means going after cruisers and hacs that are scram/webbed and likely neuted out. You aren't looking for fights with rlml or rhml, you are looking for ganks where you are gaurenteed to kill 1 or 2 things then leave. This is poor design imo because it prevents you from really getting into an interesting fight, or being able to react to the situation if it changes.
Wouldn't you want to be able to fight against more things, or even just have a wider engagement profile? You can drop 10% dps for cruise and actually be able to react to a new ship warping in or multiple ships engaging you. Being able to deal with nearly all ship types with cruise missiles decently or being pigeonholed into only going for situations where you know you can win because otherwise it's a 40 second reload that will likely kill you. I'm not saying the weapon system is unusable, I'm saying it's polarized to the point where there isn't much point in using it comparatively. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
36
|
Posted - 2013.12.13 14:54:00 -
[28] - Quote
It appears he started by shooting the interceptor. He failed to kill it and had to swap to the thorax when t landed on field and became the bigger threat. Sadly because he had shot at the interceptor he did not have enough missiles in the clip to kill the thorax before the 40 second reload. 40 seconds of not shooting was apparently enough to have the rest of the ships land and get secondary tackle.
He lost the fight because he shot at the interceptor, once the thorax landed there really wasn't anything he could have done apart from deagressing that would have saved his ship. Unlike you he obviously did not use rhmls in the only case where they were good (full clip vs single ship) and I have a feeling that is why he died. Also theres also the potential he had the wrong ammotype loaded as well since he would want percisions vs the inty and those might not be able to kill the thorax without an ammo switch anyway. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
36
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 18:57:00 -
[29] - Quote
Personally I would rather the rlm nerf be reverted, keep the pg increase to prevent tripe lse from happening and lower rof by 10% instead of raising rof and reload time. Reasoning is simple, extended reload time, especially in a ship with low damage makes you regret undocking it whenever you have to reload or swap ammo. Now I know you wouldn't want to do this mostly because it would be sen as a failure of a 'fun new interesting tense mechanic' that the 40 second reload was intended to be but until you can disassociate the act of ammo swapping with actually reloading the launcher then any extended reload is going to be punishing and unfun.
Also this will make rlms less binary than they are now, right now they can act as a frigate blender but against multiple targets or anything reasonably tanky such as assault frigs or cruisers you wish you had used a different ship instead. Fofs, while I know Rise does not claim to use them or see them as good, are situationally fantastic yet without a 10 second reload time you start playing the 'will I be jammed twice in a row or not' game trying to figure out if you should swap to them or not against common things like ecm drones. Currently you would need to be jammed 3-4 times in a row to make fofs worth it, with a 20 second reload you would need to be jammed twice in a row, 10 second reload means you can switch to fofs and actually immediately respond to being jammed.
The biggest complaints about the rlm is that you can't respond or react well to things with a 40 second reload and that sucks all the fun out of using them. The solution is separating the act of swapping ammo from the act of reloading but since you can't do that then even a 20 second reload time is probably going to be unhelpful. Releasing burst launchers as an entirely different missile launcher would be far preferable as it gives you much more time to actually balance it (no, internal testing and a week on sisi is not enough time for proper balancing) from the ground up as well as potentially having the reload and ammo swap disassociation be specific to the launcher itself for better overall weapon balancing. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
37
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 22:42:00 -
[30] - Quote
Extra ammunition does not help the problem of entering a fight with the wrong ammo loaded, or having to swap ammo because a situation changed. Being able to swap ammo actually lets the pilot make a choice during combat and possibly be rewarded for that choice with more damage or in some cases the ability to deal damage at all. A 40 second reload does not give you a choice, even a 20 second reload would feel punishing to use in combat.
I still maintain that frontloading rlm damage like this is a poor mechanic solely because it makes the fights binary, either frigates die remarkably quickly or they live long enough that you have to question the value of using the ship over any of its equivalents. Polarizing weapon systems for launchers (rlm only good vs frigs, hams and hmls only workable vs cruisers or larger) is unfun because it makes the pilot feel like they undocked the wrong ship when they could've taken an omen or thorax or arty rupture and had the ability to kill both cruisers and frigates decently without having to change its entire fit.
Caracal proliferation in small gang was mostly from the triple lse and lse/xlasb style fits where you had enough tank that you could stay on field almost indefinitely. Dual lse caracals were actually very balanced against other cruisers, thorax could project far enough to outdamage them in point range, omens could also hold their own (single lse omens couldn't stand up well but aar omens would have little issue provided you were in point range).
Currently reloading isn't an interesting and tactical choice, but a punishment intended to create 'tense moments of fun'. |
|
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
38
|
Posted - 2014.01.11 00:38:00 -
[31] - Quote
Giving the launchers more ammo without touching reload time does not solve the problem at all. In fact it only assures that you will continue to mulch frigates potentially regardless of having to switch ammo types, which only serves to remove more potential decision making in combat. The problem is the 40 second reload, rise has essentially said that they cant decouple ammo swapping from actual reloading which would be the main way to actually start balancing these things out.
More ammo will only make the situation worse for frigates while not in any way improving the situation for the rlm pilot because when he needs to reload (and he will need to reload eventually) he will likely reconsider the value of using the ship. Too much ammo or too little reload time with the current rof means you are either amazing or useless depending on the numbers. There is no real balance in that since high dps with a long reload time is not fun and borderline overpowered because you have to atleast be able to kill something before reload time hits or you have no reason to use the system at all.
The system does not need tweaking, it needs an entire balance overhaul and until you can successfully do that (which rise has stated isn't happening anytime soon) reverting to the prenerf rlms while keeping the pg increase and lowering the rof by about 10% would be a much better balance decision because it gives you time to work on your launcher idea from the ground up for extensive balancing and while you do this the playerbase isn't left with something that feels incomplete and unfun.
Additionally hmls aren't seeing more use in small gang since as stated many many times before they have so much trouble actually applying damage, even to other cruisers. This left rlm as the best choice since you do more applied damage than hml, and even though it was still pretty low damage you generally had enough tank and projection that by kiting at longpoint range you could take down other cruisers eventually. Why the idea was that they should be even better vs frigates while being worse against cruisers I don't know, although the intent as CCP Rise stated was to lower the use of rlms, so mission complete.
Honestly, and this is a serious question, if rlm use was still lowered into acceptable ranges, why are you even bothering with changing the weapon system again at all then? Nothing has been said about looking into the missile damage application formula so it can't be that you are trying to actually rebalance missiles, but only launcher use. I find it very confusing and would appreciate that cleared up. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
38
|
Posted - 2014.01.11 22:13:00 -
[32] - Quote
The thing about missiles is they always hit, but depending on what they are shooting they may not be able to kill anything. Guns on the other hand require you to manually pilot but can still hit targets. Missiles tend to make up for always hitting by not being able to apply their damage without truly excessive amounts of support. Guns on the other hand don't require nearly as much, since you can rely mostly on manual piloting and be far more effective against everything solo.
The previous iteration of rlm gave pilots the ability to project just enough damage while having just enough tank to be viable against both cruisers and frigates solo. Triple lse and lse/xlasb fits were broken however making what would be a very close fight (caracal vs thorax or caracal vs omen) into joke fights where you could just ram them and win anyways. Triple lse also allowed you to fight cynabals and vagabonds without really trying since you had such massive buffer they couldn't break you before they died.
Dual lse fit such as dual lse/cap booster or dual lse/web we actualy very balanced against other ships. Cap booster gave you an advantage against cruisers, allowing you to force them to cap out chasing you and then turn around and assure the kill against ships like ac cynas and vegas, yet if they realized what was happening they could still turn around and break point range or just warp off since you had to keep them at about 40km to leverage your projection/tank against theirs until they had about half shields before attempting to turn and finish them.
Dual lse web fits were superior vs frigates and things like blaster thorax since you could hold them off for just a bit longers that when combined with nearly burning out your mwd you could have a fair chance of killing them, they would still catch you (a thorax will almost always catch a caracal even when starting from 30k) but you had a decent chance of killing them thanks to the second lse. Ham caracals couldn't really deal with frigates and hml caracals couldn't really deal with anything well. Rlm allowed you to deal with both, and was on par with many medium turret ships.
The reason metrics were so skewed was that the game has turned heavily into a frigate and cruiser meta, and the easiest (note how I say easiest and not most effective) weapon system to get into to be competitive against the widest array of ships was rlms. The most efficient system was actually still turrets, yet they require far more sp and piloting ability in order to make them shine. So in the interest of training time and newbie friendliness we had our newbies train for rlm caracals since it only took like 2 weeks to get into something workable from scratch.
Rlm use increased due to these reasons and once the cerb got buffed you had the newbies go from caracal straight to cerb, having no reason to go gunneries. The problem was actual fitting and the comparatively speedy training time, the solution was to reduce rlm use by turning them into something that was very subpar for solo and small gang, because that was the only context they were being used in. There was and still is a lot of backlash because instead of just fixing the fitting issue you effectively remove any reason to use them, or more precisely you introduced a reason to not use them with the absurd reload time.
CCP Rise would probably say the community is complaining too much but I haven't seen a single vocal member of the solo/small gang community actually enjoy and/or endorse the current iteration of rlm and even Rise hasn't shown how a 40 second reload is fun. Theres even a video on the my eve section with rlm and the only thing it does is make me not want to use rlm. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
38
|
Posted - 2014.01.12 01:19:00 -
[33] - Quote
Kesthely- I did mention in the paragraph previous to the one you quoted about the damage application problems of hams and hmls leading to rlm being considered the best launcher for cruisers in solo/small gang because it is the only launcher that is good against both cruisers and frigates without sacrificing too much to apply damage.
Yes the fitting was an issue and that was fixed, the only other reason rlm was used instead of hams and hmls is the latter lack any effective application to be considered worth using without excessive amounts of support. You cant normally sick all that support onto your ship solo or small gang because then you can't stay on field due to lack of tank given you are normally shield tanked and all your application modules are either rig slots or mids. Turret ships don't have this problem when shield or armor tanking because they have application and projection modules for both mid and lowslots so you are rarely in a situation where you feel like you brought the wrong ship or weapon system and instead feel 'I could have manually piloted better/gotten a better warpin/etc'.
I will agree that the problem is the poor state of hmls and hams, rlms were fine with the exception of fitting. Since the fitting issue was fixed ideally we can go back to the previous iteration and pretend this 40 second reload idea was just some bad dream. Really hml need serious application tweaking to be viable for solo small gang compared to the majority of other weapon systems especially vs cruiser sized targets because right now they simply aren't worth using in the majority of cases solo/small gang.
There is no doubt that Rise could turn rlms back into something people would want to use, but he seems to shut down whenever excessive negative criticism is given. The 40 second reload was a terrible idea, everyone in the solo and small gang community has expressed this many times, but there's no other reasonable explanation for Rise refusing to really discuss the system and instead hold to his point about 'internal testing and other forums being full of great response so were doing it' despite a clear lack of development which was brushed off with 'we can iterate later'. Well the time for that promised iteration has finally come and surprise, its not happening, rise still hasn't responded to most of the math and well thought out arguments in the thread and were running into the problem of having said everything multiple times with no visible results. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.12 03:22:00 -
[34] - Quote
Razus and Lachs are not fast ships. Most t1 cruisers can easily outrun them so you would require the huginn or rapier to be there assuming you are operating on the end of bonused pointrange. Although you can also sit at 50k and be able to likely hold point vs another gang, yet you still run into the drag race issue where a group of 6 rail thorax will burn in and kill you. ignoring most of your missile damage.
Additionally you have to remember some people solo and wont have the 2-3 ships you need to make that happen and there are plenty of gangs that don't run with recons. The main reason not to use recons is that it becomes much harder to get a fight out of other people not to mention you require the people in your fleet to have skilled for recons, which isn't something everyone can just pull out at the drop of a hat.
If you need 2-3 ships solely dedicated to be able to apply more than half of your damage to other cruisers using a cruiser based weapon system (and I daresay hml are a cruiser based weapon system) then there's likely a problem there.
I have seen people use noobship fleets of velators and ibiss (ibii?) against brave newbies in barlegut to surprisingly good effect but that does not mean that it is anything other than a jokefleet which only works under specific circumstances (skirmish/siege/info linked and snaked). If you need to have 2-3 ships just to make a weapon system viable against something it should be balanced against in the first place then your fleetcomp is not a standard everyday thing that anyone can do at any time. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
40
|
Posted - 2014.01.13 09:05:00 -
[35] - Quote
When a cruiser is scrammed, dual (possibly triple) webbed and target painted even cruise missiles are going to apply nearly full damage. The only thing you've shown with that kill is that fury heavy missiles do full damage when a target is scram/webbed and painted, yet not how little damage you apply even with cn or precision vs a target that is not scram/webbed and painted compared to hams and light missiles. You generally don't go scram/web on caldari hulls with hml because you don't have the damage to make up for throwing away your ability to tank which is why if youre going to be fighting in web range you bring hams. Hams give you the damage you need to make up for having far less tank due to requiring scram/web. This is why you rarely see solo hml boats because the majority of them cant afford to sacrifice their ability to stay on field in order to apply damage.
As far as missiles able to swap damage type that is exactly the reason the current iteration of rlms and rhml are considered worthless. They can't swap damage types when they need to (which is generally in the middle of combat) because they have a 40 second reload. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
40
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 00:01:00 -
[36] - Quote
So your cerb has 2 painters, a point and a prop mod, with 2 rigs designed for application. This leaves you with a single lse and 0 em resist outside of your dcu. We are forced to assume the fight starts on 0 because if it does not then you are ble to easily kite the stabber and win regardless. However you has what is likely a dual lse scram ab stabber on 0 with you and you have no tank outside of your single lse and a gaping em hole. Unless you get absurdly lucky with ecm drones you are going to lose that Cerberus to the stabber.
If the deimos has a defensive web (and its quite easy to get an armor tanked kiting deimos with 200mm rails and a defensive web to fly much like a Navy Omen) you basically load short range ammo and the stabber dies.
As far as he proper gunnery response to a proteus the ship you are looking for is the oracle, it can project north of 800 dps past 60km with reasonably good tracking using scorch and manual piloting. Unlike rails it does not run into the problem of hitting the proteus in its highest resists.
I am not arguing for rlm to be able to do everything, in fact let me go through what rlm was bad at before the 40 second reload change. Rlm was bad at fighting ships that had substantial amounts of buffer, and failed miserably against the popular dual rep sfi as well as many other dual rep cruisers. In a gang you were very easily ignored by enemy gangs with a single t1 logi, the reason for all of this is that rlm did about half the damage you would get out of an omen or a rail thorax.
The solution to this problem was to bring along ships designed to just provide large amounts of damage, main 3 ships being the oracle with megapulse and scorch, the typhoon with precision cruise, and the Ishtar with sentries. When solo you often had to force the opposing cruiser to chase you until it potentially capped out when using the dual lse cap booster fit. Most of its low dps problems were ignored by fitting a third lse which gave it enough uptime to just brawl with rlms, which was clearly absurd and has been fixed.
What I am complaining about is the same thing many other solo and small gang pvpers have said, 40 second reload prevents you from responding to any change in the fight and having such a high damage until this reload happens is potentially massively overpowered against light tackle. Changing it back to its previous iteration and gives light tackle more uptime in a small fight and lets you actually adapt to a new ship landing on field. As long as you keep the pg increase so triple lse and lse/xlasb cant be easily done then everything should be fine.
|
|
|
|