Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 [40] 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 138 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12358
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:40:00 -
[1171] - Quote
Chessur wrote:
Hyperbole? Surely you're joking.
Maybe it was the other Chessur who posted
Chessur wrote: Welp there goes the:
Cerb Caracal Scythe Fleet Osprey Navy
1 Kings 12:11
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4827
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:40:00 -
[1172] - Quote
Connall Tara wrote:so... despite various bits of better judgement i've come back here and decided to crunch some numbers. . ^_^
Sorry Connal, judging by your post being completely ignored apparently silly things like "math" and "facts" have no place in this debate. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12358
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:41:00 -
[1173] - Quote
Quote mining: a respectable debate tactic.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12358
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:42:00 -
[1174] - Quote
1 Kings 12:11
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2152
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:42:00 -
[1175] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:mynnna wrote:Quote:And before you say "use other weapons" the other missile choices that will fit on a cruiser are worse by much further degrees. Calculate damage application on HAM's and without a double web they can't keep up with lights. Run the same calculation on heavies and they have no chance to compete without at least a 3x paint scenario, and who can afford 3 option mids and still fit a decent shield tank? "The other weapon systems cannot possibly compete without an absurd amount of extra support because the penalty against larger targets is so small and the upside against smaller targets is so big" is exactly why RLMLs are getting nerfed, yes. http://pbrd.co/1anRRKGDrake vs cane, no links, no drugs, etc. The high damage region to the left is with dual webs on the cane. http://pbrd.co/1anS3JVRaven (fit pretty much as close to the drake as possible) and fury drake vs cane. Raven is not kin locked, is faster, has a heavy neut, etc. And before you ask, dps with CN missiles is a bit higher at 384
If I'm going to ask anything it's "What do heavy missiles have to do with rapid light launchers", honestly. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4827
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:42:00 -
[1176] - Quote
Now where did I lay that quote by Rise saying that would be the first thing addressed in the point release... never mind, continue to ignore that inconvenient fact. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
79
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:43:00 -
[1177] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Mhari Dson wrote:Run the same calculation on heavies and they have no chance to compete without at least a 3x paint scenario, and who can afford 3 option mids and still fit a decent shield tank?
You have succinctly summarised Rise's reason for making the change in the first place. I argued very passionately against a flat RLML nerf; what we're seeing is the alternative he came up with.
I'll take the mentioned 15% ROF nerf, it's still viable for application in that form. and yes the current TQ iteration is a bit too powerful and that'd bring it more in line with where it should be. There are points where a BLML would be an advantage as well and I'd like to see more of the system prior to it bieng the nailbat anal probe.
to summarize: Do Both |
Kaeda Maxwell
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
249
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:45:00 -
[1178] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Malcanis wrote:
Agreed that is a disadvantage, and it's a really difficult one to mitigate within the parameters of this change. It's a pity EVE weapons work so simplistically (Why can't I load my launchers with 10 EM missiles then 8 explosives?) but there it is. On the other hand as mentioned previously, this change does give you options like splitting your launchers into two groups with different missile types loaded, and still getting "like now" DPS with your first group whilst reloading your second.
People keep saying that. Its not true. You dont get DPS similar to now by splitting weapons. How does it compare to eg: a flat 15% RoF nerf for RLMLs?
Would have taken that over this. I would have resisted a little but it beats the inflexibility this new front loaded damage mechanic brings with it.
I would prolly even have take it in combination with a PG increase over this. For example on my caracal fit I could have given up my nano or even my dcu for a third bcu, or rigged differently.
The way it is now I don't exaggerate that the weapon becomes a non-option to me, 40 seconds downtime potentially in the middle of a fight on ships that have no or very small drone bays (like the Caracal/Naracal/Cerberus) is just to much of a handicap. Reliability is valued more then anything by most really small gang pvpers in both the people we fly with and in our fits, if we can't count on a ship to perform it's role 'right f-ing now' it is of no use, unlike 0.0 fleets and larger gangs we have no margin for error because that margin instantly kills us. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
871
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:45:00 -
[1179] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Michael Harari wrote:mynnna wrote:Quote:And before you say "use other weapons" the other missile choices that will fit on a cruiser are worse by much further degrees. Calculate damage application on HAM's and without a double web they can't keep up with lights. Run the same calculation on heavies and they have no chance to compete without at least a 3x paint scenario, and who can afford 3 option mids and still fit a decent shield tank? "The other weapon systems cannot possibly compete without an absurd amount of extra support because the penalty against larger targets is so small and the upside against smaller targets is so big" is exactly why RLMLs are getting nerfed, yes. http://pbrd.co/1anRRKGDrake vs cane, no links, no drugs, etc. The high damage region to the left is with dual webs on the cane. http://pbrd.co/1anS3JVRaven (fit pretty much as close to the drake as possible) and fury drake vs cane. Raven is not kin locked, is faster, has a heavy neut, etc. And before you ask, dps with CN missiles is a bit higher at 384 If I'm going to ask anything it's "What do heavy missiles have to do with rapid light launchers", honestly.
You are arguing that RLM are overpowered since HMLs are worse than them in most situations. This has to do with HMLs being worse than pretty much everyhing in most situations, and has nothing to do with RLMs.
|
Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
42
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:46:00 -
[1180] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Quote mining: a respectable debate tactic. No, that's called summary. |
|
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
24
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:47:00 -
[1181] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Malcanis wrote:Kaeda Maxwell wrote:
I would like to point out that you promised to post your defences and views right here where we could respond to them. I've mostly (an early on post in this thread excluded )seen you defend these changes anywhere but here (TMC and Failheap come to mind readily), so if my 'snippy' comment makes you double down on that promise that will actually be much appreciated.
That's fair comment. I honestly did think that I'd actually posted in the first few pages of this thread, but a quick skim through the first half dozen shows me that I must have mixed that up with the FHC thread. Apologies. The tl;dr of my position on this change is that most fights don't occur between two stationary ships in an isolated constellation and who had no idea about what was going to happen. This change should and will reward smart tactics and piloting (to the extent that I'm trying to be discrete about my enthusiasm for the potential here in case Rise nerfs it back a bit), whilst penalising easy-mode frigate-murdering F1ing somewhat (and actually not even all that much) The hyperbole of people like Chessur is not only impossible to take seriously, but actively confirms my faith in my support. One recalls similar comments - and threats - in the Titan and Supercarrier nerf threads. On a tangential side note, one particular CSM member went to bat very hard indeed for the Cerb back when the HAC tiercide happened, and as a result it got a substantially better deal than it was going to. So the fact that the Cerb is so good - or OP, if you like - specifically with RLMLs is partly my doing in the first place. And what of the complete inflexibility of RLMLs in terms of damage type? Agreed that is a disadvantage, and it's a really difficult one to mitigate within the parameters of this change. It's a pity EVE weapons work so simplistically (Why can't I load my launchers with 10 EM missiles then 8 explosives?) but there it is. On the other hand as mentioned previously, this change does give you options like splitting your launchers into two groups with different missile types loaded, and still getting "like now" DPS with your first group whilst reloading your second.
In which case you get a flat DPS nerf and still suffer from poor flexibility in damage types, though to a lesser degree. You still won't be able to select ammo efficiently to hit a T2 frig's resist weakness (if one shows up that neither of your ammo types are good against) in which case you'll still be better off unloading everything as fast as possible and hoping for the best. So total inflexibility with a burst DPS buff or poor flexibility with a straight DPS nerf? Wow, what wonderful choices.
And let's extend this conversation to RHMLs, since they are getting mostly ignored in this debate. What is the point of these things at this point? They have all the well-documented weaknesses of HMs, don't benefit from range or explosion bonuses, and suffer from all the inflexibility issues mentioned above. How can you justify supporting the latest version of these things? |
Connall Tara
Conquering Darkness
105
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:47:00 -
[1182] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Connall Tara wrote: so for this example i'm assuming everything is 100% applied
now hold on connall! this is absurd? you're assuming 100% damage application and arglFLAR-
yes, i am. but i am a fair fellow so lets flip it around, how much damage would a current RLML caracal deal in the same timeframe? as we know from above the answer 12850.
so, with this little thought experiment we are dealing 12850/21700 damage to these suspiciously identical targets.
each "target" has 7300 hitpoints each.
1:7300/7300 2:7300/7300 3:7300/7300
so lets apply our current caracal to the various targets over 50 seconds and mark the points at which the dps will suceed in killing them.
1:0/7300 - 28.4 sec - 150dps 2:1750/7300 - not dead yet 3:7300/7300 - not dead yet
huzzah! one foe vanquished and another on the way! enemy dps has been reduced by 150 meaning that the caracal is now taking 300 incoming dps for another 6.84 seconds before having that dps go down to 150.
now, how about the same situation with the "new" RLML's?
1:0/7300 - 17.84 sec - 150 dps 2:0/7300 - 35.69 sec - 150 dps 3:1450/7300 - not dead yet
huh... well that's not too shabby now is it?
THIS is the advantage of the new system: burst dps.
remember firepower goes both ways both you shooting at them and them shooting at you. there is very much an advantage to dumping out a similar amount of damage in a shorter time frame as, if fighting multiple smaller targets LIKE THIS WEAPONS ARE INTENDED TO the faster you remove opponents from the field the less time they have to apply dps in return to you. yes, you are going to be "offline" for 40 seconds, but you have killed more of the enemy permitting them less time to deal damage to YOU. is
yes, i'm aware i'm being a little patronizing and YES i'm aware this is all "ideal situation" stuff, but the basic concept of burst damage vs prolonged needed some damn explaining and a thought experiment seemed the best way to explain it. ^_^ Your scenario consist on firign on badly fit frigs that cannto avoid a single point of incomming damage? On real game You woudl kill just 1 frigate and half with your damage at most! (I do not count scenarios were you fire in noobs in horribly fit ships. These woudl die anyway no matter how much you nerf the module, I am thinking on really well fit targetts always)
so... with 20450 damage you can only kill 1 frigate and a half.
but with 23130 damage you'll kill more than that?
please enlighten me more about how 3130 is another half of a frigate in the same time frame, I'd love to know more ^^ Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7
Naomi Knight - "You must be CCP Rise alt , that would explain everything" |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
759
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:48:00 -
[1183] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Quote:And before you say "use other weapons" the other missile choices that will fit on a cruiser are worse by much further degrees. Calculate damage application on HAM's and without a double web they can't keep up with lights. Run the same calculation on heavies and they have no chance to compete without at least a 3x paint scenario, and who can afford 3 option mids and still fit a decent shield tank? "The other weapon systems cannot possibly compete without an absurd amount of extra support because the penalty against larger targets is so small and the upside against smaller targets is so big" is exactly why RLMLs are getting nerfed, yes.
I'd rather see them nerfed by straight-up reducing their damage (not application-- so that they reliably do medium DPS to small targets, but will always be inferior in terms of DPS compared to their bigger counterparts when used on on-size or bigger targets) than by increasing burst DPS and giving them a horrific reload. Rise's plan will only make gimmick fits (think Caracal with oversized ASB and RLMLs for jumping into a camp and killing a dictor / Daredevil or two before it explodes-- sort of like what people already do with Thrashers and that sort of thing) more potent while not providing a viable option for anyone who needs their ship to perform for more than 50 seconds at a time.
Basically Rise's plan fits into the whole theme of confining ships to "burst" type fittings for PvP. The concept was dumb enough for tanking and I'd really prefer if it didn't bleed over into weapons as well. The new RLMLs will be almost as dumb as giving cruisers an 800 dps, capless burst tank... |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4828
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:48:00 -
[1184] - Quote
I would not have thought it possible, but it seems a large section of the community either has completely forgotten how to properly apply hit and run tactics... or simply never understood how to do it in the first place. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
871
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:51:00 -
[1185] - Quote
Hmls vs cane, compared to medium beam laser naga (no, not a typo)
http://pbrd.co/1anTbgz
Edit: Naga is using IN standard, which most closely matches the drakes performance. With proper ammo selection, it does more dps at every range, except between 43km and however far the drake can shoot (about 60km in general) |
Morwennon
Aliastra Gallente Federation
31
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:54:00 -
[1186] - Quote
Quote: HMLs aren't much good, but that's nothing to do with the strength of RLMLs, it's because HMLs are colossal turdpiles that are outperformed by just about every alternative, including the various long-range medium turrets, the other medium missile types, scorch M, and typing bad words in local. |
Chessur
Strontless Mistakes Fatal Ascension
251
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:54:00 -
[1187] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Chessur wrote:
Hyperbole? Surely you're joking.
Maybe it was the other Chessur who postedChessur wrote: Welp there goes the:
Cerb Caracal Scythe Fleet Osprey Navy
Quote the entire post.
Quote:Welp there goes the:
Cerb Caracal Scythe Fleet Osprey Navy
Gotta love CCP for coming up with fail, upon more fail. They destroy HML and HAM with nerfs, and then are shocked when everyone goes back to RLML's. So clearly something must be wrong with RLMLs- better nerf those as well.
40 second reload time is an eternity. The inability to switch damage types based on the ships you are fighting, is really big problem. So too is not being able to switch misisle types between ships / ECM. Rise infuriates me.
That is not hyperbole. HMLs / HAMs are horrible weapon systems, and those ships provide ZERO application bonuses.
40 seconds reload time is not playable. I stand by this post, and the critisisms that I have been posting since this thread arrived.
Again Mclanis: Get your obtuse views out of your ass. If you seriously think that 40 seconds of reload is playable- I want to hear it, so i can quote it later for posterity, as a shining example of how poorly you understand small gang / solo pvp.
|
Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
42
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:55:00 -
[1188] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Now where did I lay that quote by Rise saying that would be the first thing addressed in the point release... never mind, continue to ignore that inconvenient fact. No need, I remember that he did but the second question would be WHEN exactly? Soon(TM) is not good enough. Why not fixing it first and THEN deliver it, why rushing so much? |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
24
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:56:00 -
[1189] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:I would not have thought it possible, but it seems a large section of the community either has completely forgotten how to properly apply hit and run tactics... or simply never understood how to do it in the first place.
Or simply doesn't want to be forced into it with fits they've been using for entirely different purposes. And keep in mind that hit and run tactics require the whole fleet to adopt the same approach or you're going to have hit and run RLML ships warping off and leaving the sustained battle ships behind to fend for themselves for 40s at a time. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
420
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:58:00 -
[1190] - Quote
Viceorvirtue wrote:A 10% rof nerf and a decent increase on powergrid would actually be great for rlm. It tones down the damage slightly while still alowing the ship using it to adapt to a changing situation. It would be massively better than poarizing the damage output in the way you have presently done.
I keep using the example of a frigate warping in mid fight while you have a low clip. This happens, people die and reship, they will get back in a new frigate and you will be stuck reloading. 40 seconds, as shown in the video is a long time, especially with the new warp changes. While you might be able to get similar dps with split weapons you are still ignoring the fact that light missiles especially because of their relatively low damage output (compared to pulse lasers and rails) need to be able to have the option of firing into a resist hole to actually deal the majority of their damage.
If you can not react to a changing situation in a ship, you have a very good reason not to fly the ship if you have any possible other option. You keep saying this, but what you are hiding is that you are low on clip because you already killed one or two of the ennemy frigates on field, and this faster than before.
In your situation, with old RLML, you would still be shooting the first frigate when renforcement arrive.
This is in fact exactly the situation where burst RLML are better than before : you can kill an ennemy or two before renforcement arrive and turn the tide of a battle. And I'm not talking huge blob here but guerilla warfare with 5+-3 people on each side, and not necessarily on equal numbers.
Killing VERY fast and gtfo is the key here, no matter a 40s reload because you would die if you stay anyway, no matter how many ammo you have left in your hold ; but everyone here know it I guess... I mean, I'm probably the worst at EVE pvp here so I guess everybody already know about guerilla warfare.
And finaly, the difference with rail Thorax or Omen is that if a frigate come near you you are not harmless and awaiting for a certain death because missiles don't have tracking. Not to mention that Omen and Thorax will have a lot less tank than your RLML Caracal.
Oh, and the blabla about the resist hole is absolute crap. Missiles have low base dps because they apply it a lot more consistently. I doubt a railgun Thorax will apply more than 50% of its dps more than 50% of the time against frigates, and that lead to an effective dps of 25% of the paper dps.
But I know, I'm very bad a EVE, or I would be able to perfectly pilote my ship to have 0 (not low, 0, or dps will fall) transversal to all ship I fire at. Frigates are not that fast after all and AB certainly don't affect turrets... |
|
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
871
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:58:00 -
[1191] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:I would not have thought it possible, but it seems a large section of the community either has completely forgotten how to properly apply hit and run tactics... or simply never understood how to do it in the first place. Or simply doesn't want to be forced into it with fits they've been using for entirely different purposes. And keep in mind that hit and run tactics require the whole fleet to adopt the same approach or you're going to have hit and run RLML ships warping off and leaving the sustained battle ships behind to fend for themselves for 40s at a time.
Or people will use ships that can do hit and run but with like 3-15x the volley damage (arty ruptures, up to arty nados) |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4829
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 23:00:00 -
[1192] - Quote
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Now where did I lay that quote by Rise saying that would be the first thing addressed in the point release... never mind, continue to ignore that inconvenient fact. No need, I remember that he did but the second question would be WHEN exactly? Soon(TM) is not good enough. Why not fixing it first and THEN deliver it, why rushing so much? Fair question. Apparently they are pretty confident in the concept as a whole, but wish some time with it live before putting the final polish on it. Separating "Reload" from "Change Ammo" in the code will probably take a bit more time than is available before release. Point releases typically don't take long to come out.
Personally I'd rather see the system in place sooner rather than later, but either way works for me. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
79
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 23:02:00 -
[1193] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Michael Harari wrote:mynnna wrote:Quote:And before you say "use other weapons" the other missile choices that will fit on a cruiser are worse by much further degrees. Calculate damage application on HAM's and without a double web they can't keep up with lights. Run the same calculation on heavies and they have no chance to compete without at least a 3x paint scenario, and who can afford 3 option mids and still fit a decent shield tank? "The other weapon systems cannot possibly compete without an absurd amount of extra support because the penalty against larger targets is so small and the upside against smaller targets is so big" is exactly why RLMLs are getting nerfed, yes. http://pbrd.co/1anRRKGDrake vs cane, no links, no drugs, etc. The high damage region to the left is with dual webs on the cane. http://pbrd.co/1anS3JVRaven (fit pretty much as close to the drake as possible) and fury drake vs cane. Raven is not kin locked, is faster, has a heavy neut, etc. And before you ask, dps with CN missiles is a bit higher at 384 If I'm going to ask anything it's "What do heavy missiles have to do with rapid light launchers", honestly.
The obvious association of bieng the other 2 weapons systems available to cruiser pilots, do some number crunching and you'll find what we've mentioned multiple times over the last 59 pages. RLML's are bieng chosen because they apply their damage well whereas HAM's are mediocre, and heavies don't apply well to anything under a battleship (excepting stationary targets). Compare HML/HAM to the other medium weapon equivalents and you'll find yourself looking at a scenario where you ask yourself why missiles exsist in this size class.
|
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
24
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 23:03:00 -
[1194] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:I would not have thought it possible, but it seems a large section of the community either has completely forgotten how to properly apply hit and run tactics... or simply never understood how to do it in the first place. Or simply doesn't want to be forced into it with fits they've been using for entirely different purposes. And keep in mind that hit and run tactics require the whole fleet to adopt the same approach or you're going to have hit and run RLML ships warping off and leaving the sustained battle ships behind to fend for themselves for 40s at a time. Or people will use ships that can do hit and run but with like 3-15x the volley damage (arty ruptures, up to arty nados)
Another good point. |
Morwennon
Aliastra Gallente Federation
31
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 23:04:00 -
[1195] - Quote
Connall Tara wrote:innumeracy
Your numbers are all wrong. Your fury caracal does 1008 damage per volley. Assuming for convenience that the missiles hit instantly:
New RLM caracal: 18 volleys in 50 seconds followed by 40 seconds of reload. 18*1008 = 18144 damage, so 202 dps over 90 seconds
Old RLM caracal (3 BCS)
ROF = 3.79s so you get 90/3.79 = 23.7 volleys in over the 90 seconds. Rounding down, that's 23*1008 = 23184 damage or 258 dps
Compared to the current caracal, the new one loses 22% of its sustained dps, or a little more than 5k damage over 90 seconds.
gj on using maths bro u r reel smrt |
Kat Ayclism
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
153
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 23:04:00 -
[1196] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: I've been discussing the response to this change almost constantly since the thread was posted, both with the CSM and with my fellow designers. I'll cut to the chase and say that the conclusion is to go ahead with the change, with the understanding that it needs to be carefully looked at following release.
This is a ******** thing to do. You have your feedback and yet you're ignoring it, going to other sources to validate your false belief, or trying to handwave off the overwhelming negativity. You're a smarter person than this, Rise- ******* act like it.
Quote: I understand that the current RLML missiles are very strong and you guys like them and that many people would be very unhappy for them to get a significant change regardless of the method we chose. We definitely feel they need a change though. It's a weapon system designed to be best in a particular kind of situation rather than being the best choice for most situations and so one way or another it was going to get tweaked. However, if this change means the system isn't powerful in the situations it's meant for (dunking smaller ships), it will get adjusted until it is. Except they aren't. They're rather weak compared to other weapons systems. Compared to other missiles, yes they are currently better because the other missiles have horrid DAMAGE APPLICATION- not theoretic dps, but the actual, practical application.
Quote:The second part of this topic is whether or not the other medium weapon systems are actually viable. The way players are behaving says they are, but following this release I'd like to have a conversation internally about missiles as a whole and figure out where we stand. Maybe there is some more changes needed and I'd like to look into that. You're looking at missile use in too much of a vacuum and ignoring the context they're used it. Use will stay high because: -They've long been used (word of mouth and recommendations on what to train will hold out over long periods of time). -They require less understanding of eve mechanics in general- that is, one needn't really understand falloff, tracking, etc... to be able to use them to better effect than just being blindly ignorant of the way turrets work would have. -People have favorite weapon types that they can be very reluctant to train out of, or when they have trained others to even use.
Use is a factor to look at, for sure, but it is not the be-all-end-all of determining balance. You have to look for potential biasing factors and you have to look at their damage projection and application in comparison to other weapons systems.
Quote:As far as the long reload mechanic, the feedback is mixed in this thread and mostly positive elsewhere (CSM, internal development, external forums) from what I can tell. MIXED IN THIS THREAD? Are you ******* blind? 90-10 is not "mixed."
Quote: Again, I will say that the concerns about ammo swapping are completely valid and I've talked to my team and we can hopefully address that sometime after Rubicon. This is a terrible approach and you guys have to ******* stop doing it. It's poisonous and lazy. Figure this **** out before shoveling the mechanic in or you damage your user's faith in you.
Quote:Part of the reason I lean towards putting this change in is the common sentiment in most balance threads that homogenization is a big fear among our players. I think favoring new types of interactions rather than adjusting numbers slightly within the same mechanic makes the game more interesting, and everything I've heard from the community points that direction as well (except sometimes when doing something new means changing something old). Introduce a different module or set of modules then? RLMLs are one of the few missile systems actually capable of doing what they should, but instead of recognizing that you flatly label them as "OP" and ignore feedback while only seeking confirmation for your own view.
|
Kat Ayclism
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
153
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 23:06:00 -
[1197] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:PS - saying I don't play the game or use Caracals is completely ridiculous, I think you guys can find more reasonable lines of attack. I would never suggest that you don't play. I know for a fact that you do, this is why I personally hold you to a much higher standard than I would otherwise. I, however, am quite aware that you're attached to your pet project and can see the confirmation bias in even this post from you. |
June Ting
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
56
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 23:07:00 -
[1198] - Quote
Replace 5% RLML ROF bonus on Caracal and Bellicose with 7.5% RLML reload time bonus? It's really odd that the reload time dominates the performance of the RLML module, but that there is no set of skills that will mitigate the impact of the reload. I fight for the freedom of my people. |
Adwokat Diabla
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
16
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 23:08:00 -
[1199] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Hmls vs cane, compared to medium beam laser naga (no, not a typo) http://pbrd.co/1anTbgzEdit: Naga is using IN standard, which most closely matches the drakes performance. With proper ammo selection, it does more dps at every range, except between 43km and however far the drake can shoot (about 60km in general)
iT'S ALL ABOUT THE HEAVY BEAM NAGA
WOOOOOOOT |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4829
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 23:08:00 -
[1200] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:I would not have thought it possible, but it seems a large section of the community either has completely forgotten how to properly apply hit and run tactics... or simply never understood how to do it in the first place. Or simply doesn't want to be forced into it with fits they've been using for entirely different purposes. And keep in mind that hit and run tactics require the whole fleet to adopt the same approach or you're going to have hit and run RLML ships warping off and leaving the sustained battle ships behind to fend for themselves for 40s at a time. Or people will use ships that can do hit and run but with like 3-15x the volley damage (arty ruptures, up to arty nados) Most of the arguments against center on the scenario of tacklers being on top of the hit and run group immediately... where your arty Ruptures and arty Nado's will be at a distinct disadvantage.
If I were in a group like that I'd absolutely want some missile boats with burst capability with me keeping the small fry off of me.
To look at it another way, if I'm in a group of 5 Caracals vs a group of say 10 mixed vessels of all sizes, the new systems gives me a distinct advantage over a that same group with a straight nerf applied. Starting with the smaller and/or lightly tanked vessels in the group your burst damage allows you to come in, take out a target or two VERY quickly, and leave to rinse and repeat. Only against the most heavily tanked larger ships in the opposing group will you begin to be at any sort of disadvantage... and by then you've cleared out the riff raff. Or, of course, you simply leave as those heavy vessels weren't what you were hunting to begin with.
Seriously, are people's memories that short.... To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 [40] 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 138 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |