|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 17:21:00 -
[1] - Quote
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. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 17:31:00 -
[2] - Quote
Justin Einstein wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote: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. I think they'll still be fine, to be honest. You'll be dealing out substantially more DPS at the outset, which should clear out a few additional targets before having to reload. this is false you need a certain ammount off missiles/ships. The #ships you kill before reload depends on clipsize not dps. the clipsize is smaller therefore youll kill less before reload. Exactly. Even if it only takes a couple of volleys to kill each ship, there are a lot of ships in missions, and 18 capacity is a lot less than 30 or whatever it is now and 10 sec is a lot less than 40 sec.
And let's not forget wasted volleys as someone else kills the target while your missiles are on their way. Those are going to be truly agonizing with these things. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 17:40:00 -
[3] - Quote
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. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 17:45:00 -
[4] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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.
Err...looks like to me sustained DPS is going down considerably so no it is not a neutral change. If I'm wrong please show me the math. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 17:51:00 -
[5] - Quote
By the way if RHMLs are still not receiving range or explosion bonuses I don't see barely anyone using them on battleships ever at this point. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 21:07:00 -
[6] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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.
This isn't a buff. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 08:12:00 -
[7] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:XvXTeacherVxV wrote:CCP Rise wrote: Both ships would have around 50 seconds of up time followed by 40 seconds of reload meaning that over extended engagements their true dps would be a bit more than half of the dps number above.
Less up time, less reload time would be better. Cut both by 50-75%. Then you'd have small clips that you could burn through in less than 20 seconds and you'd avoid the no fun zone that is long reload times since it'd be about 10-15 seconds. Advantages - Reload time is still long enough to be a disadvantage but not so long it's unbearable. - You could even take the opportunity to switch damage types which adds more room for good players to maximize their damage. - Overall DPS would be about the same and the frontloaded DPS wouldn't be so extreme. Win/Win/WIn. For this to be appropriately balanced, the "high dps window" needs to be long enough to bring down a typical target. Then the reload window needs to be long enough to make it un-ideal when sustained dps is important. I think your 20s attack, 10-15s reload is too short on both accounts, and the 50s attack, 40s relaod is just about ideal.
40s attack time and 20s reload time is about as far as I can see it going without these weapons being avoided like the plague by nearly everyone. And even then only if sustained dps numbers are brought more in line with what they are now. Though honestly I think the idea is fundamentally flawed and should not be pursued at all.
And it should really be noted that without the range and explosion bonuses on most battleship hulls applying to RHMLs these things were already going to be incredibly niche. Now they are going to be more useless than niche to be honest. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 08:39:00 -
[8] - Quote
Very well said Ransu. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 19:38:00 -
[9] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Alright, so far I feel like I'm seeing 3 major areas of complaint, alongside a lot of people who think this will be a good change. Those areas are:
40s reload is boring and will be miserable to use please don't do it Switching ammo types (other damage types or to FOF(does anyone actually use fof?)) will be very difficult which is key for missile users This is a nerf to RLML and I love them so please don't do it I'm not convinced at all by the first complaint. As I've said before, this delay creates new kimds of decision making, it creates spikes of tension in fights rather than a flat amount of damage moving around and beyond those things it can be completely mitigated if you want. As others have pointed out, simply splitting your launchers into two groups and alternating them means you are never stuck in reload. It also means you lose the advantage of having your damage front-loaded into a very high DPS number. Still, if you can completely bypass this 'downside' I don't see how you can argue that this mechanic alone ruins the system.
I commented earlier on the missile switching - I think it is a valid complaint and I'd like to find a work-around for it as an iteration but I don't think it's a show-stopper. Several of the ships using these systems are kinetic bonused which means you don't switch that often. You still have time to switch on the way to a fight based on what damage type might be best. You still have the option to switch as you run out of charges and would be reloading anyway. But again, this is a legit complaint and I want to look into it.
Most of the complaints about it being a straight up nerf make me feel like going ahead with the old plan and leaving RLML in their current state would have been a mistake. I think most of you feeling this way are just disappointed with the idea of losing a slightly over-powered weapon system, which is understandable. Please keep in mind that this change represents a 15-20% damage drop over long fights but offers a new advantage in trade. I suspect that ships like FW Caracals with RLML will remain very strong. Also, if they don't, it's very easy to tune the reload time down slightly or the rate of fire up slightly to bring them into balance and we would absolutely watch that and make necessary adjustments. I would be extremely unhappy if the numbers were bad and rapid launchers disappeared from Caracals and Fleet Scythes completely.
Broader complaints about missiles vs turrets or training time often have merit, but they represent much bigger projects that we fully intend to take on, just not during this rebalance. We hear you though and hopefully we can start working on major module balance projects in the coming releases as we are closing in on finishing our first lap of all the ships in the game.
Hope this answers some of your concerns
Why do you even ask for player input if you interpret both positive and negative feedback as validation of your approach? I don't use RLMLs. I have no vested interest in keeping "a slightly over-powered weapon system". I also think trying to balance RLMLs and RHMLs in one broad pass is just sloppy and a tad bit lazy. RHMLs will have almost no purpose in this form. RLMLs may remain useful (though I doubt it) but with the current state of HMs, and the fact that range and explosion bonuses won't apply, there will be virtually no reason to use RHMLs with these changes. Why come out with a new module and then make it useless? It doesn't compute.
Also when you nerf sustained dps 15-20% you are hurting PVE uses massively. Does PVE not even enter your mind when you do these balance changes? |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 20:05:00 -
[10] - Quote
X'ret wrote:I have absolutely no idea whats wrong with all of you. What are we talking about exactly?
EVE made for spaceships, to fly and SHOOT with spaceships, shoot to npc's and each other. 90% of the basic gameplay is spend to warping all around the space, the remaining 10% is everything else together, including action (pvp, pve, mining lol), and its only a part of that small percentage . Why the hell you playing with the numbers people?? Who the f*ck wana wait 40sec after changing ammo to activate his highslot, when a ceptor will make a 70au warp within 15seconds??!! There is nothing to talk about, its the most horrible idea i've heard about for long time. Garbage. All of you lost your medicine?? Surely this game isnt time vampire and slow enough, we need 40sec reload/ammo changing timers too, in the middle of action!
BRAVO !
The vast majority of us really don't like the idea. Who exactly are you addressing? |
|
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 20:23:00 -
[11] - Quote
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:Obligatory DAM U CCP Y U NERF TENGU comment.
Because as we all know, any change to any missile nerfs the Tengu somehow.
It pretty much is for anyone who used RLMLs on their Tengu. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 20:28:00 -
[12] - Quote
X'ret wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:X'ret wrote:I have absolutely no idea whats wrong with all of you. What are we talking about exactly?
EVE made for spaceships, to fly and SHOOT with spaceships, shoot to npc's and each other. 90% of the basic gameplay is spend to warping all around the space, the remaining 10% is everything else together, including action (pvp, pve, mining lol), and its only a part of that small percentage . Why the hell you playing with the numbers people?? Who the f*ck wana wait 40sec after changing ammo to activate his highslot, when a ceptor will make a 70au warp within 15seconds??!! There is nothing to talk about, its the most horrible idea i've heard about for long time. Garbage. All of you lost your medicine?? Surely this game isnt time vampire and slow enough, we need 40sec reload/ammo changing timers too, in the middle of action!
BRAVO ! The vast majority of us really don't like the idea. Who exactly are you addressing? Many of us talking about dps loss, situational things, rate of fire etc. When a GM check this thread what hes thinking/see (over sh*t on it from 2km distance), what? They think here is anything to talk about, anything to discuss, but its NOT TRUE! This is what i want to let you understand!
If I'm understanding you correctly you are saying that the idea is bad. Period. And therefore isn't worthy of discussion. Unfortunately, CCP disagrees and has the power to enact these changes. I agree that the idea has almost no merit presently, but it has to be discussed because the people in charge think it does have merit. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 00:33:00 -
[13] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Niena Nuamzzar wrote:No, why are you so stubborn? ASB are way more powerful than regular T2 SB so longer reload makes sense and you still have a choice to use old SB along with cap booster whenever it suits you better. Here, proposed burst RLML with split launchers are in longer run so much WEAKER than current RLML, which means your and CCP Rise arguments are invalid. This way we are either forced to use some ****** divided dps or forced to wait 40 seconds to reload - the emphasis is on FORCED.
What happens to PvE, does anyone of you even care? Bears are having high hopes to use RHML on their Ravens etc. and I can assure you whey won't be too excited reloading for 40 sec. every now and then. You still don't understand that there is actually a nerf of RLML : they lose 20% sustain dps. But that's not because of the 40s reload, that's because they deserve it.
There's no way on earth that RLMLs have 20% too much dps. Just because they are better than other cruiser size launcher options doesn't make them uber-overpowered. I'm amazed how missiles actually being good is always seen as them being overpowered. Almost every missile system in the game is underpowered at the moment. Balancing against a sub-par standard is bad game design. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 03:28:00 -
[14] - Quote
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. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 03:56:00 -
[15] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote: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".
They are decent for PVE. That's pretty much it. But I was told in this thread that CCP doesn't care about that, so who knows. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
12
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 11:13:00 -
[16] - Quote
It'll be interesting to see if the near universal negative feedback on this idea has any impact. Unfortunately, it seems like Rise thinks negative feedback means he's on the right track. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
15
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 22:26:00 -
[17] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote: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.
This is not a difficult module to implement. You just make it do 15% less sustained dps in comparison to the long-range missile system. HML Caracal does ~250dps, RLML Caracal does ~215dps. Trade damage, for better fitting and application against smaller targets. So BS-sized you'd see ~700dps Cruise, and ~600dps RHML. Does it massacre smaller ships? Yes. that's the whole point. Does it get it's ass handed to it by same-size ships with standard fitting? Yes. Which is the balance. Done. Why is this hard? Still far too good vs smaller ships.
Yes a missile actually be good at what it's designed for is always too good. Am I right? |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
15
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 09:06:00 -
[18] - Quote
Darling Hassasin wrote:This idea is good and I stand firmly behind it.
A brand new weapon system is a perfect chance to eperiment with something prfoundly different.
If people think the reload time is too much they can simply pretend it does not exist at all and they are back to business as usual.
Lolwut? |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
15
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 09:14:00 -
[19] - Quote
Bob Niac wrote:I am thinking this is going to be pushed back to a future patch. WAAAY too much negative feedback.
I have no idea where you got that impression. Rise pretty much told us we were full of it the last time he posted. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
16
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 04:50:00 -
[20] - Quote
Cardano Firesnake wrote:it would be great like that:
Reload time for both groups set to 35 seconds.
T2 Rapid Light Launchers can carry roughly 20 charges T2 Rapid Heavy Launchers can carry roughly 25 charges
35 seconds is still garbage. |
|
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
17
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 06:23:00 -
[21] - Quote
Ion Blacknight wrote:The RLM Caracal is one of the most fun ships to fly in Eve. Why on earth would you want to remove it? I say remove it because what you are proposing to replace it with is a non-starter that will not see a fraction of the use the present RLM Caracal does.
So I repeat : one of the most liked and successful doctrines in Eve and you want to remove it from the game.
Why?
We deserve a clear explanation.
Rise doesn't like you, that's why. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 19:57:00 -
[22] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:This is definitely the most difficult thread to try and interact with that I've made so far, so please excuse the delay between post if you can find it in your hearts to do so.
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.
It really seems there's two different discussions taking place. One is simply whether or not rapid light missiles deserve a nerf of any kind, and the other is whether or not the proposed mechanic will be fun/powerful.
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. 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.
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. 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. 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). On top of this, there's no arguing that front-loading damage is powerful. As others have said, artillery is a good example of that. Whether or not it's powerful enough to compensate for the sustained dps nerf is just something we will find out once people get it in their hands.
I think we will come out of this with a very fun pair of weapon systems. If we don't, it will get changed.
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.
Just to be clear, you aren't interacting. You are posting every few days telling us we are wrong and you are right. You don't engage anyone directly and you don't refute the points people are making at all. If you are just going to break...err I mean change things unilaterally why did you start this thread in the first place? You are not getting mixed reactions. Pretty much every veteran player in this thread is telling you your idea is terrible and will render these weapons near useless, and you just talk about other groups liking it, negating our opinions entirely. What external forums are supporting this idea by the way? I really want to see that. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 20:03:00 -
[23] - Quote
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. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 20:12:00 -
[24] - Quote
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:I said I'm outta here but I can't - I'm so angry I just cannot understand why pushing so much, it's like this ancillary nonsense MUST BE delivered?! Moreover, it seems it is ALREADY included in the package called Rubicon! Rise keeps saying - it will be changed if needed, we will see, later, soon... a DONE DEAL guys, nothing we can do before it's OUT. What madness is this? It reminds me of Incarna fiasco with Captain Quarters and the NeX of the crap... Kinda hoped CCP will learn from it but
And besides, how long will it take to be changed? He says they'll change it if it sucks (which we all know it will outside of very niche uses), but when? A year from now? It's not like CCP fixes things quickly... |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 20:15:00 -
[25] - 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.
Why would it be a nerf? If the damage script makes them function the same as they do now, and different types of scripts avoid penalties there would be no nerf. I'm trying to come up with a way CCP could do it quick and easy, since we all know they move at glacial speed. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 21:31:00 -
[26] - Quote
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. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 21:36:00 -
[27] - Quote
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. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 21:52:00 -
[28] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:[quote=Zvaarian the Red][quote=Michael Harari] 2) Shouldn't a dual LSE Caracal be able to survive 40 seconds of AF fire?
I think you mean 90 seconds. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 21:56:00 -
[29] - Quote
Taoist Dragon wrote:Niena Nuamzzar wrote:X'ret wrote:3min (BURST DAMAGE) quick check on Sisi, without comments: RLML Cerberus So with good skills it even fails to kill NPC BS, what to speak of properly fitted player cruiser You are whining that a cruiser fitted with ANTI-FRIG weapons has a hard time against a BS? Even if it is an NPC BS....really?! Most of the other whiners here seem to be crying that their (possibly OP) anti-frig murderer is now actually gonna have to think about engaging that lone AF or 2-3 man frig gang.....Aw boo-******-hoo! a single cruiser should have to think about engaging those enemies. That is what balance is all about. A couple of caracals with the new RLML will still smash a moderately size frig gang easily. Sounds like a lot of you leet cruiser pvp'er need to actually learn how to fly.
I don't use RLMLs. I'm more upset about the RHML looking pretty much useless out of the gate for no apparent reason. That said RLMLs do look like they are going to become absurdly niche, leaving missile cruisers with two mainstream options that are widely considered sub-par for small gang/solo pvp. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 21:59:00 -
[30] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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.
A little angry? Most solo and small gang pvpers completely giving up the weapon due to complete inflexibility is a bit more than a little angry. For that matter so is the frig pilot who has one of these warp in and blow him up from 50km before he can even align. A little angry would be RLML cruiser pilots getting a 10% dps nerf or a 15-20 sec reload timer. A little angry would be a non-tanky frig pilot dying because he hung around too long against a bad match up when he should've run from the get go.
And really, there is no compromise going on here. Rise is telling us how it's going to be and ignoring our feedback. Perhaps you need to look up the word again. |
|
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:07:00 -
[31] - 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.
And if that happens after the nerf to RLMLs missile cruisers will get hit again and become truly useless. Maybe they should just nerf light missile damage 5-10% instead. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:10:00 -
[32] - 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.
Sounds like a very reasonable change to me as well. RLMLs do have ridiculously low fitting requirements after all. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:12:00 -
[33] - Quote
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? |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:15:00 -
[34] - Quote
Michael Harari 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. Honestly, this is pretty much only a buff for the 1v1 in isolation, and a nerf to any fleet work using the ship. The smart tactics you are talking about is just heating down your single tackler, and then warping out, leaving the rest of your gang to pvp without you for 40s. You cant even do things like shoot at drones, or put a volley or two into the primary, because you will just run out of shots with your corpmates vagabond or whatever being tackled while you reload, followed by heavy tackle getting on him.
It's also a buff for blobs shooting at massively outnumbered targets. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
24
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:47:00 -
[35] - 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? |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
24
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:56:00 -
[36] - 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. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
24
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 23:03:00 -
[37] - 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. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
25
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 23:17:00 -
[38] - Quote
June Ting wrote: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.
This is another issue with these changes that has not been emphasized enough. There is no way to mitigate the stupidly slow reload times like there is with the slow firing rates of artillery. On top of that, RoF bonuses will be much, much less desirable with these things than straight damage bonuses. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
25
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 23:19:00 -
[39] - Quote
Viceorvirtue wrote:@bouh: My example was more specifically geared towards if I were to engage another cruiser and it calls its friends
Of course you will never want to engage another cruiser with these things which is the entire point of these changes. Never mind that turret cruisers aren't forced to make a definitive choice like that, and are more than capable of being fitted for fighting cruisers and frigates at the same time. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
25
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 23:24:00 -
[40] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote: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. RHMLs are going to totally rock on Ravens for L4s. As for PvP, battleships are basically dead post-Rubicon anyway - so I don't think it matters what benefit or detriment RHMLs have there.
Ravens only get one bonus for RHMLs, and the range of many fights in L4 missions is going to really make you miss the other one. Besides, Ravens already have no issues with L4 missions. I would really hope there are more uses than that for RHMLs, though I'm pretty sure there won't be. |
|
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
25
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 23:26:00 -
[41] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Kaeda Maxwell wrote:I see no reason not to fly battleships in PvP post rubicon, not everybody flies in environments with bubbles and even there I see plenty of opportunities for battleships to still be fun and useful. Blobs, sure. But solo - they're finished with the new warp speed mechanics.
Seems CCP only wants blobs to be honest. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
25
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 23:34:00 -
[42] - Quote
Kat Ayclism wrote:CCP Rise wrote: I also assure you that I am not ignoring negative feedback. There are absolutely a lot of people giving that in this thread. In the past when I've gotten negative feedback which is backed with well articulated arguments I don't hesitate to make changes (see industrial rebalance, electronic attack frig rebalance, battleship rebalance), but in this thread the majority of complaint is very disorganized and unhelpful, that's why I'm instead going with the positive feedback coming from the CSM, from our testing and from some posters here.
"I'm not just ignoring negative feedback but I'm ignoring negative feedback because it's not presented how *I* want it to be." This is silly and just wordplay on your part. You're intelligent enough to understand why this is a terrible argument. We all know that you've got your pride wrapped into your project- it's fair enough to do so, but not at the cost of you choosing to ignore the negative feedback in such a juvenile manner.
Based on his purely dismissive responses in this thread I think it's rather obvious you are wasting your time with the whole "you are better than that" approach. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
27
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 23:58:00 -
[43] - Quote
Taoist Dragon wrote: Go away chessur this is a conversation for grown ups.
That sentence negates itself. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
27
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 00:06:00 -
[44] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Taoist Dragon wrote:
All of the above ships quoted can be killed by a cookie cutter rifter. (yes even after the 'nerfs') if he has a good warp in..
Er, no Of all of those ships, the only ones threatened by 1 rifter is the zealot and oracle. Edit: Seriously, a cookie cutter rifter is going to kill an ishtar or navy vexor? Are you for real?
Speaking of the Ishtar. Why is the damage application of a RLML Cerberus an issue while an Ishtar can massively exceed it against pretty much every target type by simply switching to the appropriate drones? |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
28
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 00:50:00 -
[45] - Quote
Taoist Dragon wrote:Leokokim wrote:[quote=Taoist Dragon]
As for those stats...meh they would mean nothing if they got the drop on you. 53km+ optimal & 450+ dps mean nothing if you can't hit your target orbiting at 3-5kms. (and at those ranges your nomen./zealot is dead.)
Good luck getting a 0-5k drop on something that can fly over 3k m/s. Quite impossible tbh
Yeah like a cynabal has never been killed by an AB frig before. Duh! have you lot only been playing for a year?! Hell THE counter to fast mwd cruisers were AB/SCRAM/WEB frigs for years!
An AB/SCRAM/WEB frig counters a MWD Cruiser how? |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
28
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 00:52:00 -
[46] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:By the way RoF bonuses will still be the better bonus.
Don't see how seeing as it entails a greater loss of sustained DPS. Care to explain? |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
28
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 01:13:00 -
[47] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Viceorvirtue wrote:@bouh: My example was more specifically geared towards if I were to engage another cruiser and it calls its friends Of course you will never want to engage another cruiser with these things which is the entire point of these changes. Never mind that turret cruisers aren't forced to make a definitive choice like that, and are more than capable of being fitted for fighting cruisers and frigates at the same time. And yet, as we have seen, in a 5 vs 5 engagement the new system will definitively beat the other group... go figure.
We have seen this? Where have we seen this? |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
28
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 01:33:00 -
[48] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Viceorvirtue wrote:@bouh: My example was more specifically geared towards if I were to engage another cruiser and it calls its friends Of course you will never want to engage another cruiser with these things which is the entire point of these changes. Never mind that turret cruisers aren't forced to make a definitive choice like that, and are more than capable of being fitted for fighting cruisers and frigates at the same time. And yet, as we have seen, in a 5 vs 5 engagement the new system will definitively beat the other group... go figure. We have seen this? Where have we seen this? This post sums it up nicely. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3866986#post3866986If your burst damage focuses on targets and kills them more quickly, there is less damage incoming towards you while you are reloading. This adds up relatively quickly. Think of it as you are reducing large chunks of their damage more quickly than their more gradual damage is decreasing yours.
What does any of that have to do with a 5v5 fight between RLML Cerbs and other anti-frig HACs? Or was that not what you were saying? |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
28
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 02:41:00 -
[49] - Quote
Taoist Dragon wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Taoist Dragon wrote:Leokokim wrote:Taoist Dragon wrote:
As for those stats...meh they would mean nothing if they got the drop on you. 53km+ optimal & 450+ dps mean nothing if you can't hit your target orbiting at 3-5kms. (and at those ranges your nomen./zealot is dead.)
Good luck getting a 0-5k drop on something that can fly over 3k m/s. Quite impossible tbh Yeah like a cynabal has never been killed by an AB frig before. Duh! have you lot only been playing for a year?! Hell THE counter to fast mwd cruisers were AB/SCRAM/WEB frigs for years! An AB/SCRAM/WEB frig counters a MWD Cruiser how? Oh boy! Do you really think that what you do on grid affects the fight more than what you do off grid BEFORE you engage?! Hmmm you might need to think on that one a bit I reckon.
Rather than being smug while saying nothing of substance how about you actually explain how an AB using frig tackler is a counter to a MWD using long range cruiser. I don't know what you're doing off grid that magically makes that a good matchup, so please tell me. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
28
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 03:19:00 -
[50] - Quote
Taoist Dragon wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Taoist Dragon wrote:Oh boy! Do you really think that what you do on grid affects the fight more than what you do off grid BEFORE you engage?! Hmmm you might need to think on that one a bit I reckon. Rather than being smug while saying nothing of substance how about you actually explain how an AB using frig tackler is a counter to a MWD using long range cruiser. I don't know what you're doing off grid that magically makes that a good matchup, so please tell me. Ok here goes. If you just blindly warp to 0 every time you are going for a tackle you will die to the majority of cruisers if they have any situational awareness about them. The HARD tackle of AB/Scram/Web frig is not about catching the cruiser once on grid as you wont be able to. The MWD cruiser will generally be faster and with blap you to space dust. It is all about setting up the fight so you start within OH scram range by using the various warp techniques of 'fishing' to either drop right on top of the cruiser or get them to land on you. A frig will lock and scram a cruiser way long before it can pull range etc in you start at point blank range. It is all about how you SETUP the fight rather than blindly charge head first into it. FW plex are an excellent example of this being put into practice. Once you are locked down, scrammed and webbed the frig litterally run rings around you and takes you down (all be it rather slowely sometimes) what the RLML on cruisers do is allow you to effectively engage any frig as long at it is in range (27+km or summit) whereas a turret cruiser has to be more careful and setup the fight in his favour because medium sized turrets do jack squat to an tight orbiting frig (even 6-7km orbits) as the angular velocity is too high for them to track it. and in this size orbit a small neut won't reach and if fitte with a medium neut a smal nos on the frig can sort that out. And unless your drones are bonussed a frig will eat them easily while still holding you down. The reason cruisers CAN be really good at killing frigs is players like Chessur know how to setup the fights in their favour (even though I'll still give him **** about being a boostes, implanted, nano ***) to make sure that a frig doesn't land right on top of them. These changes allow you to 'front load' rapid damage them have to deal with slow reloads etc. pretty muhc how arti alpha works.
You don't explain how you are arriving point blank range versus a MWD cruiser. Seeing as that is the foundation of your argument you might want to explain how on earth you think you can reliably land that close to a kiting cruiser unless it's already tackled. |
|
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
28
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 03:22:00 -
[51] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Taoist Dragon wrote:Quote:
In both cases, I felt like I was having to work/think a lot harder in order to get the job done, and having to pay attention to a lot of different things simultaneously. Oh no! you have to actually think now when using missiles?!?! Missiles have always been the 'easy' weapon system to use. Are you in range? - check Press F1. Wait for explosion. Now you actually have to think about what you are doing. This is a good thing IMO bring it more in line with turrets. You must've missed the part where I said that if I'm going to have to think, I might as well be using turrets and doing more damage. It doesn't bring it in line with turrets, since it doesn't do as much damage as turrets.
In PVE turrets require a little bit of maneuvering, not the micromanagement of volleys and cooldown timers. I'm really starting to think you are a troll with the kinds of responses you are littering this thread with. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
28
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 04:24:00 -
[52] - Quote
Taoist Dragon wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:
You don't explain how you are arriving point blank range versus a MWD cruiser. Seeing as that is the foundation of your argument you might want to explain how on earth you think you can reliably land that close to a kiting cruiser unless it's already tackled.
Oh FFS! You warp around the system at different ranges and hope the other guy is a moron so you can land on him and muck up his great plan for being a frig killer. It is really that simple. Look at some of the 'old time' pvp blogs. They explain in great detail various techniques used when 'out fishin' in a frigate. If you don't understand this then really there is not much I can do to enlighten you. Really the playersbase who post nowadays has become such a group of close minded whiners! I for one will look forward to working with the new RLML and seeing what they can and can't do both from a target and attacker point of view.
You warp around and hope the other guy is an idiot. Got it. Fool proof plan. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
28
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 06:39:00 -
[53] - Quote
Taoist Dragon wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:
You warp around and hope the other guy is an idiot. Got it. Fool proof plan.
Once again demstrateing to lvl of competance in todays players. It is about trying to force an engagement on YOUR terms not theirs duh! If you can't figure this out then I suggest you just follow your Fc and press F1 when he tell you ok. What I want to know is when do we get a missle Naga that can fit rapid heavys!!!
To summarize:
1) AB frigs are THE counter to MWD cruisers.
2) Why? Because you can warp around and hope they are stupid.
3) Not understanding this indicates that someone is incompetent.
Got it. Thanks. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 13:26:00 -
[54] - Quote
Mr Gojira wrote:Maxemus Payne wrote:Just some minor commentary here...
1. I don't know the last time I won a 1v1 BS fight in under 50 seconds.
So what part of Rapid missile launchers being for attacking smaller ships than yours are you not comprehending? And most of the people in this thread for that matter? An a Caracal is a kiting ship tank is low on kiting ships...
The problem as I see it is that missile cruisers have no real weapon system for targets the same size as them unless within web range. That has led to RLMLs being used for both situations. Now if CCP wants to nerf RLMLs against cruisers and above they need to make HMLs and HAMs better against cruiser sized ships. Unfortunately such a change simply doesn't seem to interest CCP. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 13:36:00 -
[55] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: If you want an all rounded cruiser weapon system, look for HML, or HAM if you don't need range, but you might need something to help damage application in some cases. I don't have time today to look at the application numbers, but I'm pretty sure they are far from bad considering all their caracteristics.
Are you for real? |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 13:49:00 -
[56] - Quote
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:Moonaura wrote: 1. RLML are not some awesome weapons that needed balancing. At worst, give them a 10% reduction in RoF. Done.
Even at worst 10% RoF reduction is way too much. Now it may seem kinda agreeable, having this huge nerf in mind, but in a longer run it will make RLML weak and inadequate. Up to 5% would be reasonable but I'd rather reduce their range than cripple already modest dps.
I tend to think a 5% damage nerf for light missiles combined with increased power grid needs for RLMLs was the way to go if they actually wanted to balance them. The thing is that this doesn't really feel like a change being made for the sake of balance so much as a change being made because Rise thinks the idea is cool. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
34
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 15:06:00 -
[57] - Quote
Electrique Wizard wrote:[quote=ThunderRa] There's nothing final yet, but as it is now it looks like offensive ASB's. That doesnt have to be a bad thing
By definition that's a bad thing. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
35
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 15:45:00 -
[58] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote: If you have to rely only on an "ideal" situation to support your argument, it's not much of an argument and will receive little comment.
Ironically that is the exact approach all the supporters of these changes seem to be taking. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
35
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 16:23:00 -
[59] - Quote
As it looks like these changes are going to go live no matter how much we argue against them, can we at least get range and explosion bonuses on them? The RHML specifically only benefits from full bonuses from two battleships I believe. So on top of having to deal with complete inflexibility when it comes to damage type and ridiculously long reloads that make you want to tear your own face off, you also get gimped performance from the very platform you stick them on in most cases. I keep trying to come up with a reason someone would want to use these things over precision cruise missiles or even regular cruise missiles on a hull with explosion bonuses and I'm drawing a blank. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
35
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 16:26:00 -
[60] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Also, I totally just realized something: with the mobile depot taking 45 seconds to anchor...
Start with RLMLs fitted, with whatever general-purpose ammo you want. As soon as the fight starts, drop and anchor a mobile depot. 45 seconds later, it will be usable. 5 seconds after that, you'll be out of ammo on your RLMLs.
Then, if the fight's going to take longer than another 90 seconds, swap the RLMLs for something else! LMLs if you need to keep killing frigates, HAMs or HMLs against cruisers and bigger. Should take ~10seconds to switch, then a 10 second reload, and keep shooting with higher sustained dps!
I now fully support this change.
Thank you for perfectly illustrating why a 40s reload is ridiculous. When you can do things like that quicker than you can load the weapons you have equipped there is something truly wrong going on. |
|
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
35
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 16:52:00 -
[61] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:The cruise / torp / rapid heavy dynamic follows the exact same pattern: "Oh no, rapid heavies will be better than cruises or torps in 90% of situations: quick, nerf RHMLs instead of making these two utterly awful weapon systems viable for PvP."
Players want weapons that are useful: the current proposal just adds yet another mostly-useless, extreme-niche weapon to a collection of mostly-useless, extreme niche weapons. Stop theorycrafting ways to avoid being better than heavies / HAMs / cruises / torps and start figuring out some changes to missiles as a whole that will make missiles a viable PvP weapon in general.
I like this Goon. He speaks the truth.
Never though I'd say those words... =P |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
38
|
Posted - 2013.11.14 11:10:00 -
[62] - Quote
Why is there no response to the idea of keeping the rapid launchers as they are with minor nerfs (5% damage reduction and 15% PWG increase for instance) and adding these new weapon systems to the roster separately? That seems like a really good compromise and would actually add choices to the game instead of taking them away. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
40
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 00:10:00 -
[63] - Quote
Jinshu wrote:I don't want to contribute about the pros and cons of burst against reload. However, at least the current singularity implementation for RLML shows another significant nerf:
Powergrid usage increased from 47.7 to 69.3 per launcher with my skills, that is an increase by 45%.
Please check and reconfirm, still can't really believe it.
ROFL...and the hits keep coming.
Seriously this has to be some kind of practical joke right?
Rise? Are you even reading this thread anymore? |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
40
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 00:31:00 -
[64] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Are you sure you don't want to change your mind and deny me my Tengu that hits frigates for 600 DPS? It's not too late to stop the retardation!
The most amazing thing about these changes is how they are managing to make RLMLs overpowered or useless depending on the situation, with nothing in between. Truly wonderful game design. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
45
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 21:35:00 -
[65] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:So I must've missed the part where the power grid requirements for RLMLs got bumped... Quote:Rapid Light Missile Launcher I Fitting: 72 PG, 35 CPU Rate of fire: 7.8s Charge capacity: 16 Reload time: 40s
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II Fitting: 76 PG, 39 CPU Rate of fire: 6.2s Charge capacity: 18 Reload time: 40s
It's been mentioned several times in this thread. They have beaten the hell out of RLMLs with the nerf bat. It's ridiculous. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
45
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 22:11:00 -
[66] - Quote
Patch notes released. No going back now. You were warned Rise. You were warned. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
50
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 05:20:00 -
[67] - Quote
This thread is truly depressing. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
50
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 04:40:00 -
[68] - Quote
Suleiman al-Amarr wrote:This is obviously a horrendous idea, and CCP too will realize this eventually. Too bad those of us who have grown fond of how the current RLML works and really loves using them have to wait until a patch down the road for things to be fixed again.
You're more optimistic than I am. I think they will stubbornly insist that this version is better than the original for months if not years to come. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
50
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 04:42:00 -
[69] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:I still think it's an interesting idea, and it remains to be seen how effective (or not) they'll be. I like the idea of quickly clearing out any frigates and cruisers in any given mission, and the "burst" aspect will certainly make that an almost absolute certainty. 40 seconds is not an eternity, since a lot of time it takes 20+ seconds to lock a lot of the smaller targets anyway. Many of you are talking about "paper DPS". It's almost never realized anyway when you're waiting for target locks, dealing with ECM jamming, having the wrong type of ammo loaded or simply waiting for the current weapon cycle to finish. It's entirely possible that being able to finish smaller targets off more quickly and having far less time between cycles will actually translate into higher damage application. I'm going to give both new systems a go before signing death warrants for either.
Even if they turn out to be okay, all the people who liked the way the old versions worked are getting completely screwed. That's pretty lame in my opinion. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
50
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 06:09:00 -
[70] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Even if they turn out to be okay, all the people who liked the way the old versions worked are getting completely screwed. That's pretty lame in my opinion. Old Marauders... old HACs...
I missed where those were fundamentally changed into something else entirely. |
|
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
54
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 21:18:00 -
[71] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote: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. No, we're not nerfing anything.The last thing we need is to go down the path of HMLs and end up with another marginal weapon system.
40s reload, 15-20% sustained DPS reduction, and ~40% PWG requirement increase isn't a nerf? Because you can now smear T1 frigs faster while being useless against everything else? Come on now. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
54
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 21:23:00 -
[72] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:40s reload, 15-20% DPS nerf, and ~40% PWG isn't a nerf? You want the old RLMLs back with a 5% damage and 20% range nerf?!
I think a 5-10% damage nerf to light missiles and the PWG increase they implemented would've been perfect. It also would've also addressed light missile launchers which are widely considered to be a bit too good as well. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
54
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 21:33:00 -
[73] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:40s reload, 15-20% DPS nerf, and ~40% PWG isn't a nerf? You want the old RLMLs back with a 5% damage and 20% range nerf?! Isn't 'adjusting' HMLs how we got into this mess in the first place?!
CCP overnerfs. That's what needs to stop. HMLs would be fine if they hadn't neutered their range, damage, and explosion radius all at once. Talk about overkill. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
54
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 21:39:00 -
[74] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:I think a 5-10% damage nerf to light missiles and the PWG increase they implemented would've been perfect. It also would've also addressed light missile launchers which are widely considered to be a bit too good as well. That's not a nerf, that's a minor adjustment. From what I understand, we were looking at a considerable RLML nerf and the current iteration was the alternative. Granted, this is just speculation - but since the new RLML version is quite radical I don't think it's a stretch to suggest we were going to see a substantial change one way or the other. I think what everyone can agree on is that there should have been more of a discussion/dialog with RLMLs prior to any change.
CCP doesn't know how to balance in all honesty, and apparently your definition of "nerf" has been warped by their heavy-handedness. Game designers commonly use incremental 5-10% adjustments in game balance. It's the way to bring overpowered elements more in line rather than just making them underpowered instead. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
54
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 21:55:00 -
[75] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:CCP doesn't know how to balance in all honesty, and apparently your definition of "nerf" has been warped by their heavy-handedness. Game designers commonly use incremental 5-10% adjustments in game balance. It's the way to bring overpowered elements more in line rather than just making them underpowered instead. You just called a 5-10% change a "nerf". I called it an "adjustment". Now you're calling it an "adjustment" after criticizing my definition of "nerf". You sure you're firing on all cylinders today?
Nerf is just slang for negative adjustment. You're the one who seems to be making some arbitrary distinction between the two. A 5% reduction in dps is a nerf. So is a 20% reduction in dps. There are big nerfs and there are little nerfs, well unless you are CCP. They only do big nerfs for some reason. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
55
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 23:24:00 -
[76] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Nerf is just slang for negative adjustment. You're the one who seems to be making some arbitrary distinction between the two. A 5% reduction in dps is a nerf. So is a 20% reduction in dps. There are big nerfs and there are little nerfs, well unless you are CCP. They only do big nerfs for some reason. If you've seen little 'nerfs' lately in EVE, I'd love to hear about it. All I've seen are massive rebalancing and things hit repeatedly with the whiffle bat... Which was basically my point: one way or the other we were going to see some radical changes to RLMLs. We've seen one facet with the latest iteration, and I can pretty much guarantee that a 5-10% DPS and power grid adjustment borders on fantasyland.
Unfortunately I agree with that. I was arguing for what should've happened though, not whether or not CCP would be willing to go that route. Personally, I'm thinking some people need to be replaced in the balance department to be honest. Good game balance, especially with old, established games is all about subtlety and incremental adjustments. CCP seems to have never gotten that memo. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
55
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 23:26:00 -
[77] - 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.
I think it's clear that their call for feedback was just to create the illusion they give a **** about our opinions. Clearly they don't really. This thread has made that abundantly clear. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
55
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 23:47:00 -
[78] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote: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.
I don't expect him to post again in this thread. His last response basically amounted to "You guys are idiots and I am consciously deciding to ignore your arguments against my idea. Deal with it." |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
63
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 10:41:00 -
[79] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote: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.
It's called cherry picking. Sure there was a lot of disorganized rage posts, but there were also some very well thought out posts by pvp vets saying the change was a bad idea. The bottom line is that Rise is full of ****. Not much more to it than that. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
63
|
Posted - 2013.11.19 11:02:00 -
[80] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:Anunna Morgan wrote:Sorry if this has already been discussed but as a potential feature/workaround to the long reload vs switching damage types why don't we just have a variable reload time?
You could give the new rapid launchers the same 'base' reload time as other launchers (10 seconds) and then just have an additional reload time on a per missile basis eg;
reload time = 10 + ((30 / magazine size) * used ammo))
RLML reloading with a full magazine takes 10 seconds to reload (10 + ((30 / 18) * 0) RLML reloading with an empty magazine tokes 40 seconds to reload (10 + ((30 / 18) * 18)
RLML reloading with 10 charges in the magazine takes 23.33 seconds (10 + ((30 / 18) * 8)
This would give pilots the flexibility to change ammo mid fight without too much heartache while also allowing skilled pilots to perform 'tactical' reloads during breaks in the fighting, lending these modules to more maneuverable fights. Conversely tactics could be used against RLML users to make them waste missiles making changing ammo more painful. Nice You make a better game designer than Rise. Shame you didn't post this before he went into full on lalalala I'm not listening mode.
Not sure why you think he would be receptive to that ida when he hasn't been receptive to any others. |
|
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
64
|
Posted - 2013.11.19 20:22:00 -
[81] - Quote
I love how they keep linking this thread in dev blogs despite the fact that they have completely ignored it for over a week. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
69
|
Posted - 2013.11.23 20:57:00 -
[82] - Quote
Finally tried out RHMLs and I don't hate them. I do think the reload needs to be shortened though. Spending half your time (or more) reloading is simply not fun. And then there's the inability to switch ammo. That's a problem that isn't going away. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
70
|
Posted - 2013.11.24 09:44:00 -
[83] - Quote
After more time spent with my RHMLs I've got to say that they are practically screaming for a skill that reduces reload times. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
75
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 09:21:00 -
[84] - Quote
Seems that with actual hands on experience people have not been swayed away from their negativity (not that CCP seems to care). Having only actually used RHMLs so far all I can say is that I went from "hate" to "meh". I still think the whole idea is fundamentally flawed and Rise really should've actually listened to the feedback in this thread. As it is now we seem to have yet more missile systems that are more or less usable but that virtually no one truly enjoys. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
76
|
Posted - 2013.11.26 05:50:00 -
[85] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:I say put the reload on RLMLs and RHMLs back to 10 seconds and leave the other stats. The ammunition capacity was already nerfed by 77.75%, the power grid requirements nearly doubled and most of the hulls don't bonus RLMLs or RHMLs anyway. Let the games begin!
I'm sure Rise will agree with this as soon as he gets around to reading it. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
79
|
Posted - 2013.11.26 20:15:00 -
[86] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Fourteen Maken wrote:It should be pretty obvious that was said tongue in cheek, so the real question is why did you bother working all that out? It wasn't clear that it was tongue in cheek to me. It looked like just another case of people proposing ideas without having thought about the consequences. The idea of tripling capacity seemed to be serious also, but was just as absurd. Yes, sorry - that was a poor attempt at humor on my partGǪ I think the solution is to increase the ammunition capacity to 1/3 of the original (ie: 30 for Faction RLML and 45 for Faction RHML). Then the 40-second reload/ammunition swap isn't as much of a mitigating factor. Thoughts?
Sounds good. I also think range and explosion hull bonuses should apply to them, and there needs to be a skill that reduces reloads to 30 seconds at max rank (5% per level). They also need to make swapping ammo take 10 seconds rather than the full reload time. If they do those things and they might be genuinely decent while remaining true to the original concept. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
79
|
Posted - 2013.11.26 20:47:00 -
[87] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote: "Me and Fozzie are definitely pyfa/eft addicts and we prefer those tools to anything internal because of our backgrounds."
The mind boggles... |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
79
|
Posted - 2013.11.26 20:50:00 -
[88] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Sounds good. I also think range and explosion hull bonuses should apply to them, and there needs to be a skill that reduces reloads to 30 seconds at max rank (5% per level). They also need to make swapping ammo take 10 seconds rather than the full reload time. If they do those things and they might be genuinely decent while remaining true to the original concept. With a clip size of 30 and 30 s reload, sustained DPS will be 9% greater than old RLMLs. This is not going to happen.
There's lots of room between the piddly 18 they have now and 30. If we split the difference and arrive at 24 what does the sustained DPS look like? |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
79
|
Posted - 2013.11.26 21:07:00 -
[89] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Reload of 30 s and clip size of 24 gives an increase on old RLML sustained damage of 2%. I don't think that'll happen either. With the burst damage being 58% greater than old RLML, I don't think we can expect anything but a decrease in sustained DPS. For example, to get a decrease in sustained DPS of 4%, you'd need clip 20 and 30 s reload.
Keep in mind that this factors in a new skill that would need a couple weeks of training to max out. They could also adjust the burst DPS down a tad bit to get to the sweet spot. Anything greater than a 10% nerf to sustained DPS from the old RLMLs is overkill in my opinion especially with the huge PWG nerf being factored in. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
86
|
Posted - 2013.11.27 02:14:00 -
[90] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote: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.
I think it's a good idea for people to keep this thread alive myself. Sooner or later it might get their attention. Going silent on the other hand never will. |
|
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
86
|
Posted - 2013.11.27 03:51:00 -
[91] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote: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. Yes, "Margin Trading"... because it's such a balance issue. And it's not like there's any ships or weapons left to rebalance...
Lots of things need to be rebalanced. But I'd rather someone else do it. I hope CCP 40Sec sticks with ancillary issues like margin trading from now on. Dude is terribad at ship and weapon balance. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
86
|
Posted - 2013.11.27 20:50:00 -
[92] - Quote
Adding a low slot weapon upgrade called Missile Guidance System with scripts for explosion radius and explosion velocity should be the first step in fixing larger missiles. It probably isn't the only thing that needs to be done, but webs, TPs, and rigs as the only options for damage application is extremely gimped versus the options for turrets. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
87
|
Posted - 2013.11.27 21:06:00 -
[93] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Adding a low slot weapon upgrade called Missile Guidance System with scripts for explosion radius and explosion velocity should be the first step in fixing larger missiles. It probably isn't the only thing that needs to be done, but webs, TPs, and rigs as the only options for damage application is extremely gimped versus the options for turrets. Except it needs to be mid-slot, since lows are already at a premium. If they introduce a ballistics tracking computer, guaranteed you're going to see it affected by tracking disruptors.
That pretty much completely negates their purpose. You can already use mid slots to improve missile damage application. Turrets have Tracking Enhancers and these would basically be the missile version of those. Besides most missile ships are shield tanks so mid slots are at more of a premium than lows.
A mid slot option on par with Tracking Computers would be a good move too though. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
87
|
Posted - 2013.11.27 21:40:00 -
[94] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Adding a low slot weapon upgrade called Missile Guidance System with scripts for explosion radius and explosion velocity should be the first step in fixing larger missiles. It probably isn't the only thing that needs to be done, but webs, TPs, and rigs as the only options for damage application is extremely gimped versus the options for turrets. Except it needs to be mid-slot, since lows are already at a premium. If they introduce a ballistics tracking computer, guaranteed you're going to see it affected by tracking disruptors. That pretty much completely negates their purpose. You can already use mid slots to improve missile damage application. Turrets have Tracking Enhancers and these would basically be the missile version of those. Besides most missile ships are shield tanks so mid slots are at more of a premium than lows. A mid slot option on par with Tracking Computers would be a good move too though. It requires a combination of mods and changes to missile damage application stats. As long as frigates are immune to heavy missiles nobody is going to use them for pvp.
That may well be true, but I think the wise thing for CCP to do is incrementally address the issue rather than adding new damage application modules and buffing larger missiles at the same time. Too many variables involved. Too great a possibility of unforeseen results.
They could also completely rework the missile damage formula, but I really don't see that happening. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
89
|
Posted - 2013.11.27 23:00:00 -
[95] - Quote
I challenge anyone to go do a comparison in EFT of Fury Light Missiles and Precision Heavy Missiles (without using TPs, rigs, or webs). It's laughable. The "precise" heavy missiles do way less damage to slow frigs and fast cruisers than the "imprecise" light missiles do. I mean we are talking double the damage in many cases. You would think cruiser-sized weapons that are supposed to be precise would have good damage application against pretty much all cruisers wouldn't you? |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
89
|
Posted - 2013.11.27 23:06:00 -
[96] - Quote
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:Fourteen Maken wrote:3 webs a scram and 5 target painters will get you to about 45% dps against a frig Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System (x4) Corelum A-Type 10MN Afterburner Federation Navy Stasis Webifier (x3) Republic Fleet Target Painter (x2) Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Precision Heavy Missile (x6) Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst II (x2) Medium Warhead Flare Catalyst II Tengu fitted for max damage with max skills and +5 implants can do about 83% applied damage against 2053 m/s OH ab Executioner (max skilled pilot as well). Drop one web and dps will decrease 18%. Drop one TP and almost half of your total dps will be wasted. With only one web left and precision rigs applied damage will be 29% or 163dps, which is enough to kill the damn T1 frig but are we going to consider that to be good for a T3 ship worth idk, one billion?
That's just ridiculous. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
90
|
Posted - 2013.11.28 03:06:00 -
[97] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:CCP Rise wrote: The evidence that says it is fun, since I'm sure you will be skeptical of that claim' is both direct (my experience and the experience of some players posting here or talking with me directly) and also the existence of similar mechanics in other games. War Thunder for instance has this mechanic on every single plane in the game and people seem to find that very fun generally. I'm still trying to gather as much info as possible and if you guys are using it and are able to say it's not fun (separate from it not being good, which is a different issue and could be corrected with numbers tweaks like 30s reload or more ammo per launcher) please post and let me know. Did you seriously just say that a mechanic should be fun in EVE because it's fun in War Thunder?! That's absurd. War Thunder is not EVE. It may be fun there because like you said, every plane has it, so you don't put people using that mechanic at a disadvantage. War Thunder is also arena PVP where your plane respawns when you die. It's fun there, maybe it would be fun in EVE too! The mechanic is not fun in EVE because waiting a long time for your only way of doing significant damage to the enemy to reload isn't fun. Please don't ever use other games as justification for why something should be fun in EVE. EVE is not other games and we want it to stay that way.
I totally agree, though I would encourage everyone to be a little less hostile now that Rise has actually shown he is still reading this thread.
But yeah, long reloads in an arena PVP game do not equate in any way to long reloads in EVE. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
90
|
Posted - 2013.11.28 03:09:00 -
[98] - Quote
hujciwdupe22 wrote:My last post today:
perhaps a viable solution is to balance the amunition,
like thorium charges for railguns balancing out the damage and range
buff expl velocity, radius give, slight increase ind dps, carying in each type of missiles lets say 3 types of missiles pro damage types,
problem is the speed of missiles
increasing it helps aplying damage, on the other hand you get the undesireble range buff at the same time,
its a tricky one but perhaps there is something doable with the missiles
Can anyone do the Math for it?
Speed and flight time can each be adjusted to create faster missiles without increasing effective range. And I agree that it's a good idea, especially with torpedoes. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
90
|
Posted - 2013.11.28 03:14:00 -
[99] - Quote
Astroniomix wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:hujciwdupe22 wrote:My last post today:
perhaps a viable solution is to balance the amunition,
like thorium charges for railguns balancing out the damage and range
buff expl velocity, radius give, slight increase ind dps, carying in each type of missiles lets say 3 types of missiles pro damage types,
problem is the speed of missiles
increasing it helps aplying damage, on the other hand you get the undesireble range buff at the same time,
its a tricky one but perhaps there is something doable with the missiles
Can anyone do the Math for it? Speed and flight time can each be adjusted to create faster missiles without increasing effective range. And I agree that it's a good idea, especially with torpedoes. I'm not sure how much this still applies, but previously the problem has been increasing missile speed too much makes the server unhappy.
Might be. I still think the slower missiles like Torpedoes could use some love.
|
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
91
|
Posted - 2013.11.28 12:01:00 -
[100] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Astroniomix wrote:It's not "new tactical options" it's just "go fit something else" I think that is the problem. You can't really go fit something else. Its a case of leaving them behind entirely if you can. This is the hub of why missile changes create so much frustration. Consider that if you fly a gun based cruiser the choices you have:First there are two categories: Short Range and Long Range. And in both of those categories, there are typically at least three choices of sized weapons, with different fitting, tracking, range and damage abilities. Right off the bat, that is a lot of choice. But also consider you can also fit any other races guns to you ship. If you fly a drone boat, why use cap heavy blasters when you can fit autocannons? So there is immediately a much broader choice. Then there is a huge amount of ammo variety, allowing you to fit and change the range and tracking of your weapons, in combat as you require. Then you have the choice of using tracking enhancers as well as DPS modules, tracking computers with in combat changeable scripts, webbing, target painters, critical damage multiplier mechanics, rigs, a whole race of ships with tracking bonuses, a whole race of ships with range bonuses, a choice of high alpha guns on one lot of them, or high DPS on another, or not even having to reload on another, with excellent ranges on even their close range guns and a 2 second switch. So, gun based mechanics aside, what you have there is a huge scope to tweak and tune your ship to fulfil any sort of role and the options to tune it to counter any drawbacks. Want an anti-frigate Cruiser with high tank. Fit scram, webs, tracking computer and either an AB or MWD, or both, and away you go. Its completely doable. Want a cruiser that can hit both frigates and cruisers. Totally doable. For a missile trained cruiser player:You've got three weapon systems. RLML, HM, or HAM. You can only increase damage with BCU's. Only rigs will offer minor improvements to their ability to hit a target, or expensive drugs (the skill book alone to make the most of them is around 320m upwards) or implants, webs and targeting painting (although many ships don't have the midslots after a tank to fit them) all of which gunnery based ships get as well. Thats it. There is nothing else. No scripts, no enhancers, no wide option of different guns, no huge variety in ammo ranges and abilities, just faction or T2 Versions - both of which have drawbacks. And now one of those options only carries 18 missiles and has a 40 second reload timer. Combine that with the fact that the supposed mainstay of this group, the Heavy Missile, hits ships so poorly, even with precision ammo, and its easy to see why such a dramatic change to RLML causes so much frustration and why not having more choice over missiles and a Heavy Missile mechanic that was fair and functional, needs sorting out.
Best post in this thread. If Rise reads anything in this thread it needs to be this. |
|
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
91
|
Posted - 2013.11.28 12:06:00 -
[101] - Quote
Zamyslinski wrote:No to TE and TC for launchers,
Guys do you even know what youre saying?
where are you going to put those on your caracal?
low slots are already filled with bcs nanos dmg controls, caldari ships need the shield mods amarr need the webs.
just change ammo as someone sugested before or do something with the formulas,
no need for aditional mods for those, unless you want to get a 200 dps tengu with no tank etc
By this logic there is no room for tracking enhancing modules for turrets either.
And no one said that adding tracking enhancing modules for missiles should negate needed buffs to the missiles themselves. They probably both need to happen. It's probably not a good idea to do both at the same time however. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
91
|
Posted - 2013.11.28 12:56:00 -
[102] - Quote
Zamyslinski wrote:no because all the properties should come from the warhead itself,. at least it seems logical
You do realize you are dealing with a game where skill points directly affect the damage and damage application of guided missiles and even the rate of fire of missile launchers yes? I'm not sure what kind of logic you are using but it doesn't seem to be EVE logic. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
92
|
Posted - 2013.11.28 20:43:00 -
[103] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Seriously the amount of sheer stupidity and ignorance in this thread is terrifying !
I agree. You've posted a lot in this thread... |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
95
|
Posted - 2013.11.28 21:53:00 -
[104] - Quote
Moonaura is owning this thread. Is this constructive enough for you Rise? |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
95
|
Posted - 2013.11.28 23:28:00 -
[105] - Quote
In a perfect world where CCP employees actually used missiles more than they nerfed them this is what would go down:
1) The original versions of the RLML and RHML are added back into the game, even if in a somewhat nerfed form, and the new versions are renamed Burst Missile Launchers.
2) A low slot module type is added called Missile Guidance Enhancers. A T2 version of this module would increase both explosion radius and explosion velocity by 7.5%.
3) A medium slot module type is added called Missile Guidance Computers. They would have scripts for explosion radius and explosion velocity. A T2 version of this module would provide a 20% bonus to one of the previously mentioned stats depending on the script equipped.
4) A month or two after the above modules are implemented, missile damage application is improved 0-25% for all missiles larger than rockets and light missiles (ie 0-10% for HAMs and CMs, 5-15% for HMs, 15-25% for Torpedoes and all Citadel Missiles).
5) Missile users can be taken off suicide watch. =P |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
104
|
Posted - 2013.11.29 17:21:00 -
[106] - Quote
Here's some interesting damage application numbers to consider:
Hookbill (faction light missiles) vs Kestrel: 88.5% Hookbill (faction rockets) vs Kestrel: 100% Caracal (faction heavy missiles) vs Rupture: 59.5% Caracal (faction heavy assault missiles) vs Rupture: 79.5% Raven (faction cruise missiles) vs Apocalypse: 100% Raven (faction torpedoes) vs Apocalypse: 85.7% Phoenix (standard citadel cruise missiles) vs Moros: 100% Phoenix (standard citadel torpedoes) vs Moros: 69.6%
All these numbers involve no damage application modules on ships shooting at targetsin their own class moving at top speed (without any prop mods). Can you say "lack of internal consistency"? |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
105
|
Posted - 2013.11.29 17:48:00 -
[107] - Quote
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Here's some interesting damage application numbers to consider:
Hookbill (faction light missiles) vs Kestrel: 88.5% Hookbill (faction rockets) vs Kestrel: 100% Caracal (faction heavy missiles) vs Rupture: 59.5% Caracal (faction heavy assault missiles) vs Rupture: 79.5% Raven (faction cruise missiles) vs Apocalypse: 100% Raven (faction torpedoes) vs Apocalypse: 85.7% Phoenix (standard citadel cruise missiles) vs Moros: 100% Phoenix (standard citadel torpedoes) vs Moros: 69.6%
All these numbers involve no damage application modules on ships shooting at targetsin their own class moving at top speed (without any prop mods). Can you say "lack of internal consistency"? This calls for nerf of cruise missile's and citadel cruise's damage application?
Do you work for CCP? Because no, that is not what those numbers mean. Every one of these weapons should have close to 100% damage application against non-prop modded ships in their appropriate class.
The citadel cruise number is actually interesting as it may indicate that the Phoenix is actually in a good spot with them and that other dreads are simply too good against smaller targets. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
105
|
Posted - 2013.11.29 17:50:00 -
[108] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Here's some interesting damage application numbers to consider:
Hookbill (faction light missiles) vs Kestrel: 88.5% Hookbill (faction rockets) vs Kestrel: 100% Caracal (faction heavy missiles) vs Rupture: 59.5% Caracal (faction heavy assault missiles) vs Rupture: 79.5% Raven (faction cruise missiles) vs Apocalypse: 100% Raven (faction torpedoes) vs Apocalypse: 85.7% Phoenix (standard citadel cruise missiles) vs Moros: 100% Phoenix (standard citadel torpedoes) vs Moros: 69.6%
All these numbers involve no damage application modules on ships shooting at targetsin their own class moving at top speed (without any prop mods). Can you say "lack of internal consistency"? The scariest number out of these is the HAM. A HAM should not hit better in ANY scenario than a Heavy Missile, whether it is precision or not. Yet there it is. Still, you're going to want a Bellicose in gang to make the most of the HAM's DPS potential.
Don't know if I agree with that. I think all the close range missile systems should have slightly better damage application. That is, after all, how turrets work. So to me torps vs cruise are what's really out of whack.
Of course it is pretty clear why people are unhappy with heavy missiles when you see that they have worse damage application within their own class than citadel torps. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
107
|
Posted - 2013.11.29 17:59:00 -
[109] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:That is a fair point, but Heavy Missiles shouldn't hit a Cruiser for so little damage either. And I also agree, Torpedos are, without question, the worst weapon platform in the game.
Agreed on both points. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
108
|
Posted - 2013.11.29 18:27:00 -
[110] - Quote
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:Moonaura wrote:That is a fair point, but Heavy Missiles shouldn't hit a Cruiser for so little damage either. And I also agree, Torpedos are, without question, the worst weapon platform in the game. I'd disagree on the second one. Faction torps are not too bad at doing damage to BS's (EDIT1: for PvE they struggle more with range than application) but heavy missiles (EDIT2: faction or precision, doesn't matter) are very bad at damaging cruisers.
The issue with torps is that you have massively shorter range and with inferior damage application you are generally only doing roughly comparable damage when finally in range. Now you can put on some rigors or use a BS with application bonuses to negate that, but in the end that same ship could be using those bonuses to kill cruisers more effectively while you are doing it to simply do max damage to BS's.
|
|
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
108
|
Posted - 2013.11.29 18:37:00 -
[111] - Quote
Dr Sraggles wrote: Well, to be fair I think it appears inconsistent but in actual fact the application of the various tools is different. Once you start talking Cruises and Torps in PvP (in general) you start talking about huge fleet fights and what hits Capital Ships harder etc.
Perhaps (I don't personally agree with balancing everything around large fleet combat but that's a different topic), but it still doesn't answer the question of why heavy missiles have by far the worst damage application against same class targets in the game. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
109
|
Posted - 2013.11.29 18:51:00 -
[112] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Missiles can hit everything in their range without hypothesis or hope, it's a given.
You're right, there's very little hope when a T2 precision heavy missile only does ~33% of its DPS against a frigate with no prop mod. It's a given that you are wasting your time. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
110
|
Posted - 2013.11.29 20:19:00 -
[113] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:]I'm pretty sure about that : at 500m you won't hit an orbiting AB frigate. And remember the frigate have a web too. And if the frigate have a MWD, you won't catch it.
That's the thing with turret : it's either tracking or range, not both except in a narrow band at your optimale range.
Missiles can hit everything in their range without hypothesis or hope, it's a given.
About my Incursus : the fit you saw was not meant to combat against a cruiser, it's a brawling frigate fit. My fleet fit have blasters and MWD/scram/web, as should have any heavy tackling frigate IMO. You know your MWD dosent work when your scrammed, what kind of dumass thorax has long point with blasters? and what kind of 30 second wonder Incursus is that with no cap booster in the med slots... is it hero tackle? As for orbiting at 500 you'll end up closer to 1km even if your target is stationary, and you'll end up with an angular velocity of no better than 0.13 if he has you scrammed and webbed and is burning away from you that's well within med tracking abillities, and he has 2 full flights of light drones to boot. I can't believe your trying to say an incursus could live with a Thorax in scram range, he'll melt in 20 seconds... not so against HML Caracal, never mind hero tackle he could probably solo it.
I think at this point only Bouh thinks he has any credibility in this discussion. The rest of us are like this: |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
111
|
Posted - 2013.11.29 22:27:00 -
[114] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote: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.
Bouh's been posting in this thread since the beginning. Nothing's changed. He's right and all the knowledgeable people in this thread with numbers to back up their claims are wrong. He's simply smarter than the rest of us.
I'm actually kind of worried that CCP may hire him. They seem to like that attitude in their balance department. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
111
|
Posted - 2013.11.30 01:02:00 -
[115] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Niena Nuamzzar wrote:Idk, my EFT dares to disagree with you. According to the graphs from earlier Tengu-Executioner example, T1 Rigor is better than a T2 Flare, T2 Rigor & T2 Flare are better than T2 Rigor & T1 Rigor (though difference is only 1dps) and, at the end, 2xT2 Rigor & T2 Flare are better than 2xT2 Rigor & T1 Rigor (4dps difference, ofc you can't fit three T2 Rigor rigs cause it would require 450 calibration points which you don't have). I had assumed we were referring to T1 rigs, since T2 rigs are a tad expensive for PvP. So yes, 2x T2 Rigors and a T2 Flare will be marginally better (albeit expensively more so) than 2x T2 Rigors and a T1 Rigor (400 calibration not being enough to fit 3x T2 Rigors). 3x T1 Rigors will easily outperform 3x T1 Flares or 2x T1 Rigors and a T1 Flare. So rigor, rigor, rigorGǪ GǪ.. How did this thread manage to get derailed again into a missiles vs. guns debate? Weren't we discussing RLMLsGǪ?
Because the entire missile line, and especially the **** poor damage application of HMs and HAMs is why RLMLs became so popular and by extension why RLMLs were nerfed (because they were "too good" compared to underpowered missile systems). |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
112
|
Posted - 2013.11.30 04:01:00 -
[116] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:I'd like to congratulate all the posters for the last 5 or 6 pages of this thread.
It has been completely derailed and given CCP Rise no reason at all to continue following it.
Look at the title of this thread, then give yourselves a big pat on the back for so cleverly moving it so far off topic it is lost forever.
This Thread Is About RLML & RHML, or was anyway. Now it is just another thread that has totally lost its way
Apologies Dr Sraggles, you posted while I was typing and making coffee
Talking about RLMLs and RHMLs in a vacuum is pointless. The last 5 or 6 pages have been about the context in which these systems exist, and why nerfing RLMLs because they were more popular on cruisers than HML or HAMs was the wrong decision. If you can't follow that I'm not sure what to say. Here's hoping Rise is more capable of following complicated discussions involving many factors than yourself. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
117
|
Posted - 2013.12.01 01:19:00 -
[117] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: I might not shoot missiles often, but I've been in front of both missiles and turrets cruisers in a frigate, and even in an interceptor I fear missiles ships a LOT more than turrets ones. The simple truth is that a missile ship in the area means "gtfo" whereas turrets means "careful". But I guess my experience mean nothing here, because I'm not leet enough, and finely selected numbers prove me wrong anyway...
Words simply fail me... |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
126
|
Posted - 2013.12.02 12:07:00 -
[118] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:RIP RLML. RIP RHML.
I really (really) tried, but these new missile systems are completely pointless outside of blobs. If anything, they give blobs an advantage by allowing them to boost initial DPS. If we want to eliminate solo play, this is the surest way to do it. I had three brief engagements today vs. a Loki, a Proteus and a mixed fleet (I had equipped full RLMLs in the hopes I'd happen upon a frigate, but we play the cards we're givenGǪ)
In the first engagement with the Loki, he managed to get a point on me with an overheated warp disruptor, so I decided to use my MWD to keep him out of weapons range. I was only able to knock his shields down about 20% before exhausting my supply of RLMLs, whereby the 40-second "reload of death" kicked in. We were both overheating our MWDs and traveling in a straight pursuit path, but as he was overheating both his MWD and disruptor - he wasn't able to keep pace and had to drop back. This gave me a window of opportunity to get clear of his point and warp to out (I clearly wasn't going to make any progress).
In the second, I was able to keep well clear of the Proteus and use the range advantage of the RLMLs to hit him. Damage was negligible, and as he couldn't get close to me (and I didn't stand a chance in a close-range battle) - we both disengaged.
The third engagement saw me jumped by several ships which immediately ECM'd me. With the additional sensor damps from the Federation NPCs, this basically shut me down so I loaded FoF missiles (it should be noted that this 40-second switch was rather nerve-racking, as several additional ships jumped in and joined pursuit). I couldn't lock anything, so I have no idea what if any damage I did (but I imagine it was practically non-existent since they continued pursuit). After exhausting a full volley and expecting even more reinforcements (local was lighting up like a Christmas tree), I aligned and got the heck out of dodge. GǪ..
So that's it for the grand experiment. The damage application with HMLs is practically non-existent, and the range advantage is easily mitigated with sensor dampeners. ECM shuts down target painters, leaving you with FoF missiles. If you have to resort to FoF missiles, you're dead already (you just don't realize it yet). RLMLs are pointless for all the aforementioned reasons and one more: their only saving grace was the fitting requirements, and now you run them at the expense of tank, too. RHMLs would be interesting if they knocked the power requirements down 5-fold, but again - "40 second death" awaits. So I'm left with HAMs, because they're the only missile system left. I lose range, gain fitting over HMLs (slightly over RLMLs), greatly increased damage application and massive sustained DPS boost (400-ish on a Covert configuration; around 600 or so non-Covert). Faction launchers also hold 75 rounds of ammunition, so even with a 2.25-second ROF - that's a lot of shooting. GǪ..
My proposal: 1. Reinstate RLMLs to pre-Rubicon specs. 2. Revise RHMLs to the first iteration (they're about as useful on battleships as a screen door right now). 3. Implement some adjustments to LMs, HAMs and HMs (see previous posts for specifics). 4. Implement a passive ballistic enhancement module, similar to the tracking enhancement module for guns.
So after trying to convince yourself that they weren't that bad you've now come full circle? Well kudos for giving it a try. More than I'm willing to do (I did try RHMLs in PVE unfortunately). These things on paper tell me all I need to know. They suck. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
126
|
Posted - 2013.12.02 12:11:00 -
[119] - 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.
I'd just like to quote this post again because this really is the problem, and the current versions of the rapid missile launchers have done nothing but add insult to injury for missile users. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
138
|
Posted - 2013.12.03 00:48:00 -
[120] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:i would suggest - nerf light missile damage 10% maybe buff light missile launchers ROF if needed for frigs -increase ammo capacity by about double on RLML's (HAMS have 60 maybe reduce HAMS to 45) - reduce reload time to 25 seconds and increase reload time on all missile launchers to 17.5 seconds - add reduced reload time skill for all launchers 1 second a level.
i always think its strange that missiles can reload as fast as projectiles do seems strange too me.. bulkiness and all i would think a crew would need to practice reloading missiles more than reloading bullets
Wow those are some truly terrible ideas... |
|
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
140
|
Posted - 2013.12.03 02:27:00 -
[121] - Quote
Moonaura wrote: With the rest of your points, you are quite literally outlining the mechanics of the original RLML we just lost in Rubicon... *face palms*
I'm pretty sure the batshit crazy idea to make all missile launchers take 75% longer to reload wasn't part of the original RLML... |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
147
|
Posted - 2013.12.03 19:57:00 -
[122] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
And still nobody answered the only question I asked : what should be the roles and stats of HML and RLML to not overlap on eachother ? .
HMLs should excel against cruisers and be marginally effective against smaller targets. RLMLs should excel against frigs and destroyers and be marginally effective against larger targets. Right now, HMLs are only truly effective against BCs and above, while RLMLs are only truly effective against solo or maybe duo frigs not sporting heavy tank. In other words neither has any real flexibility, and are therefore purely niche weapons. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
149
|
Posted - 2013.12.03 21:32:00 -
[123] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Moonaura wrote:That is fascinating. But it also interesting given how high the Tengu use is (although it can use Blasters).
Regarding what I said about improving Heavy Missiles and nerfing the Tengu, I'm talking about tweaking the bonuses it would get with missiles. If the missiles themselves hit better - which is the fundamental issue with Heavy Missiles - then sure it makes sense that the Tengu would still be just as powerful, even with a tweak to its bonuses? So in fairness, its not a nerf that would stop their use, but just keep it where it is at.
So essentially what I'm suggesting is that Heavy Missiles are improved for all missile ships (because they are woeful at present), vs. stopping the Tengu becoming even more powerful.
This is the heart of what makes good balancing, surely? Those are probably fleet railgun Tengus. The Tengu bonuses aren't that out of balance when you look at the new Cerberus: Tengu: 5% kinetic damage, 7.5% ROF, 10% HM/HAM velocity (only) Cerberus: 5% kinetic damage, 5% ROF, 10% velocity (all), 10% flight time (all) Cerberus will run 6 launchers (10 equivalent with bonuses) vs either 5 launchers (10 equivalent) or 6 launchers (12 equivalent) on the Tengu. Since running a 6th launcher on a Tengu is really only for PvE, you're basically at the same DPS for a Tengu. So why exactly does it need to be nerfed into the ground again?
I must have missed where he suggested it should be nerfed into the ground. I only saw him saying it should be adjusted down a bit to compensate for a heavy missile buff, basically keeping it at the same level while buffing all the other heavy missile ships.
Though I personally don't think it's necessary I get where he's coming from. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
155
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 01:36:00 -
[124] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Kenshi Hanshin wrote:Dr Sraggles wrote:Dear CCP Rise, Previously we have expanded on the concept of "User Metrics" to assess the acceptance and effectiveness of certain weapon systems and your intent on considering this at least in part when looking at ship/weapon system balance. I ask that you and the community take a look at these metrics compiled from 12/1 to 12/3. http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20Now, it is my understanding that these are self reported metrics (I could be wrong) and so there would be an inherent bias in this statistical compilation. However, I would welcome your comments and as well, in the spirit of game balance and an open dialogue, ask what it is that you would dispute in the accuracy of these statistics? In particular I would draw your attention to the "Rank Weapons" where we find the only missile system dead last in the Top 20 and it is the Light Missile II launcher, a frig class weapon. Note that the RLML and RHML are nowhere to be seen as well as the ships capable of mounting these systems. Needless to say there is not a sign of HAMS or HML or any Caldari ship other than our fine frigates. Note in the "Rank Ships" list that there is a significant outlier (Dominix) that indicates profound balance issues but the one shining light for Caldari is the Tengu. However as it's perceived weapons system (missiles) is nowhere to be seen apparently they are Rail Tengus which (apparently?) are used in Null Blob fleet doctrine per report. Regardless, the point is that something missile was not fixed with Rubicon, it was further broken in fact if these metrics have validity. If I knew how I would search pre-Rubicon statistics and expect to find the "old" RLML high on the list if it was in need a such a dramatic nerf? My actual sense is that it was no where to be seen as compared to other light/medium weapons systems. What exactly is being "fixed" with Rubicon? My humble user sense of things that I am left with is that RLML got nerfed because it was all we used, so it must've been too good without looking at the pathetic performance of missiles over all. I welcome your feedback and that of any others that can shed light on these issues and how these lists are compiled as there appears to be a disconnect between ship success and weapons success that is not apparent to me. best ps. Maybe I have been listening to too many conspiracies theories about server issues in huge missile fights but maybe it is time to change them to a new class of weapons (the Photon Missile) that has extremely high speeds (like projectiles) to instantly apply damage but otherwise retain the explosion velocity and radius characteristics (brought into better balance) so that they can be used in large scale battles without their slow flight and numbers creating lag. Did you notice the Domix is 3x the number of kills of the 2nd place ship according to that data? Likewise the HML T2 has 750 kills to it compared to 2,747 of 200mm Autocannon T2s (~3.7x the HML). I do not see RLML or any other similar missile launcher system on there. The only other missiles are the Arbalest Torps which are at 1,926 kills. However, the torp figure has more to do with the SBs than anything else I suspect. CCP Rise, these are user reported statistics. So you cannot tell me that Missiles are Balanced or that the Domi is not OP. Also I would love to hear your explanation for why 200mm Auto IIs and Light Neutron Blaster IIs are so popular compared to everything else. That actually used to be the drake's spot. All that in reference though, if eve kill listed sentry drones as weapons. it would be a totally different top 20.
Too bad Caldari aren't the drone race. If they had the most underpowered weapon systems combined with the most overpowered weapon systems it would kind of balance out...kind of. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
157
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 11:11:00 -
[125] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:
Too bad Caldari aren't the drone race. If they had the most underpowered weapon systems combined with the most overpowered weapon systems it would kind of balance out...kind of.
I tell people that want to hybrid and caldari to start training gallente early. Merlin is outshined by Incruris on pretty much every level, the AFs are close, cruisers...moa vs thorax? Yeah rax all day, Diemost vs eagle? Do we need to go there. Ferox and Brutix? 820DPS brutix please Rokh vs mega/hype......what is that Rokh thing again. Gallente do it better and they do it better across the board, you can make an argument for the Rokh, but like I said its a judgement call between Rohk and Mega. ....and I'm not sure what their issue with missiles is, every "balance" pass makes missiles less appealing, with the exception of cruise missiles, which are of dubious use outside of PvE.
I don't quite follow what this has to do with my post... |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
158
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 13:47:00 -
[126] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:And still nobody answered the only question I asked : what should be the roles and stats of HML and RLML to not overlap on eachother ? HMLs should excel against cruisers and be marginally effective against smaller targets. RLMLs should excel against frigs and destroyers and be marginally effective against larger targets. Right now, HMLs are only truly effective against BCs and above, while RLMLs are only truly effective against solo or maybe duo frigs not sporting heavy tank. In other words neither has any real flexibility, and are therefore purely niche weapons. Ok, so HAM don't exists (I guess a missile not hiting to 50km is not worth considering...) Can you elaborate though ? What would be an effective anti-frigate weapon ? How many frigates should you **** for your RLML to be convenient ?
Are you for real?
Your question had nothing to do with HAMs, and the old RLML was an effective anti-frigate weapon. The new one is piece of garbage that can not change ammo and can not kill a heavily tanked T2 frig with the wrong resists before you are forced to wait 40 seconds to start shooting at them again (in which case you will probably die or be forced to warp off).
I seriously think you are a troll at this point... |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
168
|
Posted - 2013.12.05 01:05:00 -
[127] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: The RLML could have been the answer to these potential "intie gank fleets" we see now that their warp speeds are up and they are immune to bubbles. With a 40 second reload now all you need it to send in cheap tackle, let it pop, then while the quarry takes 40 SECONDS TO RELOAD you can move in the expensive stuff.
Or you can simply wtfpwn it with a turret cruiser. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
168
|
Posted - 2013.12.05 07:37:00 -
[128] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:It always amazes me how much time ccp seems to invest in dumb ****. Yet, they cant even fix things of meaning.
Example: Changing the lights on a wolf from purple to grey. Camera zooming after undock,,,,,,, The volume of mwd's and ab's.,,,,,,,, Making the sound of booster ships more prevalent in front of the ship...... Among other dumb ****......
CCP has released a number of patches since Rubicon deployed Let me sum it up: Rubicon 1.0.1
****. ****, more ****
Rubicon 1.0.2
More ****, extra ****, alpha ****, beta ****.......High Grade (******** ****) Omega
Rubicon 1.0.3
Bullshit, Cowshit, dogshit, cat diarrhea , peoples diarrhea,.....
Rubicon 1.0.4
Blue ****, green ****, burgundy ****, quad laser ****, heavy pulse lazors with conflag ****.
Rubicon 1.05 ..........I think you know where im going with this................. Rubicon 1.0.6 ................................................................................................... Rubicon 1.0.7
Im tired of saying the word ****.
Please try not to get this thread locked... |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
168
|
Posted - 2013.12.05 13:22:00 -
[129] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Silverbackyererse wrote:Personally, I smell a nerf to all launcher based weapons systems to the point where they are little used.
My tin-foil-hattery says this is happening to reduce server loading. I recall a CCP examination of server loading a while back and launcher based weapons are server resource hungry.
Less launcher ships flying around = big win for CCP.
Tell me I'm wrong. ;) I'm curious, I can see where your coming from and would never presume you to be wrong but would not hundreds of Domis with 5 drones a piece create as much if not more server load as the same amount of Ravens pumping out cruise missiles?
Probably more. If you think about it drones are almost certainly more resource intensive that missiles. The bottom line is that CCP are simply clueless when it comes to game balance. There's no nefarious plot to ruin missiles, they just don't know what they are doing. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
172
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 03:41:00 -
[130] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote: I also was not saying we should use heavy missiles, but to show that Heavies are not incapable of killing frigs or smaller targets, just that you need to fit for it. Its aimed at the people that complain that heavies apply for ****, but then don't create fits similar to these (maybe not as extreme because you're looking for cruisers to fight, so you can drop some of the application and add more tank since your targets will be larger.
Pretty much i'm saying, missiles rely more off application then dps, but you have to fit for it to be effective, as I would consider it more as damage over time effect, the damage can't be dodged if in range. So to counter, they updated the RLML to have a break, so the other person fighting (typically a frigate) a chance to survive. Theres a player in the other ship, and they want to have fun too, and not just be steamrolled (unless active tanked) if theres a RLML on field in its older version.
Sorry but even with rigors heavy missiles blow against frigates with afterburners. A Caracal with three rigors and precision heavy missiles deals 25% damage to a Kestrel with an afterburner or around ~63 DPS. With faction ammo that drops to 16.5% or ~47 DPS. That's utter garbage. There is no arguing otherwise.
And keep in mind that's with perfect damage application skills. It gets worse if you don't have those. |
|
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
172
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 04:44:00 -
[131] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote: I also was not saying we should use heavy missiles, but to show that Heavies are not incapable of killing frigs or smaller targets, just that you need to fit for it. Its aimed at the people that complain that heavies apply for ****, but then don't create fits similar to these (maybe not as extreme because you're looking for cruisers to fight, so you can drop some of the application and add more tank since your targets will be larger.
Pretty much i'm saying, missiles rely more off application then dps, but you have to fit for it to be effective, as I would consider it more as damage over time effect, the damage can't be dodged if in range. So to counter, they updated the RLML to have a break, so the other person fighting (typically a frigate) a chance to survive. Theres a player in the other ship, and they want to have fun too, and not just be steamrolled (unless active tanked) if theres a RLML on field in its older version.
Sorry but even with rigors heavy missiles blow against frigates with afterburners. A Caracal with three rigors and precision heavy missiles deals 25% damage to a Kestrel with an afterburner or around ~63 DPS. With faction ammo that drops to 16.5% or ~47 DPS. That's utter garbage. There is no arguing otherwise. And keep in mind that's with perfect damage application skills. It gets worse if you don't have those. But thats what i would expect from an a/b frigate. Its their defense against turrets (transversal and sig tanking) and missiles (sig and speed tanking) on larger vessels. Heres an idea, how about we buff all missile damage application except lights. Then incorporate bonuses into afterburners to provide additional missile damage reduction. That would effectively make it like a tracking disruptor for missiles that makes sense. Then you have to consider a dual prop, or a/b only for fits to negate missile dps. So if you're fighting someone without an a/b, you get a buff to missile damage. If they have a fit with a/b, you hit like we do now.
An Omen with beam lasers and no damage application rigs or modules generally applies damage much better against a frig with an afterburner, and it's only at the worst possible traversal that the numbers begin to compare, though even then the greater base DPS means you are doing much more damage. And if you add tracking rigs and/or modules? It's truly laughable at that point. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
176
|
Posted - 2013.12.07 03:33:00 -
[132] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Yes, they just need to be tweaked a bit, but still make missile pilots fit tps/rigs (and oneday a missile guidance computer) to make it more on par with how turrets have to fit.
The problem is that currently turret ships can use mids or lows to enhance tracking while missile ships have to use mid slots, and without any tracking enhancements they are massively better in all cases other than frig size weapons (where the gap is relatively small). |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
180
|
Posted - 2013.12.07 22:26:00 -
[133] - Quote
Empeached wrote:So is there any chance we could get an update on this CCP? There have been lots of very informative posts in this thread highlighting some of the problems facing missiles (heavies in particular), and it seems like tackling these is the only real way to effectively balance rapids - it's hard to introduce a new mechanic into a system that for lots of people just isn't working as it should.
Would be nice to hear some feedback anyway - not least because I'm trying to work out whether the smart move is to switch to training drones or not...
CCP 40Sec don't give a ****. Sorry. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
180
|
Posted - 2013.12.08 00:39:00 -
[134] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Marcus Walkuris wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Empeached wrote:So is there any chance we could get an update on this CCP? The update I'm fully expecting is to the effect of "GǪwhile we were initially concerned with the 40-second reload/ammunition swap time, players seem to have adapted and are now utilizing the rapid launchers in numerous new tactical scenariosGǪ therefore, we have decided to leave rapid launchers for now and continue evaluating them." YeahGǪ not holding my breath. Although I share your cynicism due to a complete lack of CCP interest for a topic which seems to have a serious presence in almost every forum. We shouldn't let it pour over or we get thread-locked. One of the links I gave earlier shows the CSM is taking interest. (Malcanis). Also I think it will be: "Focussing on more pressing matters". The CSM hasn't poked their whiny heads in here in over 40 pages. (I'm guesstimating, I didn't actually check that number but I suspect it is actually quite higher) They also haven't said jack squat except that they support CCP because metrics and other BS
The CSM is complicit in all bullshit as far as I can tell. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
180
|
Posted - 2013.12.08 02:04:00 -
[135] - Quote
Virtually everyone with any sense agrees missiles need damage application modules like turrets have. So it shouldn't be surprising that CCP doesn't seem to agree. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
180
|
Posted - 2013.12.08 04:32:00 -
[136] - Quote
Drake's bonus does not apply to light missiles so that one is moot. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
182
|
Posted - 2013.12.08 12:42:00 -
[137] - Quote
673 DPS is what I get in EFT with HAMs and pure DPS lows and rigs (nothing above T2 and no drones). Good luck getting your target within their 16.9km range and keeping them there while also having any kind of tank, and good luck applying more than 25% of that DPS number under most circumstances (you will do 146 DPS to a stationary Rifter lol). |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
189
|
Posted - 2013.12.08 21:04:00 -
[138] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:673 DPS is what I get in EFT with HAMs and pure DPS lows and rigs (nothing above T2 and no drones). Good luck getting your target within their 16.9km range and keeping them there while also having any kind of tank, and good luck applying more than 25% of that DPS number under most circumstances (you will do 146 DPS to a stationary Rifter lol). Sounds like you're revisiting the 2008 HAM Drake discussion, with about the same degree of skill. Full-tackle HAM Drake has 76k EHP before overload. It does 298 DPS to your stationary Rifter and 165 DPS if it uses an overloaded AB (duh drones). The range comment is inane. Yes, you're not going to tackle an interceptor, but plenty of stuff is slow enough to get tackled, particularly if it's using an AB, and most of those turret ships will want to get close to apply their DPS anyway.
The only way you get that kind of tank is with shield rigs, which pretty much makes your entire point moot since I was talking about a Drake's potential max damage with Rage HAMs and nothing but damage mods and rigs. Oh and I excluded drones because 5 total light drones is not reliable especially against frigs. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
189
|
Posted - 2013.12.08 21:09:00 -
[139] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Also I'd like one day missile users stop thinking missiles are only turrets with different graphics, but I'm losing hope...
You are so full of ****. You know that right? |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
194
|
Posted - 2013.12.09 05:19:00 -
[140] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:I think we need another Burn Jita. Just with missiles this time. Cruise missile-equipped battleships @ 250km range would make for an interesting display.
Jita will just speed tank them. |
|
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
197
|
Posted - 2013.12.09 06:45:00 -
[141] - Quote
XvXTeacherVxV wrote:Ok.. so after having played with these rapid launchers some I have to say... that I was totally right when I said the 40second timer would be enough to make me not use them. So... guess I'll go back to using turrets now.
At this point the only people who seem to have not foreseen that these changes would make virtually everyone stop using rapid launchers are the people making all the decisions. Not a good sign... |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
198
|
Posted - 2013.12.09 09:33:00 -
[142] - Quote
I just realized that a LM Corax has better sustained DPS than a RLML Caracal. If that was intended I'm not sure what to say. LM Corax is not exactly top tier destroyer material. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
201
|
Posted - 2013.12.09 14:15:00 -
[143] - 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!
You do understand that something's popularity is only correlative to its quality yes? Please tell me you understand that. Please.
Also I'm assuming overall missile usage went down as well, and I'm also thinking it will continue to go down in the coming months. Is this your real intent? Just admit it if it is. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
201
|
Posted - 2013.12.09 14:27:00 -
[144] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote: In terms of ammo types, they already said they would look into being able to switch ammo easily without a 40 second reload back at the start of the topic. It didn't make it into rubicon.
People keep saying this like it's ever actually going to happen, therefore problems solved. It hasn't and it probably never will. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
202
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 03:15:00 -
[145] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I'm going to add some more words to this fairly bizarre thread!
Something that a few of you are at least partially talking about is the difference between power and fun and the relationship between them in this balance pass. I'm extremely interested in this as well and it can be very difficult to figure out how each are impacted during a given change.
The goals for this change, just to be clear, were to lower the overall power level of rapid lights somewhat as we felt they left too little room for the other medium launchers despite their intended application which is very specialized. So in less words: overall nerf, with the exception that they still need to be very good at their specialty of killing frigates.
Attached to that was the goal of keeping them as fun or more fun to use than the were before. This was motivated by the knowledge that if we simply lowered their damage output to achieve the first goal, they would be left feeling very unexciting even though they would still have value against small support.
So we have two things we can discuss now, but they should definitely be kept separate. One is power level, the other is fun.
Metrics like the one Fozzie mentions could represent a range of things, but it's very likely that power level is still more than satisfactory OR that they are so much fun to use that people are still fielding them despite being under-powered, or a combination of the two. Usage is of course also affected by momentum related to skill points and familiarity but the relative stability of use can not be explained completely by that.
edit: Oh, and in case it helps to say it at all, like Fozzie said we are watching these closely and I want to iterate on them. It's too early to know what that iteration might be but they won't get abandoned.
A 40 second reload time is not fun. It just isn't. And it's even less fun to have said 40 second reload forced on you with a weapon system that has had a 10 second reload for years. If your goal was to make them "more fun" you have failed completely. I would have vastly preferred a straight nerf to what you did, though it seems to me that the issue you were trying to address was precision light missiles more than RLMLs. You totally missed the mark with these changes. Sorry.
Oh and RHMLs are just infuriating to use with the combination of the terrible damage application of heavy missiles and the definitively unfun mechanics of a 40 second reload. Add to that the fact that only 2 or 3 battleships that have bonuses that even make sense with them.
I still don't get why you guys put the work into a totally new weapon system only to utterly destroy its usefulness right before release. It makes no sense to me. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
204
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 03:31:00 -
[146] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:I honestly thought that they were going to suck. Then I start using them and frankly, they're pretty awesome. 40s reload is a bit much, however they're very useable in their current state. I recently lost a RHML 'phoon in lowsec to a harbinger, vexor, and augoror multiboxer but I'm sure that if I had approached the fight differently I would have been able to win it.
Too bad heavy missiles suck against cruisers... |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
205
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 18:37:00 -
[147] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote: But the entire purpose of an AB is to produce a speed-tank effect. Given that AB on a BC is normally a pretty bad idea, and that the small speed-tank effect vs. HMs is readily countered by a single web or painter, I don't think this is significant problem. We all agree that HMs need help, but I'd prefer the help to be in terms of raw DPS, not precision.
Buffing the raw DPS of heavy missiles will have a major effect on their damage against large, slow targets, while having very minimal effect against smaller, faster targets (30 DPS to 33 DPS yay!). It would not fix the current situation. It would merely make them more popular against structures, battleships, and capitals (which is already what they are best at) while leaving them near useless for all other situations.
|
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
206
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 19:52:00 -
[148] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Buffing the raw DPS of heavy missiles will have a major effect on their damage against large, slow targets, while having very minimal effect against smaller, faster targets (30 DPS to 33 DPS yay!). It would not fix the current situation. It would merely make them more popular against structures, battleships, and capitals (which is already what they are best at) while leaving them near useless for all other situations. The only problem is that this potentially skews the new rapid heavy missile launchers, because they benefit most from damage - not rate of fire. Torpedoes are now effectively useless.
I'm confused. I'm arguing against a raw DPS buff. Heavy missile damage application is what needs to be addressed not raw damage. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
207
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 20:28:00 -
[149] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote: Sorry, I'm agreeing with you - a straight DPS buff solves nothing for heavy missiles - and has the potential put rapid heavy launchers over the top. Unfortunately, we're looking at the same scenario for improving damage application to heavy missiles, because this potentially turns battleships into cruiser killers and frigate maulers. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing (hey, I'm not objectingGǪ), but this will lead to another round of missile vs. turret discussions - and there's already growing resentment with having a cruiser-class (bonused) weapons platform for a battleship.
Isn't that the idea behind RHMLs? To be a cruiser killer? Right now they really aren't. So I don't see a problem. And really a 5-10% buff to explosion velocity and radius isn't going to do all that much in terms of frigate killing. You will still almost certainly fail to kill a frig with any kind of tank and/or speed before the reload timer of doom kicks in. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
207
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 20:58:00 -
[150] - Quote
I really don't get why you even bother to respond to Bouh anymore. His claims are nonsensical in the extreme and clearly come from someone who hates missiles and wants them to fundamentally suck. |
|
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
208
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 23:52:00 -
[151] - Quote
Coming soon: a nerf to Javelin HAMs |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
210
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 00:19:00 -
[152] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Caracal Build 2x Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Precision light missiles 3x Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Javelin heavy assault missiles 2x Hornet II light drones 10MN Microwarpdrive II Medium Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 100 Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Medium Shield Extender II Cap Recharger II 3x Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II 2x Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst I 1x Medium Semiconductor Memory Cell I .....
3m 20s capacitor 14.7k EHP (38.8%, 51.0%, 63.3%, 69.4% shield resistance) 339 DPS (35.9 drone DPS), 758 alpha 31.6km/45.6km range 1881 m/s speed (132/792 signature)
It's kind of sad that RLMLs are probably only usable in this manner (ie secondary weapons). |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
213
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 00:58:00 -
[153] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Fourteen Maken wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:
you're pretty awful
Whats awful about that? moas are the ****, and lol, why would anyone fly minmatar except as a joke? :-) in 3 years of playing Eve I've been through periods where: * caldari were OP * minmatar were OP * lasers (and therefore amarr) were OP * and now (astonishingly) gallente are OP To be honest, this has more to do with fashion than fact. If you put 6 ships in the same squad, and fire on the same target at the same time, it does not matter what's mounted to your hardpoints - it'll die. This is Eve. Nothing is fair. It never was. Build a bigger, better organised fleet. If you don't, you'll be pwned.
Yeah it has nothing to do with the heavy-handed balance methods of CCP who over-nerf or over-buff nearly everything they touch. It has nothing to do with that at all...
|
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
216
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 11:12:00 -
[154] - Quote
cyndrogen wrote:Missiles main problem is velocity, overall missiles always always lose over other weapons due to poor alpha damage. If you're going to introduce velocity as a factor then the alpha needs to be much higher then projectiles. You want an instant alpha? Fine use turrets but if you want max alpha, even with a delay, then use these rapid firing bays.
Missiles are DEAD last to be picked for incursions and currently the ONLY DPS flavor is Vindicator and Mach, followed by Nightmare.
What's funny about what you're saying is that cruise missiles on a navy raven pretty much completely owns all those ships in terms of long range DPS against PVE targets (read lots of slow battleships). The reason that missile ships are less sought after for incursions has a lot more to do with prejudice against them in general, a lack of a missile specialized pirate faction, and a general preference for armor tanking. And yes flight time sucks, but it's not a reason to skip over a ship that does far more damage to an NPC battleship than any other incursion BS.
All that said, if they were to double the damage of missiles and halve their fire rate across the board I wouldn't complain. Hell that would make the rapid launchers much, much better come to think of it. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
216
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 11:38:00 -
[155] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:cyndrogen wrote:Missiles main problem is velocity, overall missiles always always lose over other weapons due to poor alpha damage. If you're going to introduce velocity as a factor then the alpha needs to be much higher then projectiles. You want an instant alpha? Fine use turrets but if you want max alpha, even with a delay, then use these rapid firing bays.
Missiles are DEAD last to be picked for incursions and currently the ONLY DPS flavor is Vindicator and Mach, followed by Nightmare.
What's funny about what you're saying is that cruise missiles on a navy raven pretty much completely owns all those ships in terms of long range DPS against PVE targets (read lots of slow battleships). The reason that missile ships are less sought after for incursions has a lot more to do with prejudice against them in general, a lack of a missile specialized pirate faction, and a general preference for armor tanking. And yes flight time sucks, but it's not a reason to skip over a ship that does far more damage to an NPC battleship than any other incursion BS. All that said, if they were to double the damage of missiles and halve their fire rate across the board I wouldn't complain. Hell that would make the rapid launchers much, much better come to think of it. The main reason missiles are not included in incursion fleets is due to the extra time it takes to run sites. There are many shield fleets running incursions, Vindi, nightmare, mach, Rokh, all shield boats that show prominently in incursion fleets. Instant DPS and a lot of it is what makes a successful incursion fleet, missile battleships just can't provide that
Cruise missiles having higher DPS pretty much negates the flight time issue in terms of running sites quickly. Though I don't doubt the perception is what you say it is. Perception and reality are often very different after all. Oh and if anyone thinks a Rokh is going to help you run a site faster than a Navy Raven they are literally bat **** crazy. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
216
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 12:08:00 -
[156] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Zvaarian, its an issue with missiles in general. The time to target and delayed response, is a pain in missile gangs. I saw this most when I ran sniping / kiting caracal's pre-crucible nerf on Heavy Missiles. We'd fit to reach 110km, as it was one of the best ways to avoid Thorax's (Stabbers were a pain in the bum though).
But anyway, you'd call primary, and then wait. And wait. Then you'd see a lot of damage sometimes, coming in slightly apart depending on where people were on the field, and how well they'd responded to the primary call etc.
The problem you have is when you call to switch to another target, because it looks like the next set of volley's are going to finish your primary off, but sometimes by the time the missiles get there, he's got reps etc.
Its actually a real problem, and its something you don't have with guns. Its either dead, or it isn't. So missile fleets in general are slower at switching targets, because of the delay in seeing if your current inbound missiles have done the job. And by the time you've found they have, then another set of missiles is already on there way - and effectively completely wasted.
This is why I said the new RLML with just 18 missiles is incredibly inefficient in a small gang now, because every missile has to count, but it nearly impossible to call it right in advance of the missile landing.
I'm not disputing that it's an issue or that it's not annoying sometimes. I simply maintain that the greater DPS of cruise missiles vs most long range guns pretty much negates it in terms of how fast sites can be run. Like I said it's more about perception than reality. This is one instance where the missile problem is not as bad as people think. Though I'm definitely not opposed to a proportionate increase of damage and decrease of rate of fire, a straight up increase in missile flight speed, or both. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
216
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 12:20:00 -
[157] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Fourteen Maken wrote:Is this still the case? Are all medium missiles going to be reviewed because I haven't seen a single player with any credibility try to say that HML's are working, or even close to it. I think most of the open hostility towards RLML really comes from the fact that a lot of people were not just using RLML for killing frigates but as the last plausible weapon against other small cruisers as well. The original RLMLs were not only effective against anything from frigates to cruisers, but they did so without the assistance of rigs or any electronic warfare. Range was really decent (60km+), upwards of 80 rounds in terms of capacity, a 10-second reload and - probably the most important aspect - <50 power grid fitting per launcher. This last element cannot be appreciate enough, as it allowed Caracals to allocate more to tank. So it's not just that the new RLMLs resulted in a 25.4% DPS hit or that the 40-second reload killed tactical ammo swaps, but just to continue to run them you lost a considerable portion of your tank. Had the fitting requirements remained unchanged, I suspect their use would be more prevalent than it is.
Yeah I don't really dispute that they were probably too good at killing frigs and cruisers. In my opinion that's fairly obvious. On the other hand I don't think they needed to be fundamentally redesigned and mega-nerfed to fix the problem. I mean if you reduce the damage application of light precision missiles, increase the PWG a bit, and lower the ammo capacity, you probably have done what needs to be done without pissing off nearly every RLML user in the game with a complete redesign that no one really wanted or had asked for. I mean it's not like these things had completely taken over the small gang and solo scene before the change. They were just a tad bit too efficient. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
216
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 12:23:00 -
[158] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:Moonaura wrote:Zvaarian, its an issue with missiles in general. The time to target and delayed response, is a pain in missile gangs. I saw this most when I ran sniping / kiting caracal's pre-crucible nerf on Heavy Missiles. We'd fit to reach 110km, as it was one of the best ways to avoid Thorax's (Stabbers were a pain in the bum though).
But anyway, you'd call primary, and then wait. And wait. Then you'd see a lot of damage sometimes, coming in slightly apart depending on where people were on the field, and how well they'd responded to the primary call etc.
The problem you have is when you call to switch to another target, because it looks like the next set of volley's are going to finish your primary off, but sometimes by the time the missiles get there, he's got reps etc.
Its actually a real problem, and its something you don't have with guns. Its either dead, or it isn't. So missile fleets in general are slower at switching targets, because of the delay in seeing if your current inbound missiles have done the job. And by the time you've found they have, then another set of missiles is already on there way - and effectively completely wasted.
This is why I said the new RLML with just 18 missiles is incredibly inefficient in a small gang now, because every missile has to count, but it nearly impossible to call it right in advance of the missile landing. Yeah I spoke to guys in incursions and they don't like missiles at all, they are very inefficient in fleets even though the dps is better about 1 in 5 shots are wasted on targets that are already dead, and that goes up even more as the targets get smaller. For solo pve it's not an issue but for a fleet that's a lot of wasted dps, even letting one or two missile guys tag along they basically become passengers because by the time their missiles hit most of the targets will already be dead.
1 in 5 shots being wasted (which can be avoided for the most part) pretty much puts their DPS at the level of most turret boats. But yeah, people don't like those missiles blowing up half way to a dead target. It just feels "inefficient". |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
216
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 13:02:00 -
[159] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Seeing then Arthur's numbers, I think missile balance is rather good between themselves : even when factoring reload, RLML are the goto weapon to shoot at frigates ; HAML are the best overall and HML are for long range.
Details might need some tweeks but the relative power between all of them is good I think.
It's been pointed out countless times in this thread that HMs do pathetic damage to cruisers even with precision missiles, and yet you keep saying everything is fine while willfully misinterpreting the mountains of data in this thread. Please stop posting. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
218
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 13:46:00 -
[160] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: So, please, stop being a douchebag.
You consistently act like you know more about missiles than missile users (some of whom are very experienced), willfully misinterpret hard data to support your arguments, and generally act like you are simply smarter than the rest of us, and I'm the douchbag?
|
|
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
220
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 20:54:00 -
[161] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Moonaura wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Actually I am gathering and compiling data, but that takes time and efforts and I have a life too.
Does this mean you'll come on SISI too? I can tell you now, that is the only way to really see if the guns work as expected. I'll bring beer and women if you do. I went on sisi and fought 2 cruise-missile ravens in my deimos (125m2 sig radius). The cruise missiles (coupled with target painters) obliterated the (fully gang-linked) deimos while it was moving at max speed. The gang links included evasive maneuvering so the deimos' sig radius was under 100. I would encourage die-hard missile fans who are disappointed with HMs to try cruise missile fitted ships if possible. I think you'll be really pleased. It's a case of life giving you lemons, so make lemonade.
Cruise missiles are definitely better than heavy missiles, but there are reasons you don't see them in PVP much. I'm guessing those fits were completely maxed out for damage application at range. Also did you try a 1v1 fight against just one raven? |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
220
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 21:31:00 -
[162] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Moonaura wrote:Oh dear gods. You do realise that Caldari ships are lucky if they can fit a Point on them right? If you want a web and target painter and point, you know what sort of tank that leaves right? Why ? Because 35kehp is the bare minimum tank for an attack cruiser ? Because shield underperform armor ? And what about the whole minmatar missile ships line ? And the T2 amarr missile ships ? There's more than caldari ships behind missiles. You can't think about them only with caldari in mind. You are mixing here caldari ship balance, shield vs armor balance, missiles vs turrets balance and missile in themselves balance. If you really wan't to convince CCP that missiles are underperforming, you'll need real arguments, not childish tentatives to fool them with carefully selected numbers.
I have a direct question for you and I want a direct answer.
Do you think it's acceptable for a heavy missile launcher with no damage application bonuses of any kind to only apply 67.2% of its damage against a Rupture using no prop mod? Do you think a cruiser should be able to speed tank a third of the damage away without any prop mod?
And let's be clear, turret cruisers under the same conditions have pretty much 100% damage application through the majority of their optimal range in most cases. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
220
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 22:10:00 -
[163] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:I have a direct question for you and I want a direct answer.
Do you think it's acceptable for a heavy missile launcher with no damage application bonuses of any kind to only apply 67.2% of its damage against a Rupture using no prop mod? Do you think a cruiser should be able to speed tank a third of the damage away without any prop mod?
And let's be clear, turret cruisers under the same conditions have pretty much 100% damage application through the majority of their optimal range in most cases. You see, that's exactly the half picture I'm talking about since the begining : if you tank that Rupture with shield, you'll get full damage. If you tank it with armor, you'll get 89% of your full dps, and the damage reduction will be less when AB/MWDing. So yes, I think it's fine, because untanked Rupture are ballsy enough to deserve something... Yes, numbers are that different between a tanked and untanked cruiser for missiles damage application, that's why I'm highly criticizing these numbers on untanked hulls. PS : normal speed is what a cruiser will have when he something with scram+web. In these circumstances, the cruiser can avoid some turret dps, even with short range ones.
And damage application improves for guns too in that case. And for drones as well. You talk about half a picture, but that's all you ever present. You do understand that a ship being fit so that it is easier to hit applies to all weapon types right? If I blow up my sig when shield tanking I'm blowing it up for everyone. If I slow myself down with armor plates everyone shooting at me benefits. You get that right?
So we are left comparing weapon to weapon, and heavy missiles suck against medium long range turrets. If I add an afterburner to that Rupture the difference becomes truly pronounced, as turret boats will continue to apply damage well if competently flown and only start having similar issues to heavy missiles if literally flown at the worst possible traversal angles. At that point the only advantage becomes that the missile boat can continue to do damage a extreme close range. Though with heavy missiles that is generally neither here nor there because if a fight reaches that range you are dead because you are applying a tiny fraction of your max DPS while they obliterate you with their close range weapons. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
221
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 22:27:00 -
[164] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Moonaura wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Actually I am gathering and compiling data, but that takes time and efforts and I have a life too.
Does this mean you'll come on SISI too? I can tell you now, that is the only way to really see if the guns work as expected. I'll bring beer and women if you do. I went on sisi and fought 2 cruise-missile ravens in my deimos (125m2 sig radius). The cruise missiles (coupled with target painters) obliterated the (fully gang-linked) deimos while it was moving at max speed. The gang links included evasive maneuvering so the deimos' sig radius was under 100. I would encourage die-hard missile fans who are disappointed with HMs to try cruise missile fitted ships if possible. I think you'll be really pleased. It's a case of life giving you lemons, so make lemonade. Cruise missiles are definitely better than heavy missiles, but there are reasons you don't see them in PVP much. I'm guessing those fits were completely maxed out for damage application at range. Also did you try a 1v1 fight against just one raven? A deimos can comfortably perma tank 1 Raven. Megathron vs Deimos would be a more interesting fight, then it comes down to who is the better able to control range and angular. Assuming that Deimos has an AB judging by his sig size, if you put an MWD on a blaster fit megathron you could control range and if you are burning directly away from him and making him chase by keeping him in disruptor range you could keep the dps at between 4-600dps. Cruise missiles are not OP, certain people just want to use HML as the yardstick by which all missiles should be measured so they are effectively removed from pvp completely.
We are in total agreement. Cruise missiles are in a good place relative to most other missiles, but in the grand scheme of things even they are sub-optimal compared to competing turrets. At this point I'm relegated to hoping for that status for all missiles. They do have inherit advantages such as consistent damage at all ranges, no capacitor needs, and immunity to tracking disruption so I guess I can live with them being functionally a bit behind turrets, but right now most of them are light years behind instead. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
221
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 22:29:00 -
[165] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:I already said it, but if you are "competent enough", you have nothing to do with missiles.
And this why you are not worthy of a response from anyone in this thread. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
223
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 22:40:00 -
[166] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:I already said it, but if you are "competent enough", you have nothing to do with missiles. And this why you are not worthy of a response from anyone in this thread. Man, you want missiles to always operate with the same power than turrets in best case scenarios. What does that worth ?
I want them to operate better than the worst case scenario which is where HMs are at now. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
226
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 23:39:00 -
[167] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Moonaura wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Actually I am gathering and compiling data, but that takes time and efforts and I have a life too.
Does this mean you'll come on SISI too? I can tell you now, that is the only way to really see if the guns work as expected. I'll bring beer and women if you do. I went on sisi and fought 2 cruise-missile ravens in my deimos (125m2 sig radius). The cruise missiles (coupled with target painters) obliterated the (fully gang-linked) deimos while it was moving at max speed. The gang links included evasive maneuvering so the deimos' sig radius was under 100. I would encourage die-hard missile fans who are disappointed with HMs to try cruise missile fitted ships if possible. I think you'll be really pleased. It's a case of life giving you lemons, so make lemonade. Cruise missiles are definitely better than heavy missiles, but there are reasons you don't see them in PVP much. I'm guessing those fits were completely maxed out for damage application at range. Also did you try a 1v1 fight against just one raven? I did not, but from my experiences on Sisi I would certainly be happy to take on a single raven in a deimos. The only way he'd kill me is if he had 2 neuts. But eve does not scale linearly in all directions. In the same deimos would do better against 2 gunnery battleships (not vindicators!) than it would against 2 ravens - particularly if they had long range weapons systems fitted. Simply because it can eliminate the DPS of one of the battleships by orbiting it at 500m. You can't do that against a raven - your only hope is to get to max velocity which, as already noted, is not enough to escape the effects of target painters coupled with the alpha strike of the cruise missiles. One deimos could probably score a kill against 4 artillery battleships before being forced to warp out, but it would die in a horrible fireball to 4 battleships fitted with cruise. The upshot of all this? Missiles are fleet weapons - excellent against skirmishers. Gunnery systems are specialised. They are better at either short or long range, when the gunner dictates range and transversal. I want both guns AND missiles in my squads. When you meet me, so will you.
Very good points. Definitely makes me reconsider the PVP viability of cruise missiles a bit. Unfortunately much of what you just said does not apply to heavy missiles, nor the new rapid launchers, both of which need some serious work to be on par in their class with cruise missiles.
|
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
231
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 03:34:00 -
[168] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Kenshi Hanshin wrote:So basically, you just altered the explosion radius and or explosion velocity correct? Or did you use a ship bonus for that? I am curious how exactly you thought to do that fix. Nope. If we can get a dev response in this thread, I'll be happy to post all my source data.
Why do you need a dev in the thread to share your fix with us? I know for a fact that they are reading this thread (via direct correspondence), so they will see it. Expecting them to post to ask for it is kind of strange to me. Hell if you don't want to share it with the non-developers for some reason but are sure it fixes the issue, mail it directly to Rise. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
231
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 03:37:00 -
[169] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Not to nitpick or anything (well yes I am ) In your comparison it clearly shows an RLML Tengu performs well VS an AB Stabber. This I can understand but would the RLML Tengu (T3) kill an AB Stabber (T1) in 18 volleys or less? With the caveat that this only lasts for 40 secondsGǪ If we exclude reloads, each RLML does 100.49 DPS. This can obviously be boosted with Faction RLMLs, Faction Ballistic Controls with a 4th T2 Ballistic Control as well as the two +5 implants. However, we'll just stick with T2 stuff and Faction ammo. So we get 602.94 DPS x 18 volleys @ 2.05s per volley. Unless my numbers are off, this works out to 22248.5 damage. The PvP fit I found for a AB Stabber shows 24.2k EHP, so I would have to say no. Even if you pimped the Tengu as per above, it wouldn't take much to throw that off (a kinetic-specific shield amplifier would do it). Provided you could keep the engagement to a 1:1, I think the Stabber would fall in the second garage of RLMLs though.
Is that with Fury or faction ammo?
Also is that fit purely a buffer fit? Because otherwise it's got to chew through more than the ehp number. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
231
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 03:57:00 -
[170] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Why do you need a dev in the thread to share your fix with us? I know for a fact that they are reading this thread (via direct correspondence), so they will see it. Expecting them to post to ask for it is kind of strange to me. Hell if you don't want to share it with the non-developers for some reason but are sure it fixes the issue, mail it directly to Rise. I was hoping to get them actively involved in a discussion to address these shortfalls, but here's the fix: GÇó The missile formula contains a variable called dry (damage reduction factor). This is set to 2.8 for light missiles, 3.2 for heavy missiles and 4.5 for heavy assault missiles. GÇó I changed this to 3.0 for heavy missiles and 3.2 for heavy assault missiles. That's it. It looks great on electronic paper (which is all I have to test from, unfortunately), but if it bears out I think it holds promise.
As I mentioned in the other thread you started it looks like a hefty buff for HAMs and a tiny buff for HMs. Now that I know the numbers involved I can see why. You reduced the value for HAMs by 28.9% and the value for HMs by a mere 6.25%. Looking at your graph all I see is a tiny nudge up for HMs and a very real possibility that HAMs may become overpowered against medium and smaller targets.
Now all that said, I think your change to HMs is something worth looking at. I've never seen anyone really break down what damage reduction factor really does. To me though it seems like a variable that makes the whole thing unstable and overly complex. Perhaps uniformity across all missiles with this value and adjustments to damage values across the board to compensate is an avenue that could be approached. It would certainly seem that the damage reduction factor is a major factor in why larger missiles seem to often have ridiculously low damage against smaller targets, and why the problem seems to get worse and worse as the size of the missile goes up. |
|
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
231
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 06:11:00 -
[171] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:As I mentioned in the other thread you started it looks like a hefty buff for HAMs and a tiny buff for HMs. Now that I know the numbers involved I can see why. You reduced the value for HAMs by 28.9% and the value for HMs by a mere 6.25%. Looking at your graph all I see is a tiny nudge up for HMs and a very real possibility that HAMs may become overpowered against medium and smaller targets.
Now all that said, I think your change to HMs is something worth looking at. I've never seen anyone really break down what damage reduction factor really does. To me though it seems like a variable that makes the whole thing unstable and overly complex. Perhaps uniformity across all missiles with this value and adjustments to damage values across the board to compensate is an avenue that could be approached. It would certainly seem that the damage reduction factor is a major factor in why larger missiles seem to often have ridiculously low damage against smaller targets, and why the problem seems to get worse and worse as the size of the missile goes up. Light missiles have a drf value of 2.8, rockets 3, heavy missiles 3.2 and heavy assault missiles 4.5. If we agree that light missiles have excellent damage application, but that both heavy and heavy assault missiles suck - we have a little wiggle room (more for heavy assault missiles). Thus, I changed the value to 3 for heavy missiles and 3.2 for heavy assault missiles, to bring it more in-line with the difference between light missiles and rockets. So yes, it might seem like I buffed HAMs more than HMs, but it only seems that wayGǪ Drf isn't broken per say, it just needs a few minor adjustments. There's another interesting variable called Detonation Proximity that might be fun to play with. I don't think it would have any bearing on the actual missile mechanics (at least I couldn't find any link), but it might be cool from a visual standpoint seeing cruise missiles and torpedoes exploding 100m or more from the target. I don't think that HAMs will necessarily become OP against medium and smaller targets, for the sole reason that it takes full T2 rigs and a target painter to fully realize their potential. On the scale of tank to glass cannon, it's leaning more towards the latter. Also note that this is on a Tengu (not Caracals or Drakes), and T3s are slated for a rebalanceGǪ Also note that even though I don't necessarily like the mechanics of the rapid light and rapid heavy missile launchers, I can't ignore the fact that they exist. Buffing heavy missiles more than what I adjusted them would turn the Raven and Typhoon into absolute nightmares and thus unbalance another weapon system. Heavy missiles become better against smaller targets, as they should. Against medium targets, they need rigs or target painters to achieve higher their full potential - which isn't necessarily any different than rails needing tracking enhancers or tracking computers. Heavy missiles still have a huge range advantage. Yes, a ballistic enhancer would be nice - but chances are missiles would then be subject to tracking disruptors. And once Pandora's Box is opened...
First of all HAMs are not even close to being at the same level of need as HMs. As it is they are presently usable, which HMs really are not outside of PVE. Are HAMs a bit underpowered? Probably. But not at all compared to HMs. Also you said it may look like you buffed HAMs more than HMs when you actually didn't, but your chart clearly indicates you did. I have both charts on tabs in my browser and the HAM bars jump a massive amount when I switch them while the HMs only move slightly. Finally, RHMLs can be adjusted down if need be. Holding HMs back for such a niche (read mostly crap) weapon system is the wrong way to go. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
238
|
Posted - 2013.12.13 00:48:00 -
[172] - Quote
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote: Right now I'm just focusing on a RHML -+ HML comparisons as the consensus seems to be that HAMs are ok for the moment.
Those people are wrong - HAMs need 10-20% better damage application to be ok.
I'd say 5-10% personally. But still HAMs are in a much better place than every other missile other than light missles, rockets, and cruise missiles. And convincing the EVE community and developers that they need any kind of buff I think is going to be a tough fight. We are living under the tyranny of turret users unfortunately. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
238
|
Posted - 2013.12.13 00:51:00 -
[173] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Hey, Bouh, if you've got all these great ideas about what Arthur has been doing wrong that only you know how to do right why not do it your own ******* self instead of being a whiny little ****? Just a thought..... Do you have any idea about what it takes to do this job ? It's a great job he is doing, but not perfect. You are already enough to congratulate him so I make sure someone point out the flaws. Because as great as its work can be, I don't like when people use math to fool others, and these numbers, because of the flaws I pointed out, can make people believe wrong things.
Isn't that what you have been doing this whole thread, only without any math to back it up? You are like a propaganda machine for the complete dominance of turrets simply being the way things should be. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
238
|
Posted - 2013.12.13 05:38:00 -
[174] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:So I went out with a T1 RHML-fitted Raven tonight to see what I could see... First, forget about damage application to Interceptors - those things can outrun heavy missiles. I found myself in a scrap with a Malediction that pointed me, then a Thorax which I switched to after watching my heavy missiles spiral around endlessly. I came close - but not quite - to killing it before encountering the dreaded 40-second reload. That's when I really got the screws stuck to me... I was joined by a Harbinger, Vexor and Tormentor. Heck, even a Guristas frigate wandered over to get in on the action. I died, but it was a T1/T2 insured fit - so not unlike losing a frigate any other day in Faction Warfare. I put the Thorax into 16% hull before burning out my RHMLs and having my cap drained, which allowed him to escape. While I'm still convinced the reload on the new RLML and RHMLs is a big "fail", I still go out every now and then to prove myself wrong - hoping for that elusive one-clip kill. If the 40-second reload/swap is here to stay, I wonder what the chances of increasing the ammunition capacity is. Doubling it would be a good start.
Who knows, maybe if and when HMs get buffed RHMLs will actually be able to kill a cruiser before the reload hits. RLMLs on the other hand just feel hopeless in their current because I simply do not believe CCP will do anything that improves their sustained DPS, and increasing clip size would definitely do that (I'm assuming the x2 suggestion was a joke). |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
239
|
Posted - 2013.12.13 06:45:00 -
[175] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Who knows, maybe if and when HMs get buffed RHMLs will actually be able to kill a cruiser before the reload hits. RLMLs on the other hand just feel hopeless in their current because I simply do not believe CCP will do anything that improves their sustained DPS, and increasing clip size would definitely do that (I'm assuming the x2 suggestion was a joke). I should've mentioned that the Thorax was webbed, neuted, painted and scrammed...
I'm really having a hard time understanding why CCP put the time and effort into putting a new weapon system into the game without making sure it didn't completely suck at its intended job. I just don't get it. I mean adding a new missile weapon system seems to say they want missiles to flourish and be effective, but then its released almost completely useless and I'm left thinking "maybe this is just a sick joke". |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
240
|
Posted - 2013.12.13 19:22:00 -
[176] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Because we all know that Rise has what is best for missiles in mind. Right.... Pull the other one.
Are you really back to recycling your older, stupider arguments? What a shame. Yeah because Rise having a hate against missile users and caldari pilots is smart, well thought, senseful and proven argument... And I guess Illuminati don't care about this game or we would hear about them.
Based on my one direct interaction with him I believe the "Rise hates missiles" line of thinking is definitely false. That said, just because he doesn't hate missiles doesn't mean he is actually right about their current state in the game or about what needs to be done with them. I think he honestly thought the new rapid launchers were a good idea that would be "fun" to use. He was wrong. It happens. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
240
|
Posted - 2013.12.13 19:39:00 -
[177] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Well, until now the facts seems to be pointing that the weapon is not as hated as people here hates it (numbers Rise and Fozzie talked about), and there haven't been any Jita riot like some here have said would happen.
Jita riots over a single weapon system getting screwed? I don't think anyone who suggested that was serious. And if people like these things why are none of them in this thread, and why are the killboards nearly devoid of them? The answer is obvious to me, but I'm sure it won't be to you. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
240
|
Posted - 2013.12.13 20:09:00 -
[178] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: Well, until now the facts seems to be pointing that the weapon is not as hated as people here hates it (numbers Rise and Fozzie talked about), and there haven't been any Jita riot like some here have said would happen.
Jita riots over a single weapon system getting screwed? I don't think anyone who suggested that was serious. And if people like these things why are none of them in this thread, and why are the killboards nearly devoid of them? The answer is obvious to me, but I'm sure it won't be to you. My math teacher thought integral calculus obvious. Since then, I know there's no such thing as "obvious". And people who like the weapon system are playing the game I guess ; why would they come here in the first place ? @scorchlikeshiswhiskey : actually there have been some tests, but they have been completely ignored and drowned in the rants.
So let me get this straight. The people who hate these weapon systems come here to complain but the people who like them don't post here barely at all because they are too busy playing the game? Good lord that's dumb.
Anyway, I'm done. I am wasting brain cells responding to your endlessly circular logic. Hiding posts and moving on. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
241
|
Posted - 2013.12.13 21:28:00 -
[179] - Quote
Cyndrogen wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:cyndrogen wrote:Missiles main problem is velocity, overall missiles always always lose over other weapons due to poor alpha damage. If you're going to introduce velocity as a factor then the alpha needs to be much higher then projectiles. You want an instant alpha? Fine use turrets but if you want max alpha, even with a delay, then use these rapid firing bays.
Missiles are DEAD last to be picked for incursions and currently the ONLY DPS flavor is Vindicator and Mach, followed by Nightmare.
What's funny about what you're saying is that cruise missiles on a navy raven pretty much completely owns all those ships in terms of long range DPS against PVE targets (read lots of slow battleships). The reason that missile ships are less sought after for incursions has a lot more to do with prejudice against them in general, a lack of a missile specialized pirate faction, and a general preference for armor tanking. And yes flight time sucks, but it's not a reason to skip over a ship that does far more damage to an NPC battleship than any other incursion BS. All that said, if they were to double the damage of missiles and halve their fire rate across the board I wouldn't complain. Hell that would make the rapid launchers much, much better come to think of it. Really? A dominix can just sit there, drop drones and collect bacon. Flying skills? What flying skills, just park the shoe ship in a mission, and deploy sentry drones.
Oops, forgot about the overpowered shoe of doom. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
244
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 01:35:00 -
[180] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:The average for my post was based on highest speed in class compared to the other presumed target of the weapon, frigates. The average speed of frigates vs fast cruisers and the ability of RLML to hit them.
Ok lets say we use your, logic (for want of a better word) and use a rupture to balance light missiles. We end up with a light missile that can hit 1 of the slowest ship in its class, now because we want to keep it balanced we tune down how well light missiles hit the rupture so it isn't an easy kill and upset all those who fly them.
This could work, except light missiles are meant for killing frigates and "fast" cruisers which they will not be able to do as they are now balanced for a different class of fighting - they would no longer be any good at all vs the ships they were designed to counter. The job of countering Cruisers and battlecruisers is meant to be HM, sadly they do not perform in this role. Hams will go close to doing their job as long as you don't want to fit a tank as well because those slots will be taken up with prop mod, web and scram, leaving 2 slots for tank. How good is that.
Arthur's charts, if you care to look show how different missiles compare to each other in different configurations and vs different ships. This has nothing at all to do with how they compare to turrets, that is something entirely different. Frankly at this stage it is something I really don't care about. The discussion has been about a way to get missiles to hit their intended targets in the intended way. Ok, so we basicaly agree for the graphs I guess. But you are plain wrong for the roles of the different launchers : RLML are NOT meant to shoot at cruisers, only frigates and destroyers ; and HML are NOT the goto medium missile launcher to shoot at cruisers, this role is HAML one. HML are the missiles you use to shoot at long range. If you don't need long range, don't use HML, use HAML instead. And if you need more firepower against frigates, use RLML, but avoid cruisers then. If you need to shoot both cruisers and frigates, HAML +scram+web will do the job fine. 2 mid slots shield tank is fine BTW when you factor in everything else : with shield, you don't lose speed, and there is no cruiser both as fast as the Caracal and more resilient than him. Just check it : armor attack cruiser with more than a 800mm plate will be very slow, and a Thorax with 800mm plate, DCU + EANM + adaptive plating (4slots) have less ehp than your Caracal with DCU+LSE+invuln (3slots). Also, such a Thorax will only have 400 blaster dps, same as your HAML Caracal, but with three times less range and have to deal with tracking. You don't need 35kehp on your attack cruiser for it to be useful, moreover when you have plenty of range and speed. Ok, I'm sorry Bouh but you are really coming across like you have no clue what your talking about. Forgetting your plain incorrect argument about the roles of different missile systems, we'll move on to your 2 slot shield tank being adequate. Ham Caracal with 1LSE, T2 invul, DCU and 2 Extender rigs (ancillary current router required to fit HAMS) = 18,522 EHP, 1800m/s, 379DPS (factions) and has to fight at -10k due to needing Scram and web to be able to hit anything. 979 sig with MWD, 167 without MWD. Blaster Thorax with 800 T2 plate 2EANM, DCU and 3 trimarks = 22,394k EHP, 1500m/s, 385DPS guns + 124 drones= 509 DPS same range due to scram and web, 720 sig with MWD, 120 without MWD. Has small cap booster to help maintain mobility. Resists; Thorax - 74 , 67 , 66 , 53 Caracal - 39 , 51 , 64 , 70 These are both ships I have used on tranquility ( with another toon) and are currently in my ship hanger. Both ships have around the same cap time, Thorax has small booster (so can run MWD constantly), caracal is dead in space after 1min 20sec. I think you need to get off EFT, train up for caldari and stop guessing as to "how good" they are, fighting in Web range, Thorax has it all over Caracal. I have lost 2 caracal's to thorax's but never killed a thorax with a caracal. I'm no ace PVP'r and am the 1st to admit I'm pretty bad at it. I switched the toon in question to Guns after realising I could not compete in 1v1 PVP with missiles.
He will ignore your numbers, try to change the topic, and generally continue to argue around your point rather than actually addressing it. You are wasting your time. |
|
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
246
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 06:14:00 -
[181] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:TL;DR - Petition to have RLML/RHML reload time reduced to 20 seconds. If you agree, "Like". .....
Official Petition to CCP After having spent weeks testing RLMLs and RHMLs, this is my official petition for a change to the reload time. 40-seconds is simply too easy to counter in PvP, prolongs PvE missions by allowing NPCs to easily recover and effectively eliminates the only advantage with missiles in the ability to switch to different damage types. I would like to see all stats retained, but the reload time reduced to a maximum of 20 seconds. Thanks for your consideration.
There's no chance of that happening. That would actually result in greater dps on the RLML than with its pre-nerfed version. If they drop the reload to 20 seconds they will also nerf the rate of fire by ~40%. Mark my words on that one. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
249
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 10:58:00 -
[182] - Quote
Chigurh Friendo wrote:Rise, when are we going to hear more about whatever progress has been made on developing the ammo reload vs. ammo swapping time differential implementation for RLMLs?
I was under the impression that there were technical limitations... but that otherwise it was a "we're for sure doing this" type of change. Any new information that you can shed some light on?
Should be in the winter 2014 expansion. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
249
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 02:01:00 -
[183] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Missiles are great, just not on caldari ships. I assume I'm not the only one the irony is lost on...? It's a tricky one really. Caldari ships tend to have range bonuses rather than brawling bonuses. Of course ranged combat implies fleet combat. So Caldari ships lend themselves more towards fleet combat... except no-one is using them in fleets.
Well it has a lot to do with the crappiness of Caldari hybrid hulls in general. They are gimped pretty much across the board. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
249
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 10:04:00 -
[184] - Quote
Coyote Laughing wrote:I'd like to register of my disapproval of the pathetic ammunition capacity and reload times for the rapid fire light launcher.
This goes beyond nerf, into making them completely useless - I'm pulling them out of all my fits and having to retrain for heavy missiles - or are you going to mess with them next?
Javelin HAMs are your best bet for a decent replacement. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
252
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 04:48:00 -
[185] - Quote
People keep quoting Bouh thereby bypassing that I blocked his posts. People need to stop doing that. My brain cells are precious. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
253
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 06:39:00 -
[186] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Just a brief PvE blurb on RHMLs... If you can fit a few of these to a cruiser or battlecruiser that gives damage bonuses, these are worthwhile considering. Faction launchers hold 26 rounds, and without a ROF bonus to more rapidly diminish these do come in handy for an initial mission "burst". I was able to comfortably fit 2 of these on a pair of Gnosis with only a single Medium Ancillary rig, and still have room for another pair of HMLs. I like the Gnosis because you can fit 5 launchers and you get a +25% heavy missile bonus without having to train anything. Any damage to hull or armor is super cheap (<50k ISK!), so it's great for mission running.
Clearly working as intended. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
253
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 05:17:00 -
[187] - Quote
I have no problem with TDs working against missiles once base damage application on half the missiles in the game isn't totally putrid. Until then I think it would probably be one step forward and one step back. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
253
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 06:08:00 -
[188] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:I have no problem with TDs working against missiles once base damage application on half the missiles in the game isn't totally putrid. Until then I think it would probably be one step forward and one step back. Therein lies the problem, which turret players don't seem to be able to fathom. Maybe we should feel bad about saying mean things about them when they're not here to insult us for being stupid missile pilots who just want our OP missiles to be even more OP and woe is them for that one time a Drake/Corax/Kestrel/Raven/Tengu blew them up. Wait... was that mean to turret pilots? Oops. If anything TDs should be an active countermeasure that acts as a factor in the application of missile damage instead of acting against the ship. But somehow missiles would be OP with that...
The animosity and misunderstanding between the two groups really could've been avoided if they had simply designed every hull to use turrets and/or missiles (with bonuses to both), and had made missiles the cross-race weapon they seem to have originally intended them to be. Then everyone would understand how bad most missiles are and there would much less resistance to them being halfway decent.
But alas that was a mistake that was made by CCP long ago, and now we live under the tyranny of turret users who quite simply outnumber us. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
259
|
Posted - 2013.12.20 17:29:00 -
[189] - Quote
Ransu Asanari wrote:In related news, our new survey on Rubicon has no reference to the RHML/RLML "features" introduced in Rubicon. I'm shocked they don't want to get game-wide feedback on this feature... maybe they're afraid of what they'd find out? I'm not sure how CCP Rise and CCP Fozzie will be looking at metrics if it isn't included in the survey.
That's sadly very telling. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
260
|
Posted - 2013.12.20 19:55:00 -
[190] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Arthur, after your very carefully researched analysis of missile systems I am surprised to see a disingenuous statement like this from you. Not at all. As I mentioned, I referenced Gevlon's Catalyst ganking guide. In it he actually alludes to 700+ DPS, and with implants he shows how overheated it can hit 730 DPS. I'm not an expert in suicide ganking, but Gevlon's made a career out of it - so I'll let his numbers and guide stand on their own merits. http://greedygoblin.blogspot.ca/2013/08/catalyst-ganking-guide.htmlSo 308 DPS with the Corax (let's assume 350 with implants) is about half of what you can get with a Catalyst, which makes sense - because the Catalyst is the gank medium of choice for AFK miners. Not that you couldn't bank with a Corax, but I suspect you'd need two of them to achieve the same results. As for the Caracal, again - you're looking at twice the cost (or more) of a Catalyst to achieve the same result. Again, not saying you couldn't gank with a Catalyst - just not sure it's cost effective. I completely agree. bang for buck, where the target is helpless and not shooting back the catalyst is the gank platform of choice. However, this thread is about RLMLs and their suitability for task. And my position is that RLMLs have been invented in error because there was already a weapons system suitable for the job - that of destroying frigates. Namely, the destroyer. Using an oversized ship on an undersized weapons platform confers a certain safety margin, in excess EHP over an equivalent destroyer. The cost of that safety is in ganking power (at least of frigates). That seems reasonable to me. If you *really* want to destroy frigates the tool of choice is the destroyer (or some of them). Using RLMLs on a cruiser should not be as effective. It seems to me, all things considered, that the weapon system is working as intended.
I don't really have any problem with that line of thinking, though it brings up the Corax issue (namely that it currently sucks) which is a different topic altogether. Balancing a RLML Caracal against a Corax is just going to result in a **** RLML Caracal atm.
|
|
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
260
|
Posted - 2013.12.20 20:10:00 -
[191] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Arthur, after your very carefully researched analysis of missile systems I am surprised to see a disingenuous statement like this from you. Not at all. As I mentioned, I referenced Gevlon's Catalyst ganking guide. In it he actually alludes to 700+ DPS, and with implants he shows how overheated it can hit 730 DPS. I'm not an expert in suicide ganking, but Gevlon's made a career out of it - so I'll let his numbers and guide stand on their own merits. http://greedygoblin.blogspot.ca/2013/08/catalyst-ganking-guide.htmlSo 308 DPS with the Corax (let's assume 350 with implants) is about half of what you can get with a Catalyst, which makes sense - because the Catalyst is the gank medium of choice for AFK miners. Not that you couldn't bank with a Corax, but I suspect you'd need two of them to achieve the same results. As for the Caracal, again - you're looking at twice the cost (or more) of a Catalyst to achieve the same result. Again, not saying you couldn't gank with a Catalyst - just not sure it's cost effective. I completely agree. bang for buck, where the target is helpless and not shooting back the catalyst is the gank platform of choice. However, this thread is about RLMLs and their suitability for task. And my position is that RLMLs have been invented in error because there was already a weapons system suitable for the job - that of destroying frigates. Namely, the destroyer. Using an oversized ship on an undersized weapons platform confers a certain safety margin, in excess EHP over an equivalent destroyer. The cost of that safety is in ganking power (at least of frigates). That seems reasonable to me. If you *really* want to destroy frigates the tool of choice is the destroyer (or some of them). Using RLMLs on a cruiser should not be as effective. It seems to me, all things considered, that the weapon system is working as intended. I don't really have any problem with that line of thinking, though it brings up the Corax issue (namely that it currently sucks) which is a different topic altogether. Balancing a RLML Caracal against a Corax is just going to result in a **** RLML Caracal atm. The corax trades range versatility for dps. Whether or not this is a good trade is up to each capsuleer. If not, it's only a week or so to cross train.
It's really not though. The Corax has putrid fitting restrictions and is stupidly slow. It can't be built to kite worth a crap so the range vs dps issue is extremely lopsided atm. So again, if you balance a RLML Caracal against that standard you end up with ****.
|
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
260
|
Posted - 2013.12.20 21:32:00 -
[192] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote: I completely agree. bang for buck, where the target is helpless and not shooting back the catalyst is the gank platform of choice. However, this thread is about RLMLs and their suitability for task.
And my position is that RLMLs have been invented in error because there was already a weapons system suitable for the job - that of destroying frigates. Namely, the destroyer.
Using an oversized ship on an undersized weapons platform confers a certain safety margin, in excess EHP over an equivalent destroyer. The cost of that safety is in ganking power (at least of frigates).
That seems reasonable to me.
If you *really* want to destroy frigates the tool of choice is the destroyer (or some of them). Using RLMLs on a cruiser should not be as effective. It seems to me, all things considered, that the weapon system is working as intended.
I don't really have any problem with that line of thinking, though it brings up the Corax issue (namely that it currently sucks) which is a different topic altogether. Balancing a RLML Caracal against a Corax is just going to result in a **** RLML Caracal atm. The corax trades range versatility for dps. Whether or not this is a good trade is up to each capsuleer. If not, it's only a week or so to cross train. It's really not though. The Corax has putrid fitting restrictions and is stupidly slow. It can't be built to kite worth a crap so the range vs dps issue is extremely lopsided atm. So again, if you balance a RLML Caracal against that standard you end up with ****. If speed is your concern, there's always the talwar (remember, this thread is about missiles, not race). The talwar loses 5dps and 1000 ehp to the corax, but it's fast and has a tiny sig radius under MWD, so almost nothing will hit it. [Talwar, anti-frig] 7x Rocket Launcher II (Nova Rage Rocket) Limited 1MN Microwarpdrive I Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Small Shield Extender II 2x Ballistic Control System II Internal Force Field Array I Small Processor Overclocking Unit I Small Bay Loading Accelerator I Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
I wasn't the one that brought up RLML Caracals rendering Coraxes obsolete, or that a RLML Caracal should not be able to match the DPS of a Corax against frigs. You were. I simply pointed out that the Corax is garbage and should not be used as a measuring stick for a RLML Caracal, because to do so will naturally result in a **** RLML Caracal. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
260
|
Posted - 2013.12.20 22:09:00 -
[193] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:
For the Caldari missile user the Corax should be the natural alternative to the RLML Caracal when trying to kill frigs no? I mean we can avoid jank ships in balance discussions if you want, but that seems to be the opposite of how good balance is achieved in a game. And sorry, but a rocket Talwar is not a viable alternative to a RLML Caracal. Those are ships that have entirely different playstyles and engagement ranges.
I'm not sure I understand you. I am not saying that a talwar and caracal are in any way equivalent. I am saying that a destroyer is a more natural hull for the job of destroying frigates. I am also saying that to cross-train from a caldari destroyer to a minmatar one (if that is what one desires) is a trivial operation in terms of skill training times. What have I misunderstood?
The issue is that CCP created the RLML system, and so they need to find a useful place for it. Balancing it against a sub-par destroyer that is pretty much never used is not going to get it there. Also the Talwar example you provided is moot because you are switching to brawling/tackle range with rockets which is the opposite of the style of a RLML Caracal or a LM Corax. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
260
|
Posted - 2013.12.20 22:13:00 -
[194] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:
For the Caldari missile user the Corax should be the natural alternative to the RLML Caracal when trying to kill frigs no? I mean we can avoid jank ships in balance discussions if you want, but that seems to be the opposite of how good balance is achieved in a game. And sorry, but a rocket Talwar is not a viable alternative to a RLML Caracal. Those are ships that have entirely different playstyles and engagement ranges.
I'm not sure I understand you. I am not saying that a talwar and caracal are in any way equivalent. I am saying that a destroyer is a more natural hull for the job of destroying frigates. I am also saying that to cross-train from a caldari destroyer to a minmatar one (if that is what one desires) is a trivial operation in terms of skill training times. What have I misunderstood? You say that as if RLML is the only cruiser weapon capable of hitting frigates, but you can put light drones in a vexor, you can alpha frigates with arty, you will melt them with a blaster boat. etc... RLML was probably the best against frigates but that came with the usuall delayed dps drawbacks and a disadvantage against larger hulls, that was a fair trade off imo, this nerf was not needed at all and basically shows that CCP are being led by the nose into nerfing missiles without due cause.
That's the thing I find so perplexing. RLMLs have been around for years yet they weren't dominating small gang and solo PVP on some massive scale. They probably needed to be toned down, but the complete redesign that amounts to a mega-nerf in all but very niche circumstances simply makes no sense. Neither does adding a BS weapon system that presently has no real role anywhere in the game for that matter. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
262
|
Posted - 2013.12.20 23:01:00 -
[195] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote: That's the thing I find so perplexing. RLMLs have been around for years yet they weren't dominating small gang and solo PVP on some massive scale.
Incorrect on 2 counts: * They've been around for months. * CCP's data suggested strongly that they were indeed dominating.
* Multiple years can be measured in months so you aren't technically wrong. * CCP's data also tells them Domis, Vexors, and Ishtars are fine apparently. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
262
|
Posted - 2013.12.20 23:08:00 -
[196] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:[quote=Fourteen Maken][ HMLs may or may not compare badly against other medium range weapon systems, but that is not relevant to the topic of this thread.
It's actually quite relevant as a major reason people were fitting RLMLs pre-nerf was due to HMs blowing donkey balls against anything smaller than a battlecruiser. This was directly the result of the meganerf they received a little more than a year ago in which they lost range, damage, and damage application. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
262
|
Posted - 2013.12.20 23:10:00 -
[197] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:[CCP's position is that RLMLs were crowding out HMLs. That is, a missile system designed for killing frigates was being chosen by pilots to kill cruisers over cruiser-specific weapons. That led them to conclude that the RLML weapon system was flawed (in that it was providing opportunities beyond its design).
So they have changed it in order to try to ensure it is good only at its intended function.
If RLMLs are no longer any good at killing cruisers, that is probably as it was intended to be. If they're no good at killing frigates, that's different matter. CCP is the one that killed HMLs to the point where players had no alternative but to switch to RLMLs. Then when more than a few did, they replaced RLMLs with this abomination (effectively killing them). The only thing left at this point is HAMLs, so I guess when it becomes obvious players aren't rekindling their love for HMLs we'll see HAMs get the nerf bat next. Ah, but you are young Padawan. The cycle of Eve is a long one. What was weak will be strong, what was strong shall be weak. Watch and learn. And keep training.
How about they actually, you know, balance this ****? |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
263
|
Posted - 2013.12.20 23:17:00 -
[198] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:
How about they actually, you know, balance this ****?
Well, first of all, balance does happen but it takes time to collect the data, Second, RLML crosses a boundary - in the old guise it kills frigates with zero risk to the cruiser. This is not balanced. In the current system, if the frigate survives the first salvo, he can escape, call in reinforcements, keep applying damage to the cruiser and so on. So you (i) can see how CCP thought that this might bring more balance to the game, My personal view is that RLML and RMML are a wrong move and should be deleted.
Well in their current form they might as well have been. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
265
|
Posted - 2013.12.21 08:46:00 -
[199] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Medium Missile LaunchersHere's a solution that might address the issue: the introduction of a medium missile launcher and medium missiles. Damage, application and range falls somewhere between the current light and heavy missiles, and we buff heavy missiles by 10% to the pre-nerf values. Fitting requirements would be on par with the rapid light missile launchers. This gives the Drakes a bit more "oomph" (which they're sorely lacking), and provides an alternative to rapid light launchers (these will do less overall DPS, but more consistently). I used a +25% damage bonus, +25% rate of fire bonus, V skills, T2 launchers, Faction ammunition and 3x ballistic controls. Comments welcome. Medium Missile Launchers
I'd rather they roll back the damage application portion of the heavy missile nerf (12% to explosion radius I believe it was) while going back to the original rapid launchers (with a hefty nerf to RLML ammo capacity and PWG needs). We don't need another missile weapon system to make things even more complicated. CCP clearly can't handle what we already have. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
266
|
Posted - 2013.12.21 10:04:00 -
[200] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote: It seems to me that rlml was conceived because missile users were unhappy about not being able to easily kill frigates with a medium missile.
Of course that makes about as much sense as inventing a new gunnery system because I was unhappy about being unable to kill a frigate with a medium railgun.
If I made this complaint you might rightfully tell me to use a small rail gun instead.
The right tool for the job of killing a frigate is a light missile, a rocket, a light drone or a smart bomb. All of which a drake can fit
Of course drakes had trouble killing frigates with heavy missiles. They absolutely should!
1) Medium rail guns can kill frigs pretty well at range.
2) Drakes can't even kill cruisers efficiently with heavy missiles. |
|
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
267
|
Posted - 2013.12.21 11:50:00 -
[201] - Quote
This is a new low. We are now being told to fit light missile launcher to Drakes...to kill cruisers...
Oh and Mournful it might help if you actually knew the bonuses of a ship before talking about it. A Drake has no bonuses for light missiles and can't pump out anywhere close to 300 DPS with them. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
267
|
Posted - 2013.12.21 11:54:00 -
[202] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:This is a new low. We are now being told to fit light missile launcher to Drakes... No, you're being taught how to win.
A light missile Drake is the opposite of win. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
267
|
Posted - 2013.12.21 12:03:00 -
[203] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:This is a new low. We are now being told to fit light missile launcher to Drakes... No, you're being taught how to win. A light missile Drake is the opposite of win. You're arguing principles in a war where only results matter. That's a shortcut to an early grave in any enterprise - particularly eve. Bonuses are there as bonuses, not constraints. You've never seen a large-neut recon ship? a light blaster dominix? a smartbomb battleship? Come on...
You are suggesting anti-frig weapons on a Drake to fight cruisers. It won't work. It would only work against frigs and destroyers, and even then it would be incredibly underwhelming. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
267
|
Posted - 2013.12.21 12:05:00 -
[204] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:This is a new low. We are now being told to fit light missile launcher to Drakes...to kill cruisers...
Oh and Mournful it might help if you actually knew the bonuses of a ship before talking about it. A Drake has no bonuses for light missiles and can't pump out anywhere close to 300 DPS with them. Please check your claim in EFT. You are mistaken sir.
My EFT says:
Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonus per level: 4% bonus to all shield resistances 10% bonus to kinetic damage of Heavy Missiles and Heavy Assault Missiles
What does yours say? |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
267
|
Posted - 2013.12.21 12:38:00 -
[205] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:This is a new low. We are now being told to fit light missile launcher to Drakes...to kill cruisers...
Oh and Mournful it might help if you actually knew the bonuses of a ship before talking about it. A Drake has no bonuses for light missiles and can't pump out anywhere close to 300 DPS with them. Please check your claim in EFT. You are mistaken sir. My EFT says: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonus per level: 4% bonus to all shield resistances 10% bonus to kinetic damage of Heavy Missiles and Heavy Assault Missiles What does yours say? it says this: Volley Damage: 1,605.48 DPS: 290.46
With a third of your DPS coming from 5 unbonused drones that have no replacements, that number is flimsy in the extreme. And being a BC you'll have little ability to dictate fights, so have fun getting jumped by a cruiser gang in your anti-frig Drake. And no it is not a good option against cruisers. It would get rolled by any decent cruiser in the game. Oh and good luck using the tackle you stuck on it with your 175 m/s max speed.
I'm starting to feel trolled here... |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
267
|
Posted - 2013.12.21 12:56:00 -
[206] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote: the proposition is an anti frigate ship. eve without drones it has 200dps and a neut and 77k ehp plus shield recharge.
no one said anything about fleets of cruisers. to fight them you need a different fit - called a fleet.
don't like my drake? I don't mind. would a raven do? or a prophecy?
it seems to me that you are determined to dislike the fit on idealistic grounds rather than those of actual game mechanics
You actually suggested it for cruisers or don't you recall?
Seriously man, it's a bad fit and a bad idea, and I honestly think you know it. It will be outmaneuvered and/or avoided by its intended prey (frigates), and will be an easy kill for everything else. Come on now. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
269
|
Posted - 2013.12.22 22:04:00 -
[207] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Drake Doe wrote:They were formerly sustained dps weapons amd that is what I and many others im this thread are trying to get them returned to. They formerly took the place of HML. If you want sustain dps at long range, use HML. If you want more sustain dps against frigates, use destroyers. Each job has its tool. Also, an AF is a tough oponent for any cruiser, not your RLML one only. As for the HML vs turret graph, you are forgeting a key point : tracking. Also, as I said, with missiles you can fit a lot more tank or EWAR than with LR turrets which take huge fitting and range and tracking modules.
You really haven't ever used missiles have you? |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
269
|
Posted - 2013.12.22 22:38:00 -
[208] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:You really haven't ever used missiles have you? You look like you never used medium LR turrets and don't pvp much, yet I'm not talking about it every five pages when I'm out of arguments.
I don't look at peoples killboards. I'm going off the fact that everything you say regarding missiles is utterly and totally wrong. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
269
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 03:22:00 -
[209] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:I don't look at peoples killboards. I'm going off the fact that everything you say regarding missiles is utterly and totally wrong. So you don't care about what people says or does, you just consider them stupid because they don't agree with you ?
I don't think you are stupid. I think you are intellectually dishonest. |
|
|
|