|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
Fidelas Constans
133
   |
Posted - 2013.11.17 05:28:00 -
[1] - Quote
The major issue with larger missile sizes is their poor application. I can push 900 dps out of a cerberus but a battleship doing more than 500 a second can speed tank me. It stands to reason even a cruiser that is webbed can speed tank almost all incoming dps from hams.
And the problem lies in the missile damage formula always choosing the worst ratio of either sig interactions or velocity instead of the best.
Click here for LP store weapon cost rebalancing |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
Fidelas Constans
133
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 06:52:00 -
[2] - Quote
I demand that rlml be modified to firing more than 1 charge at a time. The ability lies in the background code so let's finally have a weapon that can. I'm thinking of srm from mech warrior games right now
Click here for LP store weapon cost rebalancing |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
Fidelas Constans
133
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 13:25:00 -
[3] - Quote
I think we're seeing a tectonic shift in EVE design philosophy towards active tanking and away from fleet logi and their associated doctrines. Away from out-ranging your opponents and out EHPing them. Now it's going to be closer range battles where speed and capacitor discipline makes the difference more important. The focus on burst tanking and now burst DPS are perfectly complimentary to some kind of "all-or-nothing" type of ship design. That's not to say the RLML change is especially great but it makes sense to me and I can see why it's being done. Engagement ranges are being lowered and cap instability is being increased.
Expect during the recon/T3 rebalance pass to see the pilgrim/curse/legion get some serious neut range/amount bonuses and also see the rook possibly gain an active tanking bonus. It really wouldn't surprise me if the huginn got one too.
Click here for LP store weapon cost rebalancing |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
Fidelas Constans
133
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 20:49:00 -
[4] - Quote
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Would a 20-second reload time make them too OP, or would a combination of a 30-second reload time and increased ammunition be better? PvP reasons aside, PvE needs old rapid launchers back. Nerf damage by 5%, nerf range by idk 20% but bring it back as it was.
You're miasing the point which is that rlml apply their damage nearly perfectly to every target regardless of speed. While their dps is relatively low at only 280 or so dps for a cruiser. . they are pushing that dps to 50km and hitting for full damage pretty much everu time. Now take heavy missiles and literally double the dps... 900dps over 50s is 45k damage dealt.. and the application of said damage is very good too...
it's not as simple as you suggest. Provided you use these weapons on the right targets you will melt them nearly every time. The long reload is to ensure you can't just sit there and wipe a whole gang solo.
Click here for LP store weapon cost rebalancing |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
Fidelas Constans
133
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 23:08:00 -
[5] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:I've yet to see a single set of numbers that shows that the popularity of RLML was anything other than a result of the utter destruction of HML as a weapon system.
For gods sakes, if they were THAT awesome, HML wouldn't have been the golden children even before the nerfs.
If you want to see weapons in use other than light missiles, make bigger ones viable.
That being said - a new system like this has merit, but damnit not at the expense of existing systems. I'd like to see ideas like this expanded, really heavy front loaded DPS, including guns with long reloads alongside existing weapons, not instead of them.
Well really it's hams/torps/rockets that should be the burst firing mods yes?
Click here for LP store weapon cost rebalancing |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
Fidelas Constans
133
|
Posted - 2013.11.23 08:58:00 -
[6] - Quote
Have you guys tried using cruise missiles against that Drake? I think people have their expectations of these rapid launchers set way too high. Way too high.
Click here for LP store weapon cost rebalancing |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
Fidelas Constans
133
|
Posted - 2013.11.23 11:22:00 -
[7] - Quote
1 ammo per second ie 40 per load?
Click here for LP store weapon cost rebalancing |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
Fidelas Constans
133
|
Posted - 2013.11.24 22:57:00 -
[8] - Quote
I'd like to reference my HML and HAM fix thread from Ships & modules now - RLML needed a nerf sure, maybe just a drop in capacity to 40 or something..
but the root of the issue is still that HAMs and HML are unfairly punished by the missile damage formula.
Click here for LP store weapon cost rebalancing |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
Fidelas Constans
135
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 00:22:00 -
[9] - Quote
For a weapon system mounted on a larger hull having a smaller clip size is kind of silly. The firing rate of a missile launcher has *nothing* to do with the barrels. You could technically deploy your entire magazine in one volley, and I think that should be an option.
Obviously expending 18/23 charges in a couple of seconds sounds hilariously OP, until you're out of ammo. And even then there's no guarantee of a kill since your total volley damage is still only 28k~~ for RLML and and some 40k for RHML.. which may get speed tanked down.
Just a thought.
Click here for LP store weapon cost rebalancing |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
Fidelas Constans
137
|
Posted - 2013.11.26 11:02:00 -
[10] - Quote
blaster moa? is dis guy srs? moa is terrible and always has been
Click here for LP store weapon cost rebalancing |
|
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
Fidelas Constans
145
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 02:17:00 -
[11] - Quote
I'd imagine that RLML and RHML will get clip size buffs before the next expansion. 30-40 charges each. Expect the reload time to stay though.
Click here for LP store weapon cost rebalancing |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
Fidelas Constans
146
|
Posted - 2013.12.09 07:39:00 -
[12] - Quote
I'd like to see some stats on their use now that it's been a few weeks since their patch. That's long enough for most players to have tried them out now. Sales figures for the launchers and their use in combat.
Click here for LP store weapon cost rebalancing |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
Fidelas Constans
148
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 22:44:00 -
[13] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys. As I'm sure you know, we're keeping an eye on how people are using the new Rapid Launchers, watching how people adapt to the new strengths and weaknesses of them and keeping a close eye on the metrics surrounding them. We're also getting some good experience flying with them on our own player characters in a live environment. Rest assured that we're not ignoring these modules.
As a quick tidbit of metrics for you: Over the last week the number of characters using RLMLs each day was 6.5% lower than the pre-Rubicon average. We were actually expecting the decrease to be a bit more significant at this point, and this easily falls within acceptable ranges.
Thanks as always for the continued feedback!
Reiterating what you said in here
Quote: We were actually expecting the decrease to be a bit more significant at this point, and this easily falls within acceptable ranges.
Just to remind people that these changes to rapid launchers were introduced because there was no reason to use other weapons systems with the previous RLML/RHML set up. Whether or not the change was too extreme is a different question.
I personally would rather see the rapid launchers function more Like This (0m47s) & 2m24s
Click here for LP store weapon cost rebalancing |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
Fidelas Constans
148
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 22:41:00 -
[14] - Quote
Sal Landry wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Torpedoes are fine... That's why everyone uses them.  They do use them. (on frigates) (for shooting structures) If I had to guess I'd say around 5% or less might be on actual battleships shooting other space ships. Edit: apparently it wasn't obvious enough, I'm talking about bombers
Torpedo launchers are considered "balanced" as a PVE weapon which structure bashing is a related thing.
As a PVP weapon I can't personally say I've ever seen it in the 4 years I have played.
Click here for LP store weapon cost rebalancing |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
Fidelas Constans
173
|
Posted - 2013.12.27 07:39:00 -
[15] - Quote
What are the usage stats now? Haven't even undocked a rapid launcher ship since the nerf.
LP store weapon cost rebalance |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
Fidelas Constans
181
|
Posted - 2013.12.29 13:01:00 -
[16] - Quote
Lets look at some cold hard facts for a second. RLML rebalance gave us
30% more damage
400% more reload time
23% of the ammo capacity.
What's wrong with this scenario?
LP store weapon cost rebalance |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
Fidelas Constans
181
|
Posted - 2013.12.30 13:30:00 -
[17] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:I am disposable wrote:I was referring specifically to RLMLs, not all missile systems. I'm just writing off Light Missiles I-IV... Three days of skill training - not the end of the world. I think the only fix is green eggs and HAM. 
A short memory is the greatest weapon the elite have over the proliteriat masses. Take an inch, take a mile.
LP store weapon cost rebalance |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
Fidelas Constans
181
|
Posted - 2013.12.31 12:58:00 -
[18] - Quote
Zamyslinski wrote:So,
Just wanted to share,
I took out a cyclone yesterday and was piloting it around curse.
It was ham fitted wit 3bcs and one explosion vel. rig.
I got engaged by 2 frigates and one of them got into my scram range.
basicly my deadly 600 dps battlecriuser wasnt able to peel off either the ranis (scram range) nor the ares.
If not for my ally mates i would diaf.
Missiles? - no thanks
If you're flying HAM always take a web. A painter isn't much good but a web will do wonders.
Also don't use rage HAM against frigates.. 300+ sig radius against them?
LP store weapon cost rebalance |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
Fidelas Constans
182
|
Posted - 2014.01.01 12:53:00 -
[19] - Quote
http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=1574542
That's not what your killboard is saying.
LP store weapon cost rebalance |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
Fidelas Constans
190
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 01:26:00 -
[20] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Kesthely wrote:
Add more Modules that alter Missiles, their behavior, and there damage applications.
A missile part for Tracking computers
A missile part for Tracking Enhancers
A Module that addresses reload times for Rapid Missiles (i would suggest rigs)
You realize that this basically demands also a counter, therefore a tracking disruptor effect against missiles ? Yes i do, but that isn't much of an issue, as long as CCP has the common sense to make the Missile disruptor module seperate from the Tracking disuruptor module (by scripts or designing a new module) A missile variant for Tracking computers/ enhancers was announced 2 expansions ago, but after that deadly silence. In any case Missiles are the only weapon system, that besides from rigs don't have any modules to alter the damage application, Guns have Tracking Computers and Enhancers, as well as rigs that affect those stats, Drones have Mwd Speed, And tracking modules, and similar rigs, missiles have only rigs. Could someone from CCP explain to us why this is?
The thing is: most missile users just want more range.
Missiles are in a manner of speaking immune to *most* ewar. Neuts don't affect them (but active shield tanking OMG you're gonna die), TD don't affect them because they're missiles, ECM kills the boat not the missile (and then there's FOF missiles), damps are same as ECM.
So if you add a midslot missile range module you've covered every base pretty much. TP for the purposes of "tracking" and sig interactions, BCS for raw DPS increase. Midslot range improver inhibits shield tankers and reduces the advantages armour tanking ships (phoon etc) have in terms of EWAR fitting. Making this range increaser a lowslot is asking too much, shield tankers hurt for lows already. Making it a high is kinda stupid too but it might have to happen. I think a midslot range booster for missiles is balanced especially if it just affects flight time and not velocity because then fast ships can still out-run the missiles (they just have to run a little further).
Edit: I should add that missiles are the most easily mitigated weapon in eve without needing special modules or ewar thanks to sig tanking and speed. Turrets at 0 transversal will still pwn the target, missiles will *always* suffer a damage loss if the target is moving above the explosion velocity. I recommend anyone who doesn't understand the missile formula to look at it right now.
C&C?
LP store weapon cost rebalance |
|
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
Fidelas Constans
190
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 08:41:00 -
[21] - Quote
I am disposable wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:
The thing is: most missile users just want more range.
That's so wrong it hurts. Most missile users want better damage application.
I'd recommend fitting a targrt painter. or getting someone in a hyena.
LP store weapon cost rebalance |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
Fidelas Constans
194
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 04:53:00 -
[22] - Quote
I think what CCP looks for is you to actually sit down and create a compelling case for your argument. It should include an opening statement and the direction for the rest of your case. Following this is your interpretation of the current balance supported by statistical evidence and possibly with opinion pieces from respected members of the PVP community. Then you make your case for the changes you would like to see including actual statblock changes, the anticipated effects on the game balance and possibly include a few endorsements by PVP players. Finish your address to CCP with references to balance of the game particularly ensure that you refer back to your opening address and your balance analysis. Your closing statement should have a confident atmosphere and one that encourages feedback.
Do not include disclaimers, any kind of reference to uncertainty or have inadequate statistical evidence --- these will weaken your case beyond repair.
Remember that you are changing a fundamental weapon system with no direct comparison anywhere, you need to get your case right the first time.
LP store weapon cost rebalance |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
Fidelas Constans
194
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 06:41:00 -
[23] - Quote
Domanique Altares wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:I think what CCP looks for is you to... ...shut up and like it. I don't expect to see Rise darken this thread again for any reason anytime soon.
The joke was it's too much effort for the average player and involves information that is too hard to acquire.
Usage has dropped by 40% which is within "anticipated levels and acceptable boundaries" or someshit. In other words they wanted to kill a brand new weapons system before it even happened.
LP store weapon cost rebalance |
|
|
| |
|