|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
966
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 13:12:00 -
[1] - Quote
I find this whole idea so utterly ridiculous that I simply don't know what to say or where to begin. I'll echo others though in saying that this "ancillary module" fetish you guys seem to have needs to go. Quickly. It was an acceptable mechanic on the tanking modules because they only used one kind of charge and you could fit them alongside standard non-fueled modules to cover the reload gap.
I'm almost completely sure this change wasn't thought through quite as much as you think it was. Much better to not introduce RHMLs than to do this. Or cut the damage increase in half and give them a 20-sec reload time.
By the way, Rise, I saw that little trick you did there using Fury-type T2 kinetic missiles on kinetic-bonused hulls to artificially inflate the DPS numbers. How about some numbers with T1 thermal missiles? |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
966
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 13:24:00 -
[2] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:By the way, Rise, I saw that little trick you did there using Fury-type T2 kinetic missiles on kinetic-bonused hulls to artificially inflate the DPS numbers. How about some numbers with T1 thermal missiles? You're not nearly as clever as you think you are.
No desire to be clever. I actually thought it was pretty obvious, but nobody had mentioned it yet so I decided I would. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
969
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 00:05:00 -
[3] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Gypsio III wrote: Any change that makes a weapon system simultaneously hated by both sides in an engagement probably isn't the right one.
Not empty quoting. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
972
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 09:21:00 -
[4] - Quote
Ransu Asanari wrote: So to be able to use missile ships, you have to train all races, which is an expensive proposition, and needing multiple races is usually only needed for pirate faction ship bonuses. Speaking of which, I'm hoping when the pirate ship rebalance happens, the Worm and will be as useful as a Daredevil or Dramiel. Since Blood Raiders, Sansha, and now Sisters of EVE ships are bonused to Energy Turrets, and Guristas are mostly used as drone boats, there might be some opportunity here as well.
Hopefully this was more constructive and less of a rant.
I pretty much agree with everything, but I wanted to point out one little detail - Sisters of EVE are bonused to drones, not lasers. The Astero has no laser bonus at all and the Stratios has it as a role bonus. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
974
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 20:08:00 -
[5] - Quote
I'm almost completely certain he's addressing CCP.
As for Rise considering PvE applications of RLMLs, I wouldn't count on the PvE applications of anything being a high priority to anyone at CCP. Except maybe CCP Ytterbium. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
974
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 21:07:00 -
[6] - Quote
To be honest, I doubt this thread is actually intended for us to give feedback in. More like it's a "this change is happening no matter what, but now you know about it in advance" sort of thing. Especially when our concerns are either waved aside or taken as validation that it's a good idea. Whatever, it's not important what the devs do, we'll just deal with it and find other weapon systems to use instead and when they break those for being 'too popular" we'll use something else after that.
The idea of a 40-sec reload creating "interesting choices" and "spikes of tension" seems like too much PR Buzzword Kool-Aid is going around. Mostly I think it's going to result in people annihilating poorly-fitted opponents within the reserves of ammo, becoming very frustrated with the 40-sec reload or attempting to stagger their missile groups and finding the DPS insufficient to justify not using any other sort of missile system. In the first situation people will love the change but in the second two situations people will like it somewhat less.
On the bright side, maybe this will make people like those kinetic-bonused hulls a bit more. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
974
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 21:11:00 -
[7] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Or you can start fitting frigate weapons to your cruiser hulls to do more dps.
Somehow I think that's just what might start happening.
The RLML Cerb is dead. Long live the LML Cerb. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
974
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 21:22:00 -
[8] - Quote
Mhari Dson wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Or you can start fitting frigate weapons to your cruiser hulls to do more dps. Somehow I think that's just what might start happening. The RLML Cerb is dead. Long live the LML Cerb. also makes the LML + XLASB caracal an idea
You horrible, evil person. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
976
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 23:45:00 -
[9] - Quote
The burst ability is quite nice, provided you can finish what you came to do before having to reload.
If you have to reload, the burst ability is... well.. not so nice. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
977
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 03:20:00 -
[10] - Quote
Except that leaving the existing RLMLs alone will not force people to abandon RLMLs and go back to using HMLs like CCP Rise wants. |
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
978
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 03:37:00 -
[11] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Except that leaving the existing RLMLs alone will not force people to abandon RLMLs and go back to using HMLs like CCP Rise wants. Buffing HMLs would on the other hand, but apparently that's asking too much.
Apparently it is. 'Tis a pity.
Though, I guess HMLs don't need a buff because someone somewhere is using them for something. Perhaps the metrics have to show literally zero use of a weapon system before it's considered as "too unpopular". |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
978
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 04:46:00 -
[12] - Quote
Ion Blacknight wrote:This does not answer the concern of why you are implementing something no one wants to replace something no one is complaining about.
Judging by past responses, the fact that nobody has complained about them is clearly some kind of definitive evidence that they do in fact desperately need to be nerfed. Or something like that, I guess.
You see, in a properly-balanced game, every weapon system is equally terrible so that everyone is complaining about something and all things are being complained about relatively equally. If nobody is complaining about a particular weapon system, there must be something overpowered about it. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
978
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 04:53:00 -
[13] - Quote
I should probably mention that my immediate previous post is 100% sarcasm. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
978
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 05:53:00 -
[14] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:~Words~
That was amazing. You get a like for "rotten shark".
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
980
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 12:22:00 -
[15] - Quote
I think it would be fine to leave the battleship bonuses limited to the hulls they're already on if the RHMLs themselves were left alone.
Instead, the on-size missile types need to apply damage well enough to be a significantly better choice for same-size-and-larger. If Cruises apply their damage about as well as HMLs, that says to me that perhaps HMLs need to apply damage better.
Carts are being put significantly before horses at CCP. HMLs were nerfed on account of being significantly better than all other long-range medium weapon systems and then those same weapon systems were buffed; that should have immediately scheduled HMLs for re-consideration following an observation of the newly-buffed weapon types.
Honestly, it doesn't matter how cool RHMLs are; they should not be introduced until such time as CCP is ready and has the resources to do a full weapons-module tiericide, specifically for the reasons we're seeing now. That RHML gap has existed for as long as there have been RLMLs and the game has done just fine; it can continue a bit longer without them until all the weapons - and especially ammo - can get a proper rebalancing and tiericide pass. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
980
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 12:29:00 -
[16] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:the jury wrote:all eve pilots want is the RLML's to be left alone and the RHML's to be given the 1st set of stats but include all battleship bonuses I'd rather they just fixed missiles
Basically this. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
985
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 17:05:00 -
[17] - Quote
Scooter6976 wrote: the OP at least was better timed than say, the marauder thread, since only 1 1/2 weeks is hardly enough time for the playerbase to mount 200+ pgs of rage, properly earning ccp rise a good thumping on his brow. To his credit, he is at least learning from his past mistakes! just /o\
Don't underestimate us.
Note: Emphasis mine for clarity. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
985
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 17:31:00 -
[18] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:As missiles have the least amount of options that's a lie
In terms of ammunition, missiles have quite a few options. In terms of launchers, they're all pretty much the same within a size class and range type. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
994
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 21:53:00 -
[19] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Not a good idea Rise. And have the real bad feeling you are just gonna push this thru anyway. It's basically gonna be "loot bukkake" all over again. Tossed up on the forums a couple weeks before release. Player base tells you it's a horrible idea. Gets pushed thru anyway. Becomes a horrible game mechanic that players avoid. All this has happened, and will happen again.
"... I can tell you that this is one of the moments where we look at what our players do and less of what they say."
They pushed loot scatter through and now it's like this:
"I fully intend to look in to removing scattering from all sites, but that wasn't going to fit into this release as we also need to take a look at the loot tables for all exploration sites." - CCP Affinity
I wonder if this will turn out the same way. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
995
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 23:11:00 -
[20] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Kat Ayclism wrote:That's not an issue of the RLMLs it's an imbalance issue of the heavies. nope
What an eloquent and insightful post. |
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
996
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 01:53:00 -
[21] - Quote
Leokokim wrote:A lot of knowledgeable people postet true stuff here.
RLML are used because the alternatives, HAMs and HMs aren't good enough as of now.
And imho the two best statements in this thread:
>> a weapons system hated by both sides of the attack is a bad weapon system.
>> a Cerb doing more sustained DPS with frig weapons instead of cruiser weapons.
How I anticipate this post will be responded to:
The ~metrics~ show lots of people using HAMs and HMLs so they must not be as bad as we think they are.
>> One side's concerns aren't that big a deal and the other side's concerns validate that this change is urgently needed right now.
>> Working as intended because of front-loaded burst damage.
---
Naturally, I hope I'm wrong. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
998
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 02:56:00 -
[22] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:With (now) 8 days to go, we've got a sole dev update? Honestly I don't even know why we have these forums. The premise is that the interaction is supposed to be somewhat cathartic, but following these forums seems more akin to reading the obituaries (every time there's an update, we know something's died; we just hope it's not related to us).
It's been Sunday all day and now it's finally Monday in Iceland. As of this post it's just about 3am at CCP HQ; let people do things like get out of bed and eat breakfast and maybe even unlock the front door at CCP so people can get into the building.
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
998
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 03:14:00 -
[23] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:It's been Sunday all day and now it's finally Monday in Iceland. As of this post it's just about 3am at CCP HQ; let people do things like get out of bed and eat breakfast and maybe even unlock the front door at CCP so people can get into the building. 8 days until Rubicon and you don't think people aren't working weekends and putting in OT? (they should be if they're not) And since when is the above a prerequisite to posting a simple update which can be done remotely from virtually anywhere at any time? I'm not the one that pulled the proverbial rabbit out of the hat mere days before a major release, either.
8 days until Rubicon and I'm pretty sure people aren't working Sundays and coming in at 3am, yes. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1007
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 05:40:00 -
[24] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:8 days until Rubicon and I'm pretty sure people aren't working Sundays and coming in at 3am on Monday morning, yes. At the very least, I sincerely hope they're not working 7 days a week and putting in 20-hour days. That would make for some significantly bad results. Pretty sure they are putting in substantial OT (would be very surprised if they weren't). You don't have to work 20/7 to post a simple update, so please stop trying to equate this with third-world slave labour. Again, I'm not the one that introduced the proposed change at this stage - and the RHML thread was all but ignored for the past month. I'm already prepared for this being implemented as is, and am not realistically expecting any substantial dialog on changes.
Please stop mischaracterizing my post. I'm not sure where you got any notions of third-world slave labor, but they could not have been from me. I'm certain there's a degree of OT being applied as well, it's just that I don't think they're applying it at 3 in the morning or on Sundays. I too am a bit concerned with the overall feel that this was revealed as an 11th-hour change and has had little communication - and that what communication we've gotten has seemed more-or-less totally dismissive of anything we've said.
Perhaps this is me simply misinterpreting things, but I'm not altogether sure Rise is entirely as receptive to feedback as he was before or could be. Especially not when he pre-nerfs ships before they're even available to test, saying "this is probably the last change before they go live".
Now you see why I said what I said before - I don't really think this thread is intended to get feedback so much as to prevent people saying that they weren't told changes were coming.
Debir Achen wrote:CCP Rise wrote: You still have the option to switch as you run out of charges and would be reloading anyway. But this highlights a couple of issues in the reloading mechanics. (1) I'm not aware of a way to say "finish the current loadout, then auto-reload with X". (2) I'm not aware of a way to say "Stop reloading with X, and reload with Y", except by initiating a session change. Now, #1 can be worked around by setting the launcher to manual reload, but that's annoying, and costs extra time during the reload cycle rather than allowing you to make the decision earlier and then have the launcher auto-execute. #2 is annoying with a 5-10 second reload time, but really painful with a 40 second reload time (i.e. 80 seconds to get the ammo you actually wanted into your launcher).
If I'm understanding correctly, Rise probably meant that you can disable auto-reload and manually choose your next ammo type or that you can leave auto-reload on, stop your launchers with one missile left in them and choose your new ammo type, thus initiating a full reload. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1007
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 06:00:00 -
[25] - Quote
Edwin McAlister wrote:why don't they tweek with the explosive radius / explosive velocity and perhaps base damage of the ammunition instead of drastic **** everyone off type of changes
or....
stop with ALL missile weapon systems changes currently in progress... initiate a full total 100% from ground up restructure of the missile combat system with possible release in spring time
The second choice sounds better and really does need to be done. Hopefully someone with a bit of authority over at CCP will agree and say "Wait a minute, let's not add that new weapon system just yet and instead let's go over missiles and launchers and their damage/application formula with a fine-toothed comb and make sure we're happy with all of it before we start adding more launchers. We'll release the missile rebalance as a point release and RHMLs in the point release after that." |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1008
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 06:44:00 -
[26] - Quote
Bob Niac wrote:I am thinking this is going to be pushed back to a future patch. WAAAY too much negative feedback.
While I (and I would assume many others in this thread) hope you're right, somehow I don't think that will be the case... |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1017
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 13:24:00 -
[27] - Quote
Volstruis wrote:Super interesting point (with special thanks to Wolf Crendraven for pointing this out)
If you split them into 2 groups, and fire one until complete, then fire the others til complete, it basically works out exactly the same as it is now.
At which point you're better off fitting LMLs to your cruiser and just operating them normally. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1018
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 13:43:00 -
[28] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Volstruis wrote:Super interesting point (with special thanks to Wolf Crendraven for pointing this out)
If you split them into 2 groups, and fire one until complete, then fire the others til complete, it basically works out exactly the same as it is now. At which point you're better off fitting LMLs to your cruiser and just operating them normally. Higher sustained DPS and room to fit a massive tank. That's true only for cruisers without bonuses to RLML, the Scythe Navy Issue and Osprey Navy Issue IIRC. All the others have 5% rof bonus which make them 25% faster than LML. Having RLML in this case also allow you to use both groups for burst fire mode. Kane Fenris wrote:i know it just simply that those 2 drone wont make a diffrence if the frig can survive 1 clip from the RLML We are talking about 2k of applyed damage which make a difference between a living and dead frigate, so those two drones can definitely make the difference ; moreover if this is the second or third lightly tanked frigate you are exploding. As always, drones are either considered OP, like in the Stratios thread, or useless, like here.
It's not "burst fire mode" if you're not bursting all your fire.
Worded somewhat better, it's not burst fire if you're only using half of your weapons. Then it's just a management-heavy version of sustained fire. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1018
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 13:47:00 -
[29] - Quote
HazeInADaze wrote:Why not nerf the baseline RoF then buff overheat? That way reload isn't affected but the trade off between damage and downtime remains.
Or, better yet, address the fact that unless the target is significantly larger or sufficiently webbed, missiles do poor damage. Then we would be less inclined to use rapid launchers. Without going to web range in my caracal, rapid lights simply out perform medium missiles vs cruiser or lower targets. But if I do go to web range, the resource consumption of rapid lights allows me to have the tank needed for close range combat. So rapids win again.
Rapid should be useful vs dessies and frigs, HAM and HML should be better vs cruiser. Neither should be completely worthless against the ship class it is not designed to kill. And resource consumption should be balanced so comparable tanks can be fit
I agree. Missiles (not their launchers but the missiles themselves) should be balanced so that it seems silly to try and use frigate-sized missiles against a cruiser-sized target. The only trouble comes when a missile frigate is suddenly more-or-less useless against a cruiser. I still feel the answer is to have a look at the damage formula and the missiles' damage application rather than trying to artificially create places for missiles, which is what we have going on here. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1018
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 15:19:00 -
[30] - Quote
Chessur wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: That's true only for cruisers without bonuses to RLML, the Scythe Navy Issue and Osprey Navy Issue IIRC.
Both of these have bonuses to RLM, which you might know if you pvped. Those ships have bonus to light missiles, not RLML. You would see the difference if you ceased to be an arrogant *******. Wow, you are so, so wrong. Get out of this thread. And stop shitting up the worthwhile conversations going on here- with your mind blowing misinformed ideas. Scythe fleet, and Osprey Navy both have bonuses. Maybe if you pvped, you would know these things. Or maybe if you actually had an up to date EFT, you would know these things. PS. RLMLs shoot light missiles, its not a seperate ammo type that fits into those launchers. The only ship that does not have bonuses applied to RLML's is the CNI.
Pardon me, sir, but according to EFT v2.20.3 (release date 17 Oct 2013) the Caracal Navy has a bonus to RLML RoF (as does the normal Caracal), not the Osprey Navy which has 10% to HAM/Heavy velocity and 10%kin/5% other damage per level.
Also according to my EFT, the Scythe Fleet has 10% M Projectile Turret and 10% Missile damage per level. Apparently any type of missile.
I would have taken the data right from SiSi, but "short unexpected reboot". |
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1018
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 15:25:00 -
[31] - Quote
Chessur wrote: Wow, I am so, so wrong. I'll get out of this thread. And stop shitting up the worthwhile conversations going on here- with my mind blowing misinformed ideas.
Perhaps this is what you meant to write, instead? |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1019
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 16:15:00 -
[32] - Quote
Madbuster73 wrote: WORST IDEA EVER!!!!
What a spectacular post. Care to expand on it so that Rise might take you at least a little seriously? |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1019
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 16:28:00 -
[33] - Quote
Cordelia Mulholland IV wrote:Hello CCP Rise
I had a think about this for a few minutes over the weekend. Have you considered this:
Give rapid launchers a bigger overheating bonus than is usual so that their DPS increases more than other launchers when heated. Make the their normal DPS sub-par but make their over heated bonus above par.
This way, no annoying and limiting downtime whilst changing ammo but the desired effect of good burst DPS and not so good average DPS is retained.
Goodbye.
I do enjoy overheating modules. I actually enjoy it quite a lot. I wish the heat measurement system was 1,000 times more precise than it is now but that's a subject for a different thread.
I don't have any links to support this, but I do seem to recall various CCP members saying at different times that they'd like to see more expansion on the notion of overheating - in combat and in general. If you're looking to create "interesting choices" and "spikes of tension" then give us the "interesting choice" of whether to overheat or continue having sub-par DPS and the "tension" of wondering whether or not we'll be able to kill our target/get that last volley of missiles in before the launchers burn out completely.
I don't know about others, but I would support this absolutely - even though I would continue to clamor for missiles as a whole to undergo a complete top-to-bottom re-evaluation. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1034
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 13:06:00 -
[34] - Quote
In this thread we learn that Rise prefers to get his balancing feedback from external forums and only posts here to troll us and/or for posterity.
CCP Rise: If you find this thread difficult to interact with, perhaps it's worth considering how your replies, seeming to have such a dismissive attitude toward everything we've said, might have made it that way. If you don't want to know what we have to say about something, or don't actually care (with the notable and glaring exception of opinions that align with your own), don't insult us by putting up a thread about the matter and ending your post with "Let me know what you guys think".
Just say "This is what we're going to do and it's going to go live this way," and lock the thread.
We've told you what we think, some significantly more loudly than others. We've proposed alternatives and compromises and we've discussed ad nauseum where the problems actually lie and the real reason RLMLs are so popular. What we get for our time and trouble and our posting and our arguing with each other is "I find other resources more valuable for balancing feedback and don't really care what you guys think."
How completely ridiculous. How absolutely and completely ridiculous. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1034
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 13:15:00 -
[35] - Quote
Karle Tabot wrote:Well I was pretty interested in this one thread, and so I have been through almost every post in it twice now. I understand a lot more about the issues now, though do not have the time in game and experience to understand it all completely. There are a couple of things I will take away from this.
Has such a feedback thread in this game actually caused a change before? I cannot say since this is the first one I have followed. It seems from this one that "feedback" threads are likely pretty useless. The decision here was pretty obviously already made when the issue was posted for feedback. No one could read through this thread and objectively and honestly concluded that the positive feedback came anywhere close to the amount of negative feedback. The issue was also posted too late for it to have been so intended, allowing too little time, if the issue were ever truly up for decision.
While I know my time and experience here are too short and little to be sure as to this next conclusion, and what I am saying as to it comes from scattered reading here and elsewhere, and from being in fleets ingame and reading and hearing the comments of others, it sure seems a new player should be clearly warned against spending time training into Caldari. Most of their ships seem to heavily depend on missiles, and it seems pretty clear missiles are an inferior weapon system as far as the other choices, when training times and everything is considered, at least for PVP. For whatever reason, there is a sense that missiles are just not a weapon system that CCP likes itself as much as the others. On my main character I have apparently wasted a lot of my paid for training time in that any idea about "fixing" missiles is always going to be something they do not presently have time for, although they as herein shown always have time to continue to make them less equal.
The Marauders threadnought resulted in two or three changes to the initial proposal.
The feedback threads for all the various ship rebalances have for the most part yielded changes where they were needed.
CCP Rise's other feedback thread - the SoE ships - only yielded change after he talked to people at EVE Vegas.
The feedback thread for loot scattering that's part of hacking and archaeology didn't yield an awful lot of change but I believe they said they'd keep an eye on it - and sure enough I can link you a CCP Dev saying that they're looking at removing it.
So far it's mostly just Rise who appears to give no fucks about what we say. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1036
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 13:54:00 -
[36] - Quote
FistyMcBumBasher wrote:I do not know whether these changes will be good or bad, but suggesting them 7 days before Rubicon hits is too short notice in my opinion and will lead to a lack of valuable feedback.
Like all suggested changes, they should be put onto the test server for a minimum of two weeks to a month before they can even be considered going live.
Allowing players to alter the explosion radius/velocity/flight time of themselves and opponents seems like the better option in my opinion.
There's no lack of "valuable feedback". CCP Rise got all the feedback he was interested in. The rest of it was not valuable to him and was thus hand-waved away. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1038
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 14:12:00 -
[37] - Quote
Moonaura wrote: To be honest, I sort of like that Iceland actually put its bankers in jail, created a new, democratically evolved constitution, and decides to sensibly declare bankruptcy over crippling its tax payers that did nothing wrong for generations just to repay the IMF, while equally being screwed over a barrel for having to do so. Good for them.
None of this however, will make RLML any better.
No, but it's a better use of our posts than wasting keystrokes attempting to discuss something that will not be listened to by a dev who will not admit he's treating the symptoms rather than the disease, is forcing a radical change directly to TQ without any stopover on SiSi, admits this change has a glaring flaw that can't be fixed in time for release and still refuses to delay even as much as Rubicon 1.1 for playtesting and fix-finding.
I would expect this from a Free-to-Play Korean MMO publisher. Not from CCP.
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1041
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 14:19:00 -
[38] - Quote
I'm not sure what's so hard about admitting that mistakes were made, pushing the release back to Rubicon 1.1 and letting us playtest the new mechanic while a fix for the reloading problem is found - and while missiles as a whole (or at least medium missiles) are given a thorough and careful re-evaluation.
You're not a spacefamous lowsec video-PvPer anymore, Kil2. You're a CCP now. At least pretend to act like you give a **** what your subscribers think and leave your ego at home when you go to work.
HazeInADaze wrote:This change feels like a hail mary to address the imbalance between missiles without putting in the work to fix the core problems with missiles. Treating the symptoms rather than the disease is an easy, low-hanging-fruit approach that yields the appearance of progress without requiring any significant investment of time or resources. I can understand if there aren't very many resources available to commit, what with Rubicon almost out and all, but then this whole stupid thing needs to be shelved until after that and addressed when the resources are available again to do a proper job of things. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1051
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 20:23:00 -
[39] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:What external forums are supporting this idea by the way? I really want to see that.
Failheap Challenge.
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1052
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:06:00 -
[40] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:mynnna wrote:Also reducing damage would negatively affect frigates that use light missiles. Just sayin'. LML frigates is something pretty much everyone actually agrees needs a nerf.
I wonder what happens when they nerf the DPS output of RMLs and then follow it up with a nerf to the LMs themselves. |
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1061
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 22:03:00 -
[41] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:This is really a dead horse until the next post-Rubicon update.
That doesn't stop people from continuing to argue with each other in the Marauders thread or ask if the SoE ships are deliberately missing a CPU bonus to probe launchers. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1085
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 05:16:00 -
[42] - Quote
I would rather enjoy it if CCP Rise were instead to be known as CCP 40Second.
Then again, I would rather enjoy it if missiles had been scheduled for an in-depth rebalance and RHMLs shelved until afterward. Looks like I'm not getting either of the things I want. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1098
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 23:00:00 -
[43] - Quote
I remember when they messed around with artillery. I can't find the dev blog, but they were reasonable, well-considered changes that were also backed up with a very good ammo rebalance. To this day, projectile ammo is still amazingly useful - though I do wish we had a medium-range version that dealt EM.
It's too bad we can't have the same thing with missiles. This new missile system could be amazing if the other cruiser-sized options weren't invalidated by their ammunition being horse balls by comparison. The way it is now, you either fly around with dual painters and two T2 rigors if you want to apply your damage. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1102
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 15:15:00 -
[44] - Quote
DHB WildCat wrote:I swear you guys get hired by CCP and you lose touch with the game. Whats in the punch bowl up there?
The smaller sized missile launchers on larger sized ships are used to outlast a larger number of smaller ships. Paper DPS doesnt matter here. Applied DPS does. Just reduce the damage of the missiles. If a caracal wants to use large DPS against similar or larger ships he'll go with HAMS over RLML. The same will go for the raven using cruise missiles over heavy (lets be honest... torps are still broken and suck no one with a brain will ever use them)
Now the big purpse of the smaller weapons system is to be able to dictate the engagement. Its not about raping frigates in 5 seconds with high DPS light missiles. Its about applying constant and reliable damage to smaller targets over time. Give me 200 DPS over 1 minute with a 10 seconds reload, over 400 DPS in 30 seconds with a 40 second reload. This way I can defend myself constantly and stay fighting.
You guys need to remember the old film saying..... "Sometimes less is more". You dont need to "fix" everything by adding features.... maybe just reduce some stats once in a while if you find they are working "too well".
The biggest thing to take away from this... Is that constant applied DPS over the entire engagement is what we need to fight outnumbered. We dont need omg uber DPS for 50 seconds, then omg im F****** cant do anything for 40 seconds while this merlin that just caught me kills me. Or in a way Kil2 can relate..... sweet my Armageddon does 2k DPS for 40 seconds! 40 seconds later after fighting a mega that died and a tempest...... okay mega down, reloading for 40 seconds.... omg a curse just landed I need to get him off the field..... oh **** I have to wait 40 seconds and sit here like a moron while the curse eats my cap and now my active tank dies to the tempest......... but if I had lower dps that was constant I could have forced the curse off and still fought the mega and tempest.
Wild
It makes perfect sense to me and I'm not even that much of a PvPer. This might be the best post in this whole thread. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1104
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 19:39:00 -
[45] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:It is unacceptable that missile users now have to make tradeoffs. It is unacceptable that CCP sees fit to introduce new modules and completely redesign old modules without first conducting a thorough re-examination and rebalance of the ammunition, instead declaring that the modules in question are too popular even though it's the ammunition's inherent problems causing the perceived popularity.
If a thorough rockets-to-citadels re-investigation and rebalance of missile ammunition had been conducted prior to announcing RHMLs, I believe CCP would have been looking at a very different missile-usage landscape; one where there is room for old-style rapids to co-exist with their same-size less-rapid counterparts or even room for these new-style front-heavy rapids as other choices would be properly useful as well.
Instead, we got what we got. Oh well, right?
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:Push the HAMs/Rocket rapids, I rather have that then 40sec reload, and it would fix the OP issue. tell CCP people! Perhaps I'm misunderstanding because your sentence is unclear and poorly written, but if you are suggesting that Rockets and HAMs should be converted to this ancillary business, then I would suggest that you cut off your hands and never post again. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1106
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 20:01:00 -
[46] - Quote
Rise said at the outset that he feels this change is necessary because testing on SiSi showed that RLMLs and RHMLs are "almost always the right answer for everything" or something very close to that. Putting unguided missiles (Rockets, Heavies and Torps used to be considered "unguided" before they changed skills to no longer make a distinction) into rapid launchers would be a hilarious waste of ammunition at worst and hilariously OP at best - nevermind the fact that you need to be literally right on top of the enemy to hit them with rockets and so would be better off using blasters anyway. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1108
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 23:40:00 -
[47] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:For all the close attention that he was allegedly paying to this thread, has anyone seen Rise in the last few days since he told us this was happening whether or not we wanted it and despite it not being a fully formed idea? Someone check the outhouse, he might be out digging for his next big idea.
Whatever Rise is doing, I imagine he's likely doing it away from this thread. To be sure, I haven't seen him post at all since the last thing he said in here. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1109
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 03:40:00 -
[48] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:Again you don't seem to understand how PvP works. As BS use MJDs which only can be stopped by scrams any ship trying to stop them will have to get with 10km or less.
Please make sure you understand everything you're talking about before you mock someone else for it.
Don't just consider heated scrams. Consider linked heated scrams. An Incursus (I picked a random frigate) can scram out to 10.8k (13.4k with links). Unbonused rockets go to a max of 10.1k and Javelins reach out to 15k at the cost of less damage.
If we start talking about purpose-built ships, a Keres will heated-scram out to 16k (20k with links), where your rapid rockets can't hope to touch them. An Arazu reaches 21k (26k with links) which puts them safely out of HAM range.
You also don't seem to be understanding the "invalidation of skills" business that's being discussed. RLMLs require the skill Light Missiles to be trained. Rockets (the ammo) require the skill Rockets to be trained. You're suggesting we start making RLMLs use an ammo with inferior range (and in the case of HAMs, even worse application than HMs) that people may not have even trained simply to prevent a 40-second reload time.
Your response to these concerns is "This is EVE, if you don't like then too ******* bad, **** off."
What a truly spectacular reply. If any CCP dev were to respond like that, I'm sure he'd be promoted to Chief of Operations on the spot. /sarcasm
I don't know what kind of drugs you're on that make you think any of this is a good idea, but I bet you'd be filthy rich if you'd stop using them and start selling them.
By the way, now you can feel free to cut off your hands and stop posting. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1111
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 03:49:00 -
[49] - Quote
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:This isn't really a tactical choice other than this:
Solo? Don't fit RLML because you can't kill any cruisers or even some AFs. Blob? Fit RLML because you now kill everything faster.
Basically this. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1114
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 07:57:00 -
[50] - Quote
Mind Reaper wrote:To fix all the problems just add shield strength and armor thickness. Larger ships have thicker armor and shields reducing damage from smaller weapon platforms making it a disadvantage to use rlml vs a cruiser or bigger. The dps of a ship could be even between rlml and hml then. This would make ship Y deal X dps with either rlml or hml but applied damage from rlml to cruisers and up would be reduced. Problem solved.
That would also be completely counter to CCP's belief that larger ships should be vulnerable to smaller ones, as it would penalize using cruiser-sized weapons on a cruiser to fight a battleship or battleship-sized weapons to fight a dread. |
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1114
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 08:20:00 -
[51] - Quote
As a totally separate line of thought deserving a post of its own, I have a question. I freely admit I didn't pay a lot of attention to the forums and such when we were leading up to Incarna. Was the negative feedback well-articulated and "helpful" or was it largely "unhelpful", generally disorganized and mostly just full of rage?
I'm just curious because Rise mentioned how the negative feedback practically pouring out of this thread was "disorganized and not very helpful" so he "decided to go with the positive feedback instead". Something about that kind of approach seems... I don't know... a little bit off.
"Our focus groups overwhelmingly hated the new iPhone but since their feedback wasn't presented in the way we would've preferred we're just going to go ahead and start production on it." |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1118
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 16:38:00 -
[52] - Quote
Fears wrote:I think it looks good, and all who complain should open their heart to changes.
Buhu, its not good for solo.. maby not.. so adapt, thats what this game is all about anyways.
I give my love to ccp, for giving us somthing new to try and figure out ;)
Cheers
I just want to point out one part of your post.
"It's not good for solo.. maybe not, so adapt"
Do you mean "adapt" as in stop using rapid missiles for solo and use HAMs/HMs, or do you mean "adapt" as in stop using missiles at all for solo and start using guns?
Either way, people have already declared their intention to "adapt" by using something other than RLMLs so I don't know what you're going on about. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1118
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 16:44:00 -
[53] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:The 40secs reload won't work good for solo, small gangs, medium gangs, or any type of PvP, it just isn't good to have people in your fleet that can't put out damage for 40sec.
It will be amazing for blobs. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1118
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 17:01:00 -
[54] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote: GÇó Rockets: 20m radius, 170 m/sec velocity (+20), 33 damage GÇó Light missile: 60m radius (+20), 150 m/sec velocity (-20), 83 damage GÇó Heavy assault missile: 100m radius (-25), 125 m/sec velocity (+24), 100 damage GÇó Heavy missile: 125m radius (-15), 100 m/sec velocity (+19), 135 damage
I don't claim to know everything about missiles (or even very much about them, sometimes) but this looks pretty good IMO. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1118
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 17:10:00 -
[55] - Quote
Tarmaniel wrote:A whole bunch of stuff.
Sounds to me as though Light Missiles are the reason why nobody uses anything else, not the launchers they get put into.
Which is just exactly what most of this thread has been saying. How unusual, right?
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1118
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 17:39:00 -
[56] - Quote
Thaddeus, I notice you still have your hands. As long as you've decided to keep them, maybe you could stop using them to shiptoast? It's really only serving to derail what is attempting to be a productive and civil conversation that absolutely no devs care at all about anymore.
Anyway, rapid launchers aren't OP - the missiles they fire are, especially compared to how much better those missiles are than their next-size-up counterparts. Although, are cruises really that bad?
@ elitatwo - Now see, that doesn't look quite right at all. Why are you giving HAMs and Heavies the same explosion velocity? I too would like my artillery to have the same tracking as my autocannons. Also, what does frigates using light missiles have to do with what the missiles get fired at? |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1118
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 17:50:00 -
[57] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:If the missiles they fire are OP that would make them OP, hmmmm....
There's a difference between a launcher being OP and the ammunition being OP. I apologize if this distinction is too subtle for you to comprehend. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1120
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 20:36:00 -
[58] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:Not really, but ok. Also for someone who says they don't know much about missiles you sure have a lot to say about it. The Launchers are OP, as with T1, faction, or Furies they all do will against cruisers and down and have no issues with target speed. And as missiles don't need a new launcher type, they just need HAMs and HMLs rebalanced, Rapids fixed and Defeners and FoFs overhauled. But again so you never look at facts or use reason, I doubt it matters what others say.
Maybe you should consider studying this for a day or three before continuing to shiptoast all over this thread. It's getting extremely bothersome.
With that out of the way, let me break it down for you in a way that I'm (almost) sure you can understand.
Weapons are composed of two parts: The weapon itself and the ammunition that it fires. (Civilian weapons are exempt from this for obvious reasons.) Since both the weapon and the ammunition have their own properties that affect the damage you can do and the range you can do it at, both parts of the overall weapon system must be considered when discussing balance.
For our example, we'll arbitrarily pick a Light Electron Blaster I. I haven't heard anyone complaining lately that it's overpowered, so we can reasonably assume it's a suitably balanced choice for what I'm about to do with it. This example will work equally well for Rocket Launchers or HMLs or Railguns or XL Beam Lasers, so stop preparing to complain and follow along instead.
We take our Light Electron Blaster I and we strap it onto, I dunno, a Velator. Seems like a fairly logical thing to strap it onto, so there you go. We load it up with hybrid ammo, let's say antimatter since everyone seems to love using it. Loaded with Antimatter, our little Light Electron Blaster I deals reasonable damage for what it is but the ammo doesn't reach very far. Now let's load it with Tungsten instead. Our Light Electron Blaster I now deals much less damage but the ammo reaches much farther.
Remember that in all of this, the weapon itself has remained completely unchanged and it's still fitted to the same Velator as it started with. You can see for yourself pretty easily how different ammunition can completely change the properties of the weapon it's loaded into. Let's continue.
Removing the Tungsten ammo, let's take our Light Electron Blaster and instead load it with a brand new experimental ammo that has just recently been developed by the slightly-demented researchers of Capricious Endeavours, Ltd. This is a small-size hybrid ammo that gives +200% optimal, +400% falloff, deals 30,000 HP damage across all four damage types, has a base shield damage of 100,000 and a base armor damage of 500,000, has 200% negative capacitor drain when fired (Yes, that means firing it causes your capacitor to regenerate faster) and increases both tracking speed and rate of fire by 400% because of ... I think they said computer-interfaced bio-nanites or something. Anyway, there's the ammo.
We load this into our Light Electron Blaster I and suddenly we have a total badass on our hands. It's difficult to adequately describe the amount of carnage you'll be able to cause, but I think it might just be open season on dreads, carriers and titans.
The gun didn't change. It's still the same Light Electron Blaster I that almost nobody ever uses. The Velator didn't change either. All we did was take a relatively common and low-powered ship/gun combo and stuff hilariously OP ammo into it.
Understand now?
Rapid Light Missile Launchers are not overpowered. The Light Missiles they fire ARE. If you give Light Missiles the same heavy nerf that Heavy Missiles got, nobody will like Rapid Lights for anything either. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1130
|
Posted - 2013.11.19 01:19:00 -
[59] - Quote
Dr Sraggles wrote:lol?
LMLs in a Kestrel have too much range so we should nerf RLML in a Cerberus?
You make as much sense as CCP RIse.
I've been waiting for a good time to make this disclaimer, I just could never find one until now.
While I do say that Light Missiles are OP, I want to make it perfectly clear that what I mean is they're OP compared to other missiles. That doesn't mean other missiles aren't in fact UP. ...somehow "UP" doesn't work as well as "OP". Oh well, whatever. Light Missiles being out of line compared to other missile types doesn't specifically mean that the other missile types aren't actually the ones that need work. Which is the same thing I keep saying. Perhaps I repeat myself too much. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1130
|
Posted - 2013.11.19 02:11:00 -
[60] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Stuff
Hmmm.... so explosion radius is more important than explosion velocity, you say.
That's very interesting. |
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1133
|
Posted - 2013.11.19 04:03:00 -
[61] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Hmmm.... so explosion radius is more important than explosion velocity, you say. That's very interesting. I am somewhat concerned that you don't seem to know this and yet are preaching to people that LMs are OPd. Fortunately, you are correct that they are slightly too good for their size in comparison to other missiles. But really you should know the mechanics of why, rather than the just the empirical evidence that they seem to blow **** up really really fast.
Let me take a moment to explain. While I have already been taught (both by others and by my extensive use of HAMs) that configuring for minimal explosion radius is more useful (and more effective) than configuring for maximum explosion velocity, I was never aware that the damage calculations themselves actually prioritize the one over the other. It's interesting to see that all my experimentation was in fact correct, and why.
Still, I'm always interested in learning new things I didn't know before. I will, of course, investigate this matter further. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1142
|
Posted - 2013.11.19 23:57:00 -
[62] - Quote
I have this distinct feeling that we're going to see a Light Missile nerf very soon. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1142
|
Posted - 2013.11.20 00:06:00 -
[63] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:I have this distinct feeling that we're going to see a Light Missile nerf very soon. Do you see everyone switching over to LMLs en masse?
I didn't say a Light Missile Launcher nerf. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1184
|
Posted - 2013.11.26 00:58:00 -
[64] - Quote
Fourteen, please stop trying to nerf my Autocannons. Thank you. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1190
|
Posted - 2013.11.26 11:05:00 -
[65] - Quote
Confirming I just sold my T2 RLMLs and replaced them with T2 LMLs. They fire 2s slower and cost 4x more but I'm looking forward to the improved performance just the same.
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1199
|
Posted - 2013.11.27 02:09:00 -
[66] - Quote
Rise isn't going to reply here anymore. He's done with this project and now he's busy with rebalancing Margin Trading. The only ones still watching this thread are the ISDs who hang around to make sure things don't get out of hand again. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1199
|
Posted - 2013.11.27 02:16:00 -
[67] - Quote
I don't disagree. I'm merely responding to the sentiment (and a few outright statements) wondering about further reply from CCP 40Sec - I mean CCP Rise. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1201
|
Posted - 2013.11.27 02:32:00 -
[68] - Quote
Kenshi Hanshin wrote: I love that new nickname for that particular CCP employee. Mind if I borrow that in future? ^_^
The idea is for it to catch on, so feel free to use it whenever and wherever you see fit. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1214
|
Posted - 2013.11.27 16:23:00 -
[69] - Quote
After all the hype about RHMLs got in the immediate days before Rubicon, I can see pushing them back wouldn't have been an option. However, wouldn't it have been possible to launch them with this new mechanic as an experimental sort of thing and leave RLMLs as they are until more data from TQ had come in - and possibly until after a proper and comprehensive missile rebalance? Yes indeed I do keep chanting "missile rebalance" and "fix the ammo" like some kind of mantra, I know.
On the other hand, if someone's comment from another thread is true and most of this rebalancing effort is being done with skirmish links in mind.. isn't the problem the link and not the module or ammo and doesn't rebalancing something to be "good" with the links result in it being "subpar or bad" without those links?
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1218
|
Posted - 2013.11.27 17:47:00 -
[70] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:but atm we dont have a proper missile systems outside of spacialised frig owning system and brawling HAMs, (yes you need webs to apply damage) I mean if this is actually the root of a lot of the problem then that's a different issue that we need to address. I'm not totally sure it is, but I want to take a hard look at HML before the point release and make sure we're okay with where we're at. If that needs a tweak then we should be doing that, not focusing on RLML as a solution to a HML problem.
How many posts are in this thread specifically saying that pre-Rubicon RLMLs saw so much use exactly because of HMLs being the way they are? I'm willing to wager ISK that it's more than a few. |
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1224
|
Posted - 2013.11.28 01:55:00 -
[71] - Quote
It's a bit off-topic and maybe I'm completely mistaken, but if a ship roughly battlecruiser-sized or smaller is ABing (or MWDing in a sig-bonused hull) unwebbed with skirmish links active and is using one of these hypothetical missile-affecting tracking disruptors people seem to want... won't that basically make them more-or-less immune to missles?
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1256
|
Posted - 2013.11.29 21:59:00 -
[72] - Quote
Dr Sraggles wrote: Do you know what a Straw Man argument is? It's when...
Oh dear. Is it that bad in this thread again? I guess I'd better leave another one of these right over here.
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1292
|
Posted - 2013.12.02 20:37:00 -
[73] - Quote
Why only five?
You were using the capacitor regen matrix, weren't you. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1392
|
Posted - 2013.12.09 14:40:00 -
[74] - Quote
Have you considered that a third possibility exists?
Specifically, I'm implying that there may be a third group of people: People who, despite hating the new rapid launcher mechanics, continue to field them regardless of power or fun because other missiles still don't do the job better than taking a gamble on rapid launchers?
Also, what do your metrics say about LML usage? How much has it gone up since the RLML change? I don't know about others but every single one of my RLML-toting cruisers has switched over to LMLs.
These last two posts by Fozzie and yourself give me a very very strong feeling that the next one is going to be "Rapid launchers are really being accepted a lot better by the community than we had expected, so we're satisfied with how missiles are as a whole and won't be looking at them for a while."
Interesting quote by one of the devs during the roam on that Plex for GOOD livestream regarding his RHMLs: "I'm always stuck reloading!" |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1408
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 05:19:00 -
[75] - Quote
...the only thing we'll have left is hope. But hope for what?
Also, since you're playing around with various missile values I want to ask what you're using to do this. Is this a Pyfa thing? |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1418
|
Posted - 2013.12.13 08:17:00 -
[76] - Quote
The poster above me seems to have somewhat missed the point. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1436
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 19:50:00 -
[77] - Quote
If you want to make your point, you have to hit Fozzie and Rise where it matters: Right in the usage metrics.
Stop using them. Inform your friends, corpmates, alliancemates, enemies and anyone else that if they don't like the way RLMLs and RHMLs work, the only way to do anything about it is to stop using them completely. For anything ever. Right now.
Then, if we're super-lucky, we might get a "rebalancing missiles and launchers" thread after waiting for six months. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1458
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 17:57:00 -
[78] - Quote
Reducing clip size does induce an overall DPS nerf. I admit I was impressed that my T2 RLMLs could hold 80 missiles. Maybe only holding 60 would have been better than this 16-and-slowload business we now have instead. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1458
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 03:17:00 -
[79] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Niena Nuamzzar wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Can everyone please stop quoting B---? I have block on for a reason... You want him to talk unchallenged so he can twist the truth and the meaning of things as he pleases, spreading his lies undisturbed until they become the truth for all those lazy minded? Ignore him and he'll eventually leave.
People used to (and still do) say that about the New Order, and ... well ... now look at it. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1464
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 21:14:00 -
[80] - Quote
This isn't a thread about missiles vs turrets, it's a thread about missiles. Bouh has no place in this thread to begin with. |
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1484
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 19:21:00 -
[81] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:I'm fairly certain a RLML-fit cruiser will fall well short of the 600+ DPS a Catalyst can put out, not to mention being substantially more expensive. I can't see this being cost-effective for suicide ganking, but someone feel free to prove otherwise...
What if it's a RoF-bonused (maybe damage bonus would be better) cruiser with 3x BCU I and you set your RLMLs on overheat before you begin firing?
I mean, I could probably answer that myself in EFT, but I wanted to publicly suggest the notion as well. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1494
|
Posted - 2013.12.20 02:08:00 -
[82] - Quote
So basically the point is that RLMLs might be good for more than just a few specific situations, but if they are then none of those situations have been found yet and therefore probably don't occur often enough for serious consideration.
Right? |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
1499
|
Posted - 2013.12.20 13:10:00 -
[83] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:RLML is now a ganking tool only for anything else it is just not viable. I'm still not convinced that RLMLs are viable for banking.
If you walk into a bank with a RLML, I suspect they're going to comply with your demands.
|
|
|
|