Thinking RFL is trash? Think again!

[tommmsunb]

I noticed a trend that people seem to discount the viability of RFL and largely I used to be a member of this faction, however I recently found a renewed appreciation for them. Mainly due to breaking the 200 DPS point with them on several occasions without DO.

 

Anyway moving on to the general purpose of this thread, not only to get people to reconsider value, but also reconsider how they think about their own skill/piloting. Eventually building decision-making skills that will allow people to think for themselves instead of following canned instructions on how to fly. This point is very important because everybody is very different, for instance Xi'ao from the shadowlands considers himself to be more of a sniper type guy who plans every individual shot whereas I consider myself to be a machine gun with no recoil in other words I tend to not care about individual shots but have confidence in the consistency of many shots. They're different playstyles and neither one is inherently superior. Though if I try to switch to his style I may notice a distinct difference in my performance.

 

Moving on, why do people consider RFL bad? While some individuals have tested them and found them to be not to their liking, the large majority had them as their first unupgraded weapon and thought, wow this is truly garbage, then moved on to nicer pastures in the form of heavies or quads or burst lasers.

 

Allow me to change your mind.

 

Essentially they serve a purpose that Quad's can't fulfill properly, they do absurd close-range sustained damage with superior tracking accuracy while also having the lowest EPS(energy per second) in the game. Now you're probably thinking "Sustained damage? What do you mean? Don't quads have better sustained?" Well for many situations you would be correct, but when you get to a certain point you tend to find yourself running out of energy with quads simply because you're shooting so much. Overall a full energy bar of RFL will do more damage if hit than a full energy bar of quads and the difference in killing speed isn't so dramatic as to be considered crippling.

 

Next let's take a look at the individual pros and cons of RFL and apply situations where that may be good and then link the common pros while trying to avoid cons.

 

PROS

As stated already

High sustained damage, good against high hitpoint targets like bombers, strikes and gunships, especially when coupled with rocket pods. (Though pods take a little bit more skill.)

Low energy per second (Keep on firing without having to worry about taking cover to recharge.) With this you can safely take advantage of smaller spaces and open spaces alike without having to worry too much about a recharge escape route.

Great tracking accuracy. Though not as good as something like burst, it provides a good sustain option for fighting in turn fights and under sats and the like.

More shots per minute - If you run any form of crit chance with targetting telemetry you'll be able to rely better on your crits actually happening, though they will be of lower value, they will give a more consistent increase to dps than with something like burst or quads due to smaller sample sizes.

(In other words you don't have to worry about the RNG gods blessing you.)

 

Now lets taking a look at the cons

CONS

Shorter range than almost all other options. This is a pretty big deal when fighting against gunships and the other long-range ilk. In order to minimize this threat you can get the range cap, though I wouldn't recommend that as the damage cap will actually increase your reliable DPS on average more. Also, it means that it effectively reduces the range of whatever secondary you're using in ambushing scenarios because you wouldn't want to alert them before you're at maximum DPS capacity. Though it's recommended to avoid ambushing scenarios.

 

Lower accuracy than quads on average. I think of this as less of a problem because of how much the current meta uses wingman and targetting telemetry, which I think you should be using on a scout as is if you're aiming for sustained damage superiority. Though it should be taken into consideration when you see evasion cooldowns popped.

 

 

With all this in mind it really does seem like the pros outweigh the cons. Now why do people tend to think of them as bad? I'd say the primary reason is because at level one rapids are innately inferior to quads due to the difference in accuracy. Giving the illusion to people who are new to the game that they're not doing any damage at all, when in actuality they're really just not used to the controls enough yet, where they may get 30% accuracy with quads they maybe getting 20% with RFL. So when they switch they're left with the seemingly obvious conclusion that it was the gears fault and not their own. Which is a natural conclusion to come to for most MMO players who are used to lower skillcaps and higher gear standards.

 

 

So, when should you consider RFL?

If you're somebody who is very consistent in their shooting and can manage to survive in very close quarters without being shot back it's recommended to make the switch. And when I say consistent I mean 40%+ average accuracy. For instance my stats page says my average (primarily with quads) is about 53%. I honestly don't notice any difference in accuracy between using RFL and using quads.

Though your lack of consistency will be highlighted when using RFL compared to quads.

 

That being said you can stay with quads for the time being. UNLESS. You're finding yourself surviving for long enough that you're just constantly running out of cap energy. At that point I'd say it's good to make the switch. You won't regret it.

 

 

Anyway TL;DR: Don't discount something due to first impressions and general opinion, form your own opinions and think of ways to make things useful or you'll never get better. Though I will say as a general rule LLCs are inferior to RFL as they generally serve the same role but in a worse way.

Edited August 21, 2014 by tommmsunb

[caederon]

I'll say this for RFL... I've been flying a lot of stock (or nearly so) T1 scouts and strikes lately, and especially in the case of the scouts I'm actually not hating RFL. You're right that the low power consumption is a significant positive, especially on T1 scouts. I don't think I've ever actually used fully upgraded RFL, so I may stick with them on a few ships just to see what it's like. With power set to lasers, they can dish out some damage in short order, especially if you can get on someone's six for a moment.

 

I still favor Burst Laser Cannons with Armor Ignore on T2 scouts for how quickly they can obliterate turrets, laying a satellite bare in about five seconds. They're not bad in a dogfight, though they often require a little luck. I've ditched Concentrated Fire for Wingman lately, too, to see how that works out.

 

Beginners and RFL don't mix well, though. The short range makes them very vulnerable, and... I think many of them don't even realize their lasers -have- a max range. At least the heavies on the T1 strike theoretically make it easier for them to hit something. Occasionally.

 

- Despon

[Verain]

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=7213927

 

 

My post linked there is correct. Your post is garbage.

 

 

High sustained damage

Literally the lowest in class.

 

good against high hitpoint targets like bombers

Worst possible gun against bombers. It is so awful it is sad. A bomber has a lot of health, and has no intention of sitting there and tanking your crap gun. Plus he takes 10% less damage from hull DR- assuming he doesn't have the 14% crewmember, the 20% hull, or the 99% reduction from crapid fire lasers that happens during charged plating.

 

 

strikes

Light laser cannon is better against a strike in all situations.

 

gunships

Light laser cannon is better against a gunship in all situations.

 

 

especially when coupled with rocket pods

You should use quad lasers with rocket pods. Also acceptable is laser. Lights are better than rocket pods. Burst is also very good with rocket pods. Rapids is the worst.

 

Low energy per second

This is the only thing they do right, and this sucks as a power. This is literally their only strength. You should not need this strength.

 

Great tracking accuracy.

STOP LOOKING AT THAT IT IS A LIE

Everyone who sees that 0.8 thinks it is more damage at angles than, say, light lasers. It is not. Rapid fire lasers is terrible damage under all circumstances.

 

Lets pretend, for a moment, that you are targeting a person at TWENTY DEGREES off center. That's a lot of degrees, right? Some things can't even shoot at that setup. Further, lets pretend you are at 1000m from them. This sounds like a pretty favorable range for a short range gun. Now, I think you know that if a target is 20 degrees off center, they won't stay there long. You'll center them or lose them.

 

So, how much damage do we do? (These numbers were with untalented damage capacitor, but rest assured, capacitor or crewman choice doesn't change the results)

 

Rapid Fire Lasers

Damage at 1000m is 980 dps. Accuracy at 1000m is 105%. 20 degrees, we ignore the first 5% with a talent, and then 15*0.8 is -12% for that.

So we have 980 dps with 93% base accuracy. We don't ignore armor. If we are shooting at some guy with 10% evasion, our average damage is: 813.

 

Light Laser Cannon

Damage at 1000m is 1100 dps. Accuracy at 1000m is 106%. 20 degrees, we ignore the first 5% with a talent, and then 15*1 is -15% for that.

So we have 1100 dps with 91% base accuracy. We don't ignore armor. If we are shooting at some guy with 10% evasion, our average damage is: 891.

 

LLC beats RFL by 10% in this situation that you might assume RFL would be good at. It is not. It is a shocking embarrassment. Do the math.

 

 

Oh, hey, lets have a bit more fun. Quad Lasers, famous for only being good at shooting in a straight line. Not considered one of the close range lasers, they have a tracking penalty of 1.5 degrees per arc, and they lack the big ol talent.

Quad Laser Cannon

Damage at 1000m is 1024 dps. Accuracy at 1000m is 107%. 20 degrees, is a massive -30.

So we have 1024 dps with base accuracy. We don't ignore armor. If we are shooting at some guy with 10% evasion, our average damage is: 686.

 

RFLs- which have a range of over 4000m, a very strong dps, decent burst damage, and blow up RFS in a straight fight, are beat by a 20% margin in this highly stacked test.

 

good sustain option for fighting in turn fights and under sats and the like.

 

There's no such thing as "sustain" when fighting on a sat. It's much, much worse than BLC in that situation- and also worse than LLC. In other words, it's worse than everything that competes with it on a scout.

 

 

More shots per minute

This is strictly a disadvantage. To prove this to yourself, remember that when you shoot, you have a "charge" that gets dispersed. If you have BLC, that's TRIPLE the charge. Even if RFL and BLC were equal in all ways except for their attack speed (and they are not), you would begin the fight by landing either:

X damage (RFL)

3X damage (BLC)

Some time passses. The BLC guy can use his reticule for maneuvering, but the RFL guy has to hold his cursor down.

2X damage (RFL)

3X damage (BLC)

Now, the RFL has fired twice. It is catching up. The BLC guy is still free to target.

3x damage (RFL)

3x damage (BLC)

Ok, he tied it! Whew!

4x damage (RFL)

6x damage (BLC)

 

It always goes like this. The best the faster shooting guy can hope for is that he is tied- at all other points in time, he is behind. Since so much of GSF takes place well below having time to shoot thrice, that is enough to make your decision on which gun to use.

 

If you run any form of crit chance with targetting telemetry you'll be able to rely better on your crits actually happening, though they will be of lower value, they will give a more consistent increase to dps than with something like burst or quads due to smaller sample sizes.

 

Who cares? Quads are consistently more damage than RFLs. If you actually get to tunnel a target, RFLs are easily your worst gun.

 

Fun facts:

At 0 degrees and 500m:

BLC->117%

LLC->110%

RFL->110%

 

At 15 degrees and 2000m:

BLC->94%

LLC->88%

RFL->87%

 

RFL sucks under all circumstances.

 

(In other words you don't have to worry about the RNG gods blessing you.)

 

So you are more likely to deal a small amount of damage- the small amount of damage that your enemy planned on you doing. You are less likely to crit his face for 1300 and kill him, which he can't just pretend you'll do every time (and if he did, he would have to play worse in general). In fact, crits work best with big blasts, so as to generate uncounterable damage. Without that, it's just an extra couple hundred over the course of a a strafing run- totally inconsequential.

 

 

 

Don't tell people this gun is good. It isn't. Stop using it, in fact. Read my post, do some math on why it is so inaccurate (the base accuracy of the gun is crap- losing 0.8 instead 1 means nothing when your base at every range except 500m exactly is so much worse).

Edited August 21, 2014 by Verain

[Verain]

I don't think I've ever actually used fully upgraded RFL, so I may stick with them on a few ships just to see what it's like.

 

The problem is that the weapon is hard to use, but even if used perfectly, is poor. Yes, it's fun on a stock ship. But if you are playing a for reals ship, you switch off immediately.

[Asbetos]

The biggest issue with RFLs is that the meta revolves around burst damage. Whilst it may have higher sustained damage, it takes ages to kill something with them. Just imagine shooting a sat humping bomber with them: you get a few shots in and he's back behind cover for a few sec - enough to restore enough shields to make your shots right next to useless, or a scout: maybe you even get his shields down, but he got warned early enough to react and get the heck out of RFLs range (an easy task).

 

To compare that with Quads: scout shields are obliterated in what, 2-3 shots? That's hardly enough time to react for most pilots.

 

I was thinking about using them on my T1 Strike, but for reasons stated above I'm not ready to give up Quads and I'm not ready to give up Heavies because I want to be able to 3-shot turrets or finish off people with low hp, but high shields.

[tommmsunb]

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=7213927

 

 

My post linked there is correct. Your post is garbage.

 

 

 

.

 

I'd take you seriously if you were good at this game but instead you insist on playing on the forums. Maybe if you were the slightest bit polite I'd take you seriously but as it stands its impossible to take you seriously.

 

You're basing off of numbers that aren't taking into consideration flightstyle adjustments. Certainly if you keep in mind your current flightstyle, you won't be able to do anything better because you're already optimizing for that flightstyle.

 

I'd take the time to respond to your post in full but it would seem you don't really understand the difference between advertised and actual product value and I'd end up wasting my time.

Edited August 21, 2014 by tommmsunb

[tommmsunb]

The problem is that the weapon is hard to use, but even if used perfectly, is poor. Yes, it's fun on a stock ship. But if you are playing a for reals ship, you switch off immediately.

 

Then how come when used perfectly I can vastly exceed my average quad DPS which has historically been the best since launch?

 

And how can you possibly claim to know perfect when you yourself skirt average at best?

 

And if you're asking why I'm flaming you and calling you out, aren't you yourself the self-advertised "Most despicable person on the GSF forum."? You should be well aware of your own shortcomings.

 

Do everyone a favor and post experimental evidence and not simply theoretical evidence. This game is already broken as hell and doesn't have accurate tooltips by any standards. For instance the damage cap claims to give a 10% difference in damage dealt I notice a 25% difference in damage dealt? (approximately 360 per hit on average to 450 on average. Keeping everything else the same.)

 

And in response to your final point. I'm not telling people to use it. I'm telling them not to discount and ignore it.

Edited August 21, 2014 by tommmsunb

[Kuciwalker]

Moving on, why do people consider RFL bad?

 

Math.

[Kuciwalker]

Then how come when used perfectly I can vastly exceed my average quad DPS which has historically been the best since launch?

 

And how can you possibly claim to know perfect when you yourself skirt average at best?

 

And if you're asking why I'm flaming you and calling you out, aren't you yourself the self-advertised "Most despicable person on the GSF forum."? You should be well aware of your own shortcomings.

 

Do everyone a favor and post experimental evidence and not simply theoretical evidence. This game is already broken as hell and doesn't have accurate tooltips by any standards. For instance the damage cap claims to give a 10% difference in damage dealt I notice a 25% difference in damage dealt? (approximately 360 per hit on average to 450 on average. Keeping everything else the same.)

 

And in response to your final point. I'm not telling people to use it. I'm telling them not to discount and ignore it.

 

Dude, the math is objective. We have absolutely no reason to believe the basic tooltips for accuracy at range, dps, spm, and tracking penalty are wrong. All of the tooltip weirdness is related to ancillary effects and/or dots.

 

Experimental evidence unneeded, but if you really want it I'll observe that I pretty directly compared my experience with T5 RFL to T5 LLC on NovaDive and founds LLC to consistently and noticeably superior.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Kuciwalker

[tommmsunb]

Dude, the math is objective. We have absolutely no reason to believe the basic tooltips for accuracy at range, dps, spm, and tracking penalty are wrong. All of the tooltip weirdness is related to ancillary effects and/or dots.

 

Experimental evidence unneeded, but if you really want it I'll observe that I pretty directly compared my experience with T5 RFL to T5 LLC on NovaDive and founds LLC to consistently and noticeably superior.

 

Math is not objective when based off of faulty constants.

 

Furthermore experimental evidence will vary on a person by person basis. By no means did I ever say that everybody should use it. Simply not to discount it. I maintain my previous position.

[Kuciwalker]

Math is not objective when based off of faulty constants.

 

We have absolutely no reason to believe the basic tooltips for accuracy at range, dps, spm, and tracking penalty are wrong. All of the tooltip weirdness is related to ancillary effects and/or dots.

 

5char

[Kuciwalker]

In terms of design space, "low power consumption" is clearly the intended niche for RFL, and it's a ****** niche for everyone with decent (manual) accuracy.

[tommmsunb]

In terms of design space, "low power consumption" is clearly the intended niche for RFL, and it's a ****** niche for everyone with decent (manual) accuracy.

 

For those of us with minimal deadtime we don't have time to waste on recharging.

[Verain]

I'd take you seriously if you were good at this game but instead you insist on playing on the forums.

 

If all you have is worthless ad hominems, you have nothing.

 

But then, you made a post talking about how great RFL is, so I knew that already.

 

 

I'm not really sure why you wouldn't think I play, however. You may have noticed that I've been a bit busy and haven't been obliterating you on TEH as often as before (that would be on Vailx), but I continue to play plenty on Bastion, our home server. Once my work calms down, I'm sure we'll be back to erasing you as normal.

 

Certainly if you keep in mind your current flightstyle, you won't be able to do anything better because you're already optimizing for that flightstyle.

 

So here your claim is that I might be "flying wrong" for RFL. You'll note that I address this in the post I linked, which has math in it (unlike yours). My core argument is that even if you fly RFL perfectly, you would still be much better off with any other laser (on a scout).

 

But, at this point, I don't actually believe that I fly RFL THAT much shy of optimal. Certainly I don't think that my RFL play has some delta between me and optimal play that other lasers don't share.

 

Additionally, since we are discussing such theoretical and sharp skill caps, I will point out that you are not very high on that list- having flown against you, I simply don't see anything exceptional there. And of aces that are consistently ludicrous in damage, none of them swear by RFL, despite all of them having vastly more playtime than you. There's no conspiracy against the laser. It just is bad.

 

If I had made that post and Stasie was like "well actually I can do this trick with RFL", I'd have been all over it. The fact of the matter is:

 

> The damage RFL does off center is very bad.

> The damage RFL does at range is very bad.

> It takes several seconds- on the order of three or more- for RFL to do performance even similar to the dps value. Other lasers deliver so much more upfront that even if their actual dps was nerfed down to RFL, they would still be better until, after a long time, RFL tied them. Of course, RFL never ties them. It just sucks less after a long time.

> RFL requires holding the reticule over the target, which assuming you do perfectly (a skill req not found on other guns), you get no reward for. For a gun to have such a high skill cap and be tuned so low is awful.

> The only ship that can make anything out of RFL is the Type 1 Strike. If LLC was available, RFL would have no use there either.

> Any scout using RFL should instead use LLC. If you look at your damage potential as a cone in front of you, and the brightness of that cone as the damage done, the RFL cone is far dimmer at almost every point than the LLC cone- even ones at the edges. Even in the cases where RFL technically wins on dps by a couple percect, these situations are so awful (aka, 25 degrees deflection at exactly 500m) that you won't really be able to do anything during them regardless, and having LLC would have been a better call- because you actually only have time for exactly ONE shot, meaning that the LLC is STILL more damage, just because an LLC shot is so much more powerful than an RFL shot.

 

 

For those of us with minimal deadtime we don't have time to waste on recharging.

 

This is just so ludicrous. I do think if you are going to spend your time here arguing, you should at least go with the energy cost argument, because it is literally the only thing the gun has going for it. It is CLEARLY designed around this, too- the worst gun in all situations, but it is kind to the battery.

 

I address this in my post. The only ships that really have issues going out of mana are gunships (who get terrible damage per energy), and quad laser ships (who have the least efficient gun), and even in that situation, the quad laser ship is likely not dragging nose to target like he should be- and ofc, the RFL ship also needs to do that anyway.

 

 

But, no one can argue with this one detail- RFLs can shoot for a long time. I can't imagine, given how fast guns recharge when not shooting, that this should be a real concern, however.

 

Then how come when used perfectly I can vastly exceed my average quad DPS which has historically been the best since launch?

 

Given that this whole thread is you deluding yourself and attempting to delude others, I'm assuming that you are selectively choosing what to remember. It's thinly possible that you spend so much time at high deflections that quads are worse for you than a short range gun, in which case you should be using LLC or BLC- never RFL.

 

Your experience- which appears to be entirely based on what you are remembering- is not a very reliable guide.

 

Do everyone a favor and post experimental evidence and not simply theoretical evidence.

 

I mean, we've played so many games. It's not like we never use RFL. It's just awful when we do. Just the other day Stasie was like RFLS GOGO and so we all picked RFL ships and made the screen shine with rapid duck quacks- but it was so hard to do anything, and that was everyone's opinion.

 

The bigger thing is, how would you control for it? And of course you can't. You also suddenly want "experimental evidence", whereas before you were so happy to quote the 0.8 deflection bonus as being great, because you know that I've done the math, the math is correct, and it shows your position to be harmful.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Verain

[Armonddd]

And how can you possibly claim to know perfect when you yourself skirt average at best?

 

Dude, we really don't need even more ad hominem on the forums. Everyone here is bigger than that.

 

Verain has posted plenty of math explaining why LLCs are superior to RFLs in every situation except the one where you're in a double premade having a lark filling the sky with lasers (RFLs, BO, frequency cap). He even expounded on it here, offering clarifications I don't recall from his old thread (but I'm on limited data right now, so I won't check). I'm not saying all he does is holy and we should worship the gunship he snipes from, and I definitely think he could stand to do something about his tone, but he deserves better, as do the lurkers reading this thread in an attempt to improve at the game. Saying "I'd take you seriously if you were good at this game but instead you insist on playing on the forums" is the reverse of productive and helps helps neither your argument nor your credibility.

 

I also disagree with your analysis. I think energy drain is a relatively minor positive for pilots with a moderate amount of experience (20%+ blaster accuracy). I think expecting a target to be alive after unloading a full blaster pool into them -- with any weapon -- is indicative of poor play or powerball-level luck more than anything else. I think expecting to be able to unload that much laser power into a single target without interference is unreasonable in the first place. I think managing your energy via choosing your shots carefully is the hallmark of a good pilot, and thus the damage per energy statistic is nearly insignificant at the level of play required to make RFLs notable.

 

Perhaps most importantly, I think damage now is better than damage later -- which is why we see bursty weapons, like BLCs and slugs, used more often than longer-term weapons, such as RFLs and plasma railguns.

 

Do everyone a favor and post experimental evidence and not simply theoretical evidence. This game is already broken as hell and doesn't have accurate tooltips by any standards. For instance the damage cap claims to give a 10% difference in damage dealt I notice a 25% difference in damage dealt? (approximately 360 per hit on average to 450 on average. Keeping everything else the same.)

 

This is a valid point, but unfortunately it's anecdotal evidence. Two can play at that game. Back when I switched from damage capacitor to range capacitor with BLCs, I noticed a relatively little difference in damage. I went from scoring 1.2k crits to 1.1k crits. Now, if you're claiming that a recent update has made a big difference, that's something I'm willing to investigate... but that's likely a bug, not something we should expect. More importantly, however, it has nothing to do with RFLs as they compare to other lasers.

 

You have a very impressive DPS record that I seriously respect and admire. It's almost twice my post-2.8 personal best, and it's significantly more than my old personal bests. But I don't think that or your consistently higher DPS are related to RFLs as you imply; I think instead you might be getting into more favorable matches and/or spending more time on target. (The best way to increase DPS is to decrease time.)

 

And in response to your final point. I'm not telling people to use it. I'm telling them not to discount and ignore it.

 

This is another very important point. We on the forums tend to be optimizers: we take the best options available and disregard the rest. This is why I consider there to be only one viable build per ship (at least for the three scouts, the T1 gunship, the T3 strike, and the T1 bomber). On the other hand, it's important to remember that a skilled pilot can do very well with any component, as you yourself have demonstrated.

 

But just because I can score 15+ kills with RLFs, plasma railguns, ion missiles, or any other component, doesn't mean those components are, by comparison good components. In fact, that's a redundant statement; good and bad are, by their very natures, comparative descriptors.

 

RFLs are, in my opinion and the opinions of a number of other skilled pilots, a bad component. They may be 5% worse than the competition, or they may be 50% worse than the competition, but given how low the opportunity cost is, they are still bad.

[Armonddd]

Rapid Fire Lasers

Damage at 1000m is 980 dps. Accuracy at 1000m is 105%. 20 degrees, we ignore the first 5% with a talent, and then 15*0.8 is -12% for that.

So we have 980 dps with 93% base accuracy. We don't ignore armor. If we are shooting at some guy with 10% evasion, our average damage is: 813.

 

(snip)

 

Quad Laser Cannon

Damage at 1000m is 1024 dps. Accuracy at 1000m is 107%. 20 degrees, is a massive -30%.

So we have 1024 dps with 77% base accuracy. We don't ignore armor. If we are shooting at some guy with 10% evasion, our average damage is: 686.

 

RFLs- which have a range of over 4000m, a very strong dps, decent burst damage, and blow up RFS in a straight fight, are beat by a 20% margin in this highly stacked test.

 

I'm confused -- are you saying that 686 EDPS is 20% larger than 813 EDPS?

 

Also, I don't think you're including pinpointing. I could be wrong, but if I'm not, I expect that would stack things against RFLs a bit more.

[Nemarus]

Yuuko, you keep comparing Rapids to Quads.

 

I do think there is a significant difference between these weapons, such that either one favors a certain flying and targeting style. That's true of any weapons with 4000m range (and no range upgrade) vs. weapons with 5000m range and a range upgrade. The former are meant for close range, high angle fighting. The latter are meant for mid-range, low angle fighting.

 

But we haven't really seen you say anything about LLC's, the other short-range, high angle weapon. And that's the point that we're all making--LLC's to the same job as Rapids but do it better.

 

Have you spent any time using LLC's? I bet if you did, you'd see they are really quite a bit more effective at killing than Rapids.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, Rapids vs Quads is a silly argument. Rapids vs LLC is the correct comparison unless you are talking about T1 Strikes.

[StrixHiraeth]

I use rapid fire lasers on one ship, my Sting. I do this for one simple and undeniable reason: it looks much, much cooler than the other primary weapon options. No matter what you say, my Sting looks ******.

[FridgeLM]

I'd take you seriously if you were good at this game but instead you insist on playing on the forums. Maybe if you were the slightest bit polite I'd take you seriously but as it stands its impossible to take you seriously.

 

You're basing off of numbers that aren't taking into consideration flightstyle adjustments. Certainly if you keep in mind your current flightstyle, you won't be able to do anything better because you're already optimizing for that flightstyle.

 

I'd take the time to respond to your post in full but it would seem you don't really understand the difference between advertised and actual product value and I'd end up wasting my time.

 

There is no flight style adjustment possible in the game as it exists right now that makes RFLs better than any alternative a ship can equip. This is because your opponents will still be flying the correct way - evasively. Your time on target will be garbage, which destroys all the dubious advantages of RFLs.

 

That he's rude doesn't make his point any less correct. RFLs are the single worst laser in the entire game and nobody should use them. That they're equipped by default on the two starter ships is, I'd argue, a serious reason why more people don't play the game: they do almost no damage in their first few matches, get blown up by people using good lasers, and quit.

[Camelpockets]

So much drama.

[TheGreatSatan]

. RFLs are the single worst laser in the entire game and nobody should use them. That they're equipped by default on the two starter ships is, I'd argue, a serious reason why more people don't play the game: they do almost no damage in their first few matches, get blown up by people using good lasers, and quit.

 

Yeah, that really is a problem. I mean, it's just one part of why some people get turned off of GSF, but it really doesn't help things that both of the two ships immediately available to newbies use the worst gun in the game.

 

Which RFL definitely is.

 

Can you kill things with it? Sure. If you're really good and use it perfectly, can it be deadly? Sure. Is there ever a situation where it's better than LLC or BLC? No. There's no reason to be tickling people to death with RFL when you could be blowing them to hell in a second or two with other weapons (unless you just really love the way it looks/sounds, which is admittedly pretty damn cool).

[Verain]

I will say that their presence on the Starguard isn't so bad. Not to say that LLCs wouldn't be a better choice, but the ship DOES start with a non-rfl option.

 

But it's important to note that the devs consider this gun to be noob friendly. And it super isn't. The idea (I think) is that the new player will start shooting at an enemy, and notice which actions make numbers pop up, something that is easier with a faster rate of fire.

 

Unfortunately, this doesn't really help. It's a valid choice to choose sustain over burst (even though the reverse is normally optimal in pvp), but that isn't really the choice being made, as RFL don't have either of those things- but much more importantly, it's actually extremely difficult to hold a reticule on target, such that only very solid players get what they want out of this gun. It has a high skill floor AND a high skill cap AND is objectively extremely situational, and beyond the twin advantages of "doesn't cost much" and "serves as a tracer round by making a small number pop up and teaching a noob where he should shoot" (an advantage pretty much trashed by the lack of "evade" text on a shot aimed successfully by a player but rolled as a miss by the combat engine), it has no purpose. It's a high skill gun with no reward for that skill, which is pretty much just crap.

 

 

 

I think that the question of new player retention is deeper, and the RFL thing is part of it. Specifically:

> New players are started with very specialized ships.

> New player ships have MANY traps, and START with trap components.

> Combat system needs to tell "evade" so a new player knows what is going on. When any correctly aimed shot produces combat text, he'll quickly learn which shots are meaningless (firing rapids at 8km)

> New player ships have no armor piercing. A copilot ability with this as a temporary ability could solve it, along with non-new player issues.

> New player copilot ability defaults are terrible, and new players don't know enough to pick the good ones.

> UI doesn't help you understand what's going on, especially as regards enemy gunships and mines. Mines could use an explosion graphic that is accurate and visible- why does an exploding turret make a smoke cloud that kills tons of pilots, but an exploding mine is just a tiny little pwoof? Anything that points to gunships is a nerf to them, of course, and could need compensation, but maybe that would be worth it.

> Gunships not available to most new players until req is earned.

> Bombers not available to new players until req is earned.

> Game presents you with a cartel path to make a shortcut (ship to fleet) that can be both expensive and can be a trap. It also seems to present this option to you very quickly, which can stress a newb out.

> Unlocking a level 0 version of a component should be free or 100 req, not 2000 req. In theory, all the options are power-neutral (or that WOULD be the case, ideally), and the upgrades hold the power. By gating each component behind a pretty powerful cost, a noob is encouraged to tunnel components instead of try them all. A newb who plays his rycer for two games, his blackbolt for two games, has no real upgrade options available unless he KNOWS what "build" he is going for, and mostly doesn't have much req at all. A newb who realizes that his ship has a BUNCH of things to try will do exactly that, and develop a preference- AND PLAY MORE MATCHES to figure that out. By then, he's much more likely to have hooked. If you look at "power dive", "snap turn", "koigran turn", and "barrel roll", all at level 0 for free, you are MUCH more likely to try a game with each, to see if you can find the "right" one. And you could easily decide that you like one of the others more than barrel roll, but you're playing more games to figure it out. Who wants to drop so much req, when 1000 req is a lot to you?

 

 

 

Any of those would be helpful. The free level 0 component one and the evade text are the two biggest, however- I truly feel those would up player retention and stickiness, by encouraging more games and by making the game engine palpable.

[StealthNerf]

Yeah the initial purchase cost of components is pretty painful. Especially when many seem balanced around having the level 1 upgrade that you also need to shell out for to get the right feel of the component. You don't want to run direction shields without the level 1 upgrade that stops switches eating your shield, torpedoes without the reduced lock on time, repair probes without the 30 second cooldown reduction etc. Edited August 23, 2014 by StealthNerf

[Asbetos]

To get back on the RFLs topic a little... I've tried them on a T1 strike last night for 5-6 games. While they are the only lasers available to a T1 strike that can reliably hit at short range (apart from ions), they are just 1 big joke. Using them is like scratching someone to death. Sure, you'll have high damage and high dps, but most of it will go to shields and you won't really kill much. The only thing they're good for is messing around .