|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12292
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 17:36:00 -
[1] - Quote
GallowsCalibrator wrote:Lots of people not getting the potential of front-loaded dps against smaller targets in this thread I think.
This. There's a reason artillery is so popular despite having lower DPS than the other LR turrets. |

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12292
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 17:39:00 -
[2] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:I hate this idea intensely. Being a newish player (between 3 and 4 months) I was planning on using RHMLs as a transition weapon as I train for other battleship sized weapons for PVE. This pretty much ruins that idea. Now these weapons will only be a decent option for fleet pvp. That's a really bad move in my eyes.
It's a completely neutral change with respect to PvE. In fact if you're smart about how you do your volleying and co-ordinate with drones, etc, using time spent warping between rooms to reload and so forth, you should be able to parley this change into a useful advantage. |

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12292
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 17:40:00 -
[3] - Quote
Justin Einstein wrote:The problem that I can thing of is for missioning. I use Rapid lights on my Caracal now for L2 missions, but there is no way that it will be practical to do this after the change I think.
Why? Sustained DPS will be the same. |

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12292
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 17:41:00 -
[4] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Quote:Summary: Burst DPS increases by 53.8%, prolonged DPS decreases by about 9.9%. Overall this is good discussion. Obviously there's a pretty wide range of reactions and I think that's probably a good sign. Please keep raising concerns if you have them so we spot as many potential problems as possible. I don't understand how 80-90% of people telling you this is a bad idea comes across as "a wide range of reactions". Very few people here like this idea.
Very few of those people seem to understand that 2+0 has the same sum as 1+1
|

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12292
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 17:42:00 -
[5] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Malcanis wrote:This. There's a reason artillery is so popular despite having lower DPS than the other LR turrets. (cough) GǪ ganking GǪ (cough) Some of us do see the potential, even with the changes as proposed.
Eh, I'm not sure that the RMLs will be useful for ganking even after this change. It will take longer than 30s (which is the maximum CONCORD response time IIRC) to empty them, and even then, they'll still do less damage than the HAMsTorps you could fit instead. |

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12296
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 20:22:00 -
[6] - Quote
Drahomi'r Bozi'dar wrote:Overall, im not a fan of the proposed 50s shooting, 40s reloading aspect. Mathematically it might be "fair" but sitting around waiting on 40s reloads doesnt sound "fun" to me...
By way of comparison, 1400mm artillery users have to wait 29 seconds between each shot.
|

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12299
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 20:31:00 -
[7] - Quote
Shade Alidiana wrote:Malcanis wrote:Drahomi'r Bozi'dar wrote:Overall, im not a fan of the proposed 50s shooting, 40s reloading aspect. Mathematically it might be "fair" but sitting around waiting on 40s reloads doesnt sound "fun" to me...
By way of comparison, 1400mm artillery users have to wait 29 seconds between each shot. My tempest didn't know that and shoots every 16 sec
Oh hello RoF bonus. I didn't see you come in there. |

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12299
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 20:38:00 -
[8] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Octavian Madullier wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Fires for 50s, reloads for 40.
I surely can't be the first person to think two weapon groups allowing for either constant, sustained damage yet with the option of massive spike application. LOL ... no you are not ... its the obvious way to use them ...and u have different missile types in each group thus avoided having only kinetic loaded when facing Caldari ... While there are a few situations that this is a good plan, this is also similar to "ungrouping" your artillery weapons. More often than not, you want to put as much damage on your target as quickly as possible.
That's exactly what makes this an effective buff, at least for PvP.
|

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12309
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 08:01:00 -
[9] - Quote
Saturn Asanari wrote:Clean up the missile system first, THEN clean up the items.
I can't even tell which skills affect which launcher types because of the templating you guys use in your skill descriptions...
Do skills that affect Missile Launchers affect Rocket, Torpedo, or Cruise Launchers? Do skills that affect Rocket Launchers affect Missiles?
****.
The answer to both questions is yes. |

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12349
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 20:49:00 -
[10] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Can we get a list of which CSM members supported this change, so I know who not to vote for?
I supported the change.
1 Kings 12:11
|
|

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12349
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 20:53:00 -
[11] - Quote
X'ret wrote:RLML changes now available on Sisi.Also, at 18th evening, i'll ritually self-destruct my RLML Cerberus, feel free to join! 
Contract it to me for 100M instead.
1 Kings 12:11
|

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12349
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 20:54:00 -
[12] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Moonaura wrote:[quote=Thaddeus Eggeras] But I for one, would like the choice to switch out BCU's for a module that improved the mechanics of the missiles being fired, increasing their accuracy or range. This would immediately fix the issue with torpedo's for example, and give more fitting options and immediately increase the variety and types of fits that we see.
All they need to do is give BCU's scripts for damage, rate of fire, missile velocity, explosion velocity, and explosion radius. No new module is needed. Just no. If they did that for BCU's it would effectively be another nerf to missles. Mag stabs don't have scripts and neither do other primary weapon systems. Missiles need new mods just like tracking computers exist for guns. End of Story.
I agree. Not to mention that BCUs are incredibly CPU hungry compared to eg: TEs.
1 Kings 12:11
|

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12349
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 21:03:00 -
[13] - Quote
Chessur wrote:Malcanis wrote:Chris Winter wrote:Can we get a list of which CSM members supported this change, so I know who not to vote for? I supported the change. Why does this not even suprise me.
Because i told you I did 2 days ago, most likely.
Even repeated Brasso martinis shouldn't have erased such a simple fact from your memory.
1 Kings 12:11
|

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12349
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 21:08:00 -
[14] - Quote
Shinah Myst wrote:CCP2011 is back. Not listening to the player base, knowing it better. Fu-ük y-+u, I'm not going to pay for this shGÇïit. o7
Since you're quitting without even trying, may I wish you all the very best of luck for your adventures on Hello Kitty Island?
1 Kings 12:11
|

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12349
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 21:34:00 -
[15] - Quote
Kaeda Maxwell wrote:Malcanis wrote:Chris Winter wrote:Can we get a list of which CSM members supported this change, so I know who not to vote for? I supported the change. From the way you've been very vocally defending it everywhere, one might even get the impression it was in fact primarily your idea, or that you were at least it's greatest advocate behind the scenes. And in that light and the following promise made at the start of this year which I'm sure you'll recognise; Quote: Finally, I am - no false modesty here - a ~good poster~. I can present a reasoned, logical, structured argument, and I can follow one when it's presented to me. If I am elected, I will represent my philosophy to CCP effectively. I will also make the attempt to increase the communication between the CSM and you, the players with regular reports and posts right here on this forum. I will not hide these communications away on a blog, they will be here, on record, where you can respond to them.
If I'm correct in that you have been one of the vocal behind the scene supporters of this change if not in fact its engineer. I'm listening, present me with a reasoned logical, structured argument as to why this is both a good idea, for both fleets and small gang/solo (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt about your qualifications to speak to that aspect of the game) and why it should be implemented on short notice.
It wasn't my idea. When CCP Rise posted it, I immediately thought Ooohhhh that's a good idea!
Of course I am operating under the unfair advantage of (1) Seeing what the alternative changes were and (2) Having the mathematical skills to appreciate that, under the conditions that Rise & co wish to promote, this tradeoff is more of a buff than a nerf.
Lastly, I'll repeat to you an explaination that I gave to another poster who seemed to think that they were entitled to have the CSM support whatever they wanted:
Malcanis wrote: 2) We're not in any way, morally or legally, required to "represent by poll". In short if 10 players want me to support X and 10,000 players want me to oppose it, I am still duty and conscience-bound to support to CCP it if in my considered opinion, X is the right thing to do. That said, I would also be duty bound to tell CCP "Although I strongly believe X is right, there will be significant community backlash if it is enacted".
Disclaimer: I am however greatly reasssurred in my support of this idea by being on the same side of it as some players whom I hugely respect, such as eg: Prometheus Exenthal.
Snippy comments about me losing voters because I don't agree with your views will have even less effect on me than they will on Mynnna, since first I refused to alter a single one of my views to get votes in the first place and second I have no intention of running for CSM again. Not to mention that I'm the sort of person who reacts to being pressured by doubling down.
So thanks for motivating my to do my duty and follow my conscience with even greater fervour than before.
EVE thanks you for this support.
1 Kings 12:11
|

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12349
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 21:35:00 -
[16] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:Viceorvirtue wrote:Can you imagine what would happen if a frigate landed as he was shooting that battleship. If he didn't have enough missiles remaining in his clip he would be unable to effectively do anything about the frigate for over 40 seconds. What if it's an enyo, ishkur, harpy or hawk? Then even with a mostly full clip he still has to swap out of kinetic to be able to break their tank. 40 seconds in a long time and this mechanic will get you killed often enough that there becomes no reason to use rlm at all when you can use something like a pulse omen or rail thorax and be able to, well, not actually die in a fire if a frigate suddenly appears at random. Meanwhile pilots of non-tanky frigs will be raging about insta-dying versus these things. As others have said, these changes are going to **** off both sides of many fights.
A wise, if unpopular man, once said that the sign of a good compromise is that it leaves everybody a little angry.
1 Kings 12:11
|

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12349
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 21:36:00 -
[17] - Quote
Dullmeyr Prodomo wrote:Malcanis wrote:Shinah Myst wrote:CCP2011 is back. Not listening to the player base, knowing it better. Fu-ük y-+u, I'm not going to pay for this shGÇïit. o7 Since you're quitting without even trying, may I wish you all the very best of luck for your adventures on Hello Kitty Island? Here comes the "good poster" again.
There goes a guy who quits a game because of a change that he hasn't even tried out to see if he maybe likes it after all.
1 Kings 12:11
|

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12349
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 21:40:00 -
[18] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:Michael Harari wrote:I just tested this on sisi.
You can kill 1 assault frigate IF
1) You have the right missile type loaded. Thermal vs veng, exp vs enyo, etc. 2) The AF is not full tank 3) The AF is not linked 4) Against certain fits, like AAR vengeance if you dont heat, you dont kill it.
This was in a 3 BCU caracal with missile/RLM implants.
In most cases it takes about 15 rounds, but against some veng fits it took every single shot. Point #1 really should be the deal breaker. You have a 25% chance of that happening and if you end up in the other 75% in a given fight you can do nothing other than try to run. That's pretty sad.
1) What about oher frigate types? AFs are specifically meant to be the most durable and survive going toe to toe with Cruisers.
2) Shouldn't a dual LSE Caracal be able to survive 40 seconds of AF fire?
1 Kings 12:11
|

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12351
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 21:45:00 -
[19] - Quote
Sounds like Caracals and AFs are fairly well balanced then.
PS did the analysis include drone damage?
1 Kings 12:11
|

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12356
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:09:00 -
[20] - Quote
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.
1 Kings 12:11
|
|

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12356
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:15:00 -
[21] - Quote
Kaeda Maxwell wrote:mynnna wrote:Viceorvirtue wrote:This is going to negatively effect solo and small gang rlm usage for these reasons and I have no idea why you didn't take another course of action such as reducing light missile dmg or increasing rlm powergrid usage to prevent the ships using them from fitting things like the triple lse caracal and lse+xl asb cerb. I guarantee you that if Rise had done this instead, we'd still have a sixty page thread full of people complaining. I would have supported a PGU increase (even quite a steep one putting near on par with fitting hams) without as much as a single post to the contrary, I suspect a fair number of the other vocal opponents in this thread would have too.
It's quite possible that something like that might happen if & when the fabled module tiercide project begins. And indeed I would argue for it.
Another possibility for that project would be for a similar (burst damage, "small weapon"-class range/sig res, long reload time) change to currently unloved and unused turrets like the Dual 150mm Railgun and the Quad Light Beam Lasers.
1 Kings 12:11
|

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12358
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:19:00 -
[22] - Quote
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.
1 Kings 12:11
|

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12358
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:21:00 -
[23] - Quote
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.
1 Kings 12:11
|

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12358
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:23:00 -
[24] - Quote
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?
1 Kings 12:11
|

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12358
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:40:00 -
[25] - 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
|

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12358
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:41:00 -
[26] - Quote
Quote mining: a respectable debate tactic.
1 Kings 12:11
|

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12358
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:42:00 -
[27] - Quote
1 Kings 12:11
|
|
|
|