Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [20] 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 138 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 20:28:00 -
[571] - 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. |
X'ret
Shirak SkunkWorks
16
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 20:41:00 -
[572] - Quote
Yes, when i used the word garbage it was suppose to mean this is a very bad idea^^. Like i told dozen times in this thread bfor. |
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
74
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 20:56:00 -
[573] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote: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?
PvE doesn't exsist to the devs, they don't know how to do it or even consider it a valid option for eve gameplay. |
Wiu Ming
Dracos Dozen
58
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 20:57:00 -
[574] - Quote
Kat Ayclism wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Kat Ayclism wrote:Holy crap that's terrible ******* idea Would love if you expanded a bit. You really need it expanded that that long of a reload time on a WEAPONS system is freaking horrid? Yeah weapon types are situational and all, but this change makes the situation you'd ever want to use these in basically none. I wouldn't ever use this garbage when I could just use something else- hell, anything else that doesn't have a 40s reload time.
i thought by "expanded" he meant: Holy crap that's terrible f**k**g idea... |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
974
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 21:07:00 -
[575] - Quote
To be honest, I doubt this thread is actually intended for us to give feedback in. More like it's a "this change is happening no matter what, but now you know about it in advance" sort of thing. Especially when our concerns are either waved aside or taken as validation that it's a good idea. Whatever, it's not important what the devs do, we'll just deal with it and find other weapon systems to use instead and when they break those for being 'too popular" we'll use something else after that.
The idea of a 40-sec reload creating "interesting choices" and "spikes of tension" seems like too much PR Buzzword Kool-Aid is going around. Mostly I think it's going to result in people annihilating poorly-fitted opponents within the reserves of ammo, becoming very frustrated with the 40-sec reload or attempting to stagger their missile groups and finding the DPS insufficient to justify not using any other sort of missile system. In the first situation people will love the change but in the second two situations people will like it somewhat less.
On the bright side, maybe this will make people like those kinetic-bonused hulls a bit more. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
797
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 21:09:00 -
[576] - Quote
Or you can start fitting frigate weapons to your cruiser hulls to do more dps. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
974
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 21:11:00 -
[577] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Or you can start fitting frigate weapons to your cruiser hulls to do more dps.
Somehow I think that's just what might start happening.
The RLML Cerb is dead. Long live the LML Cerb. |
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
74
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 21:17:00 -
[578] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Or you can start fitting frigate weapons to your cruiser hulls to do more dps. Somehow I think that's just what might start happening. The RLML Cerb is dead. Long live the LML Cerb.
also makes the LML + XLASB caracal an idea |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
974
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 21:22:00 -
[579] - Quote
Mhari Dson wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Or you can start fitting frigate weapons to your cruiser hulls to do more dps. Somehow I think that's just what might start happening. The RLML Cerb is dead. Long live the LML Cerb. also makes the LML + XLASB caracal an idea
You horrible, evil person. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
418
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 21:30:00 -
[580] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:I think you are just trying to score points or something with arguing, and resorting to claiming im editing posts behind your back, because you have basically no idea how small gang pvp works. And I think you should be good enough to use argument instead of comedy example like the interceptor one.
Firstly, interceptors and AB are both designed to avoid damage, and especially to avoid missile damage. Asking for a weapon system to go through this without any effort is not reasonable.
Secondly, RLML are currently OP because they obsolete destroyers and all other medium missile systems. The new RLML address this with a ~20% dps nerf. This should fix all the problems.
Thirdly, with the nerf, RLML receive a new feature : front loaded dps. That mean you'll have a very high dps, very good to quickly remove a tackle or go through an active tank. The 40s reload is only the downside of this feature ; you can't have the front loaded dps without the 40s reload, but this is actually a good thing for your ship.
There is two drawback though, one being an edge case : - the reload time prevent ammo swapping ; - if you needed more than 18 missiles but less than 40, then you will take more time to kill your target than before.
This is definitely an edge case as there won't be many scenario where you will need more than one clip to kill your target.
Now, indeed LM having the same base dps as RLML is odd, yet the feature RLML get should compensate for it. But I think nerfing light missiles themselves should be a better solution : reduce the reload time of RLML a bit, or extend the magazine a bit, but remove some damage from LM. |
|
Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
35
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 21:39:00 -
[581] - Quote
Mhari Dson wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Or you can start fitting frigate weapons to your cruiser hulls to do more dps. Somehow I think that's just what might start happening. The RLML Cerb is dead. Long live the LML Cerb. also makes the LML + XLASB caracal an idea With good skills and implants 3 BCS LML Cerb using Scourge Precision will do 300+dps to frigs (100% applied damage having web and scram). 1 LSE for 24k EHP and one XLASB for 670dps tank. I think they need to nerf light missiles as such, at least 50% or delete them entirely. Too powerful |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
797
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 21:42:00 -
[582] - Quote
Could you perhaps link an example of a small gang fight you were recently in? Preferably one with roughly even odds, ie not blobbing a cruiser with a dozen people.
Edit: The tipiaks guy I mean. |
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
75
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 21:43:00 -
[583] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Mhari Dson wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Or you can start fitting frigate weapons to your cruiser hulls to do more dps. Somehow I think that's just what might start happening. The RLML Cerb is dead. Long live the LML Cerb. also makes the LML + XLASB caracal an idea You horrible, evil person.
worse, I'm a freakin carebear and I can see it coming. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
678
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 21:47:00 -
[584] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Michael Harari wrote:I think you are just trying to score points or something with arguing, and resorting to claiming im editing posts behind your back, because you have basically no idea how small gang pvp works. And I think you should be good enough to use argument instead of comedy example like the interceptor one. Firstly, interceptors and AB are both designed to avoid damage, and especially to avoid missile damage. Asking for a weapon system to go through this without any effort is not reasonable. Secondly, RLML are currently OP because they obsolete destroyers and all other medium missile systems. The new RLML address this with a ~20% dps nerf. This should fix all the problems. Thirdly, with the nerf, RLML receive a new feature : front loaded dps. That mean you'll have a very high dps, very good to quickly remove a tackle or go through an active tank. The 40s reload is only the downside of this feature ; you can't have the front loaded dps without the 40s reload, but this is actually a good thing for your ship. There is two drawback though, one being an edge case : - the reload time prevent ammo swapping ; - if you needed more than 18 missiles but less than 40, then you will take more time to kill your target than before. This is definitely an edge case as there won't be many scenario where you will need more than one clip to kill your target. Now, indeed LM having the same base dps as RLML is odd, yet the feature RLML get should compensate for it. But I think nerfing light missiles themselves should be a better solution : reduce the reload time of RLML a bit, or extend the magazine a bit, but remove some damage from LM.
THe shi is already makign a HUGE effort for that. ITs using a weapons system designed to specifically kill tacklers at the cost of not being able to ever kil a cruiser. ITs a MASSIVE price paid.. and even so.. its very weak on that role
This is much more effort and compromisse than most ships do to fill a role. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
13
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 21:49:00 -
[585] - Quote
Im going to have to agree that rise is certainly attempting to sell the rlm change. Downplaying the disadvantages as 'not a deal breaker' or nonexistant 'who even bothers using fofs?' while pushing ideas like 'youll do far more spike damage' and 'the 40 second reload creates tension and interesting gameplay' while ignoring how easily this can be manipulated with 'its ok just split your guns' is absolutely cringeworthy.
If you want to nerf rlm, increase its power grid requirements, this means that rlm boats will be forced to have less tank in exchange for better applied damage. This change only pushs rlms close to nonviability in fights against more than one or two ships especially when compared to anything else. People will simple use standard missile launchers instead, which by itself points out how hysterically bad the current missile damage algorithm is. I can't really think of any cruiser that is forced into using frigate modules in order to actually respond to anything smaller than a cruiser. With this change however, it is likely to happen.
Perhaps this stems from the perception that small gangs and solo should only function on a hit and run basis, being unable to engage larger groups for any extended amount of time. I dislike this perception because the benefit of having a small gang is its ability to tie up the larger force, meaning it has to either respond to you in some way or slowly lose ships. Having a 40 second reload merely means the ship might as well not even be on grid while reloading and does not pose any large threat to multiple ships. Omen, thorax, and rupture however have the ability to switch targets without any worry of 'uh I don't have enough ammo to kill that without reloading I may have just uselessly wasted my entire clip and will soon be useless for nearly a minute' and can do a much higher 'sustained' damage when compared to the proposed rlms when you split weapons.
So by comparison there is no reason to use the proposed rlms outside of very specific situations where even then any other weapon system would still match and potentially be more effective. Considering that you can increase powergrid requirement as I have previously stated and make rlm boats easier to deal with on the field since they likely wont have as much tank, this proposed change is bad, especially when you combine it with the fact that the majority of newer players will be unable to quickly train into a weapon system that is viable in an extended engagement which seems unfair. |
Baron' Soontir Fel
Justified Chaos
63
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 21:51:00 -
[586] - Quote
If you think RLMLs are overpowered, (Compared to what if you ask me) but if you do, then nerf RLML to bring them in-line with other weapon types of its class. Don't change its function.
RLML Caracal = Full rack of RLML, 3 BCS = 211 DPS with Faction Missiles. Because that's what people use in PvP scenarios. Fury LM don't apply enough damage to frigates.
HML Caracal = Full rack of HML, 3 BCS = 270 DPS with Faction Missiles.
I give up 60 DPS on a cruiser hull in order to hit frigates. Please do not tell me that I need to fit more anti-frigate modules/rigs on my anti-frigate cruiser.
Now for you people that still don't get it. 20% less dps over 90 seconds because of this change... and I'm down to 160 DPS on my missiles. Do you realize how low 160 dps is... My Kestrel gets 140DPS, and my Corax gets 240.
A LML Talwar fit gets 160DPS. (Double BCS, Malkuth LML, Warhead Calefaction rig) A RLML CRUISER gets the same DPS as a LML DESTROYER.
You might have more DPS during the first 50 seconds of combat, but fights last longer than 50 seconds. Almost all of them do in fact. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
797
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 21:52:00 -
[587] - Quote
In 40s, the entire field can change. Being unable to react to change just means you are flying a crippled ship and should find something else. |
Chessur
Strontless Mistakes Fatal Ascension
221
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 22:13:00 -
[588] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:In 40s, the entire field can change. Being unable to react to change just means you are flying a crippled ship and should find something else.
With the new warp and interceptor / frig changes- even when you warp off the field,- you are going to alnd at a celestial- still reloading, and a frig will be there to greet you, tackle you, and you will die from the blob with out ever being able to shoot your guns.
Sounds like some exciting gameplay for me.
Rise, did you even think of the new warp implications when considering a 40 second reload time? |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
418
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 22:14:00 -
[589] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:THe shi is already makign a HUGE effort for that. ITs using a weapons system designed to specifically kill tacklers at the cost of not being able to ever kil a cruiser. ITs a MASSIVE price paid.. and even so.. its very weak on that role
This is much more effort and compromisse than most ships do to fill a role. Considering damage application, the dps loss is not that much compared to HAM to shoot attack cruisers, and compensated by the lower fitting which allow the Caracal for example to fit the tank of a regular combat cruiser. That make it the ultimate anti-frigate platform and a tough and fast cruiser at the same time.
@Michael Harari : you should know better how hard it is to get an even fight, as even when the opportunity come one side often flee for many reasons going from fear to lack of intel. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
804
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 22:16:00 -
[590] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
@Michael Harari : you should know better how hard it is to get an even fight, as even when the opportunity come one side often flee for many reasons going from fear to lack of intel.
So no, you havent been in anything remotely resembling an even fight. Do you have any fights where the odds were against you? |
|
BBQ FTW
The Hatchery Team Liquid
92
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 22:20:00 -
[591] - Quote
Quote:@Michael Harari : you should know better how hard it is to get an even fight, as even when the opportunity come one side often flee for many reasons going from fear to lack of intel.
clearly good player whos input on pvp should be valued |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
624
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 22:28:00 -
[592] - Quote
Also please consider that many young players who fly Caldari use RLML for their PVE Caracals doing low level missions or anomalies. Changing them to be a burst damage PVP weapon makes them pretty useless in PVE. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
418
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 22:35:00 -
[593] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:
@Michael Harari : you should know better how hard it is to get an even fight, as even when the opportunity come one side often flee for many reasons going from fear to lack of intel.
So no, you havent been in anything remotely resembling an even fight. Do you have any fights where the odds were against you? Haha, who cares ?
But yes, TIPIAK don't fear to wipe a fleet out. You can look at the killboard if you have that many time to lose. FYI, I do have been in some fair fights.
But if you are relegated to killboard epeen as argument, you are a lot worse than what I expected. |
Baron' Soontir Fel
Justified Chaos
64
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 22:36:00 -
[594] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:THe shi is already makign a HUGE effort for that. ITs using a weapons system designed to specifically kill tacklers at the cost of not being able to ever kil a cruiser. ITs a MASSIVE price paid.. and even so.. its very weak on that role
This is much more effort and compromisse than most ships do to fill a role. Considering damage application, the dps loss is not that much compared to HAM to shoot attack cruisers, and compensated by the lower fitting which allow the Caracal for example to fit the tank of a regular combat cruiser. That make it the ultimate anti-frigate platform and a tough and fast cruiser at the same time. .
60 DPS loss from HAMs to the current RLML. If this gets implemented, it will be a 100DPS loss from HML to RLML. "Not that much" he says. |
Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
35
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 22:44:00 -
[595] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: But if you are relegated to killboard epeen as argument, you are a lot worse than what I expected.
How can you be serious Genos are often fighting outnumbered and outgunned - everyone knows that. |
BBQ FTW
The Hatchery Team Liquid
93
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 22:57:00 -
[596] - Quote
The main issue I have with this change is that it is attempting to accomplish two (I don't know the right term...orthogonal?) things at the same time, when they could easily be addressed through separate changes.
First, you're trying to deal with the perceived imbalances of RLML. I'm not unsympathetic to the idea that RLMLs are a tad out of line (though this is partially because HAM and HML damage application is incredibly poor, yes, some phenomenona can be explained through multiple causes) In this case, you could tone down the ROF of RLMLs (5-10%? I personally think that CCP in general tweaks numbers way too much during balancing, a 5% damage increase/decrease is very significant -- thats a matter for another wall of text though).
Second, you're trying to introduce a fairly different weapon mechanic (yes, the difference between 10s and 40s is a much more substantial difference than the difference between switching laser crystals and projectile ammo). This goes beyond simply tweaking a weapons system - what you are doing now is more accurately described as deleting RLML systems and adding a new one. If this seems like an extreme change, then why not introduce this 'new' RLML alongside the old one? After all, regular shield boosters were not removed from the game upon the release of ASBs. Unless there's some argument that consistent light missile dps on cruiser platforms is some sort of toxic mechanic that absolutely must be removed from the game
TL;DR - if you want to nerf RLMLs, then just nerf them in a straightforward way. If you want to test your new idea, then its probably a better idea not to remove tangentially related modules from the game. Try to accomplish both, and you get a conceptual mess.
PS - I'm pretty sure anyone calling this a buff has never actually flown an RLML ship properly -- I've had several extended fights with 10+ reloads to alternative charges (changing weapons type and CN -> fury, also FOF). 40s reload time is pretty crippling to flexibility. You can't split weapons groups to overcome this limitation. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
418
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 23:02:00 -
[597] - Quote
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: But if you are relegated to killboard epeen as argument, you are a lot worse than what I expected.
You can't be serious Genos are often fighting outnumbered and outgunned - everyone knows that. You understand something when you are able to explain it. You can be good at something and don't understand it ; and you can understand something without being good at it.
And "not good enough killboard" is not an argument, except for the lazy and the stupids.
BTW, CCP Rise and Fozzy (and certainly some others too) have a lot of pvp experience, yet people deny them it only because of their tag, so really, nobody here actually care about pvp experience or actual global vision of the game and the killboard argument is only a way to dishonnor someone and don't have to bother arguing with him. Forum pvp 101, alias Troll initiation lvl1. |
BBQ FTW
The Hatchery Team Liquid
93
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 23:10:00 -
[598] - Quote
its impossible to argue productively with someone who doesn't have basic conceptual understanding of the game. Absent actual objective ranking metrics, the best way to see that is whether someone's succeeded in a situation where they have to have better game understanding (in general, outnumbered fights).
This is not ad hom - you can't argue quantum mechanics with someone that can't integrate a function, for example. |
Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
35
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 23:14:00 -
[599] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: You understand something when you are able to explain it.
What he did on more than several occasions and not only he. Don't you think that explanation provided by Dalikah is a valid one? Here, you can even take a look at her KB, perhaps it will be somewhat closer to your expectations: https://zkillboard.com/character/839855307/ |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
418
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 23:25:00 -
[600] - Quote
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: You understand something when you are able to explain it.
What he did on more than several occasions and not only he. Don't you think that explanation provided by Dalikah is a valid one? Here, you can even take a look at her KB, perhaps it will be somewhat closer to your expectations: https://zkillboard.com/character/839855307/ You need to understand that someone can be good in the game and be completely stubborn and enjailed in a particular vision of the game. There is also the problem of people so good for something that they become completely unable to evolve or to adapt to new things.
In this case in particular, as I explained it three post sooner, the burst dps functionality do not remove the sustain dps ability of the weapon system unless you are completely stubborn and enjailed in some ideological prisons like "it's stupid not to use all gun at once".
Then we can discuss the dps nerf, but discussing the burst ability is only an undeniable proof of change averseness. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [20] 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 138 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |