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) |

Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
938
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 13:13:00 -
[61] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Let me know what you think and keep in mind that numbers may be adjusted slightly as we continue to test. Thanks
Initial thought: You're drunk. After that... numbers.
Current triple-BCS RLML Caracal does 266 DPS Future one will do 409 DPS before reload. This is 53.8% more. It's a 35% ROF bonus.
Future RLML shoots 23 missiles, then reloads for 40 s. With current triple-BCS Caracal ROF of 3.79 s, future Caracal will have 2.46 s ROF. It fires 23 missiles over 56.7 s, then reloads for 40 s. Total time is 96.7 s, total max damage is 23 x 201.58 = 4636, for average 47.9 DPS per RLML, making 239.7 DPS from a Caracal's five launchers, relative to old 266 DPS.
Summary: Burst DPS increases by 53.8%, prolonged DPS decreases by about 9.9%.
As a regular RLML Cerb pilot, yeah, I'll take that.  |

Kaeda Maxwell
Calamitous-Intent
208
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 13:14:00 -
[62] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote: All those crying about their precious 'solo' RLML Cerbs & Tengus aren't kidding anyone. It's like the HM drakes & tengus before, they will usually be in a small gang, built to use multiple links, and harvest t1 noob frigate killmails (and then cherry-picking the remaining defanged gang), all the while claiming ~elite smallgang pvp~ and never having to think about diminishing their own damage application via transversal.
I hope you're just trying to charge the debate here, because I like you, but calling people that disagree with you crybabies in your opening post would be considered poor form.
One of the charms of the rlml caracal is that with a single nano you actually don't need links at all for it to be a viable solo kiting ship, the cerb is a tad slow for that, but the navy caracal is plenty fast without links too. And yes a benefit of missiles is that their damage application isn't subject to range or tracking, which in turn is why they have lower base damage and can be destoyed by stuff like smartbombs. It's not like there are no downsides to missiles.
Natalia Sidorovich wrote:
I enjoy flying Caracals into frigate gangs and shredding them quickly. This change will significantly increase the speed at which I can do that, and provided I am not bad and get tackled, kiting around during the reload, or bailing after the charges are done won't be terrible.
For those saying this is change bad because it means RLML ships cant deal enough damage to same size ships, isn't this kind of the idea? It's a frigate sized charge.
Frigate sized charge but the RLM launcher is a cruiser sized weapon system. Currently the trade off when you use it to fight cruisers is that while you do rather poor base damage you'll apply almost all of it even against small relatively fast targets, whereas both HAM's and HM's only apply partial damage (and unless heavily webbed down HM's actually get out performed by RLM's a lot of the time). For brawling HAM's are almost always the superior weapon choice in my experience, but when kiting RLM's really, really shine (but mostly because HM's can't actually apply damage very well).
***
Rapid Heavy Launcher in their original shape I feel would be fine if the weapon they actually fire applied it's damage properly. That would also really help the normal Heavy launcher to actually seem like viable alternative to HAM's or RLM's. Seriously it's a good thing Drake bonuses don't apply to RLM's or I swear RLM PvE drakes would be a thing, that's how poor HM's are at the moment.
A good example is the Cyclone were the coice isn't between RLM and HAM but between HAM and HM; if HM's were a tiny bit better Heavy Missile Cyclones would actually be a completely viable thing, currently however putting HAM's on the is a total no brainer. |

Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
938
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 13:15:00 -
[63] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:By the way, Rise, I saw that little trick you did there using Fury-type T2 kinetic missiles on kinetic-bonused hulls to artificially inflate the DPS numbers. How about some numbers with T1 thermal missiles?
You're not nearly as clever as you think you are.  |

Job Valador
Super Moose Defence Force
330
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 13:15:00 -
[64] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:Shinah Myst wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Rapid Launchers (both Light and Heavy) will be changed to have a much higher damage per second number, roughly on par with Heavy Assault Launchers and Torpedo Launchers respectively, but their ammo capacity will be reduced and their reload time will be increased increased (think Ancilliary Shield Boosters). No. ASB-like reload time is a hack, not a solution. If you can't balance them, don't introduce them. I believe that's the crux of the matter, that all Rapid missile systems break the fundamental Eve balancing traits of fragility of plaform vs effectiveness of applying dps. Destroyers get 8 guns, but are relatively fat & slow. BCs get more turrets than cruisers, but again are less mobile and take more damage. Even tier3/A BC are fragile on paper for their potential dps. "rapid" weapons are obviously about packing 8 or more effective, bonused smaller weapon systems onto a more durable ship. If they can't just remove rapid lights outright, then rapid heavies (and dare I say rapid cruises for capital ships) will need such a serious change to be balanced, to be a fair tradeoff consideration. All those crying about their precious 'solo' RLML Cerbs & Tengus aren't kidding anyone. It's like the HM drakes & tengus before, they will usually be in a small gang, built to use multiple links, and harvest t1 noob frigate killmails (and then cherry-picking the remaining defanged gang), all the while claiming ~elite smallgang pvp~ and never having to think about diminishing their own damage application via transversal. Edit: page1 replies have already nailed it, that these weapons systems aren't for a fleet's main dps, they're support. Compose your fleets at least, you crybabies. The reload timer mechanic itself cleary isn't a problem for acceptance, people lapped up the ASB and its timer when it was OP, and now it still has tradeoffs that are very reasonable. Likewise I'm sure people will work out to do 2 or more sets of rapid launchers and manage them should these changes happen. I thus quite like the idea of the burst & reload dps, letting these 'support' fits do that just as effectively as ever(if not far more so), but then facing a real tradeoff when tankier BCs, BSs, or 1 or 2 smart logi can simply deaggro from them if on a gate/station/POS, or force them off through greater sustained combat effectiveness. If you wanted to burn through cruiser, BCs and larger targets, you should have to bring medium & large weapon systems to get the job done with comparable numbers. The only real point I still want to raise is light missiles in general, and on the Talwar specifically. They're everywhere, minimal-cost-meta fitted, and have a disgusting range & volley for their isk & SP cost. I like new players having something they get basic fleet experience in, but this mindless anchoring & missile spam just reeks of drakes of old. Maybe their fitting, or light missile's range/volley needs a look at? They are a frigate-scale weapon after all.
the only man with sense here |

Xequecal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
112
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 13:19:00 -
[65] - Quote
Morwennon wrote:I think that this is a deeply misguided approach to solving what is basically a non-problem. You claim that RLMLs are "almost always the right choice", which I think is a pretty ridiculous assertion. There are two good cruiser-sized missile options at the moment, RLMs and HAMs. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, and they both see a lot of use in pvp. HMLs aren't much good, but that's nothing to do with the strength of RLMs, it's because HMLs are colossal turdpiles that are outperformed by just about every alternative, including the various long-range medium turrets, the other medium missile types, scorch M, and typing bad words in local. Breaking all of the current RLML use cases won't magically make HMLs more attractive, it'll just consign a currently useful weapon system to the scrapheap.
Links make HAMs ****. It's true. HAMs have a very high DRF so any ship that has a speed of 160% of its signature radius or higher takes reduced damage from CN HAMs on an almost 1:1 basis. When links simultaneously provide a speed increase and a sig radius reduction, any missiles bigger than RLMs become garbage. Links mean RLMs are vastly superior to all other missiles on basically all other non-webbed targets. (even some battleships) RLMs also outdamage HAMs on most cruisers with a single web applied and will actually outdamage HAMs on the really low-sig cruisers (scythe fleet) even if they have two webs applied.
A linked ABing Machariel takes half damage from CN HAMs. A freaking battleship, but links mean you're doing half damage with a cruiser-sized weapon. That's with no mass/agility mods, no snakes or speed implants, and no overheating. Overheating the AB on the Mach drops HAM DPS down to 38.16%. |

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
4276
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 13:21:00 -
[66] - Quote
Awesome change. Provides the ability for a battleship to screen a fleet against interceptors, though you have to overcome the extremely long lock time of a battleship.
People will need to get on Singularity and fly fleets of frigates, cruisers and battlecruisers against their navy ravens with RHMLs in order to understand the difference between a burst of 1000DPS against an interceptor with RHMLs versus sustained 1000DPS with cruise missiles against the same target.
CCP Rise, what about the possibility of reducing the reload time and reducing the firing rate, and shifting the high-DPS mode of this weapon system to overloading? This means the pilot has the option of:
- firing for, say, 70 seconds until the RHML burns out
- firing in bursts and applying paste to prepare for the next burst, or
- firing a sustained stream of missiles at far lower DPS without heat.
Just move the DPS bonus and "40 second reload timer" to the overheat mechanics of this weapon system. And then provide some means for battleships to lock frigates in reasonable amounts of time so the front-loaded DPS can actually be applied.
The "screen" ability would especially be enhanced with a special targeting system, similar to a passive targeting system, which allows any ship to "save up" a triple-speed target lock. This targeting assistance module would be exclusive to sensor boosters, sensor amplifiers or sensor links, with a penalty of one-third target locking speed while recharging.
So interceptor arrives, tries to light cyno. You (the pilot of the fighter-screen battleship) use the targeting assistance module to lock the interceptor, and you overheat the RHMLs to bring the interceptor down. Once the interceptor is dead you are now "down for the count" while repairing your launchers and recharging the targeting assistance module.
|

mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2115
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 13:22:00 -
[67] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:By the way, Rise, I saw that little trick you did there using Fury-type T2 kinetic missiles on kinetic-bonused hulls to artificially inflate the DPS numbers. How about some numbers with T1 thermal missiles?
People who are actually good at this game wouldn't shoot T1 thermal missiles from T2 launchers on a kinetic bonused hull. Hope this helps. |

CptBipto
Super Moose Defence Force
0
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 13:23:00 -
[68] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Kat Ayclism wrote:Holy crap that's terrible ******* idea Would love if you expanded a bit.
40 seconds is far to long for how little ammo you give them |

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
966
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 13:24:00 -
[69] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:By the way, Rise, I saw that little trick you did there using Fury-type T2 kinetic missiles on kinetic-bonused hulls to artificially inflate the DPS numbers. How about some numbers with T1 thermal missiles? You're not nearly as clever as you think you are. 
No desire to be clever. I actually thought it was pretty obvious, but nobody had mentioned it yet so I decided I would. |

Volstruis
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
42
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 13:26:00 -
[70] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:By the way, Rise, I saw that little trick you did there using Fury-type T2 kinetic missiles on kinetic-bonused hulls to artificially inflate the DPS numbers. How about some numbers with T1 thermal missiles? People who are actually good at this game wouldn't shoot T1 thermal missiles from T2 launchers on a kinetic bonused hull. Hope this helps.
And now the Goon CSMS are coming on an insulting people instead of addressing the issue.
Yayness. Thread officially now made of win.
|

Morwennon
Aliastra Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 13:27:00 -
[71] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:By the way, Rise, I saw that little trick you did there using Fury-type T2 kinetic missiles on kinetic-bonused hulls to artificially inflate the DPS numbers. How about some numbers with T1 thermal missiles? You're not nearly as clever as you think you are.  No desire to be clever. I actually thought it was pretty obvious, but nobody had mentioned it yet so I decided I would. The caracal doesn't have a kinetic-only bonus; its bonuses are to missile ROF and missile velocity, both of which apply equally to missiles of all damage types.
edit: and even if that wasn't the case, he was comparing the proposed new launchers to the current ones with the same ammo, so it would be a perfectly reasonable comparison even if the caracal had a kinetic bonus. |

Gorski Car
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
126
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 13:28:00 -
[72] - Quote
Yeah no. This is not a good idea. That reload time = no more damage type selection more or less. You are stuck with scourge. I suggest you start with making sure hmls are actually good before you actually touch anything else with missiles.
Oh and a bs with rhmls still won't do **** to a good ceptor pilot so gg whoever thinks this will shield bs fleets vs frigs.
Based god out |

Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
940
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 13:29:00 -
[73] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:By the way, Rise, I saw that little trick you did there using Fury-type T2 kinetic missiles on kinetic-bonused hulls to artificially inflate the DPS numbers. How about some numbers with T1 thermal missiles? You're not nearly as clever as you think you are.  No desire to be clever. I actually thought it was pretty obvious, but nobody had mentioned it yet so I decided I would.
Pretty obvious to whom? Raven and Caracal are not kinetic-bonused ships.  |

GallowsCalibrator
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
384
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 13:29:00 -
[74] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:By the way, Rise, I saw that little trick you did there using Fury-type T2 kinetic missiles on kinetic-bonused hulls to artificially inflate the DPS numbers. How about some numbers with T1 thermal missiles? People who are actually good at this game wouldn't shoot T1 thermal missiles from T2 launchers on a kinetic bonused hull. Hope this helps.
oh god is that what I was doing wrong
Just done some back-of-envelope calculations (don't have a calculator in front of me at the moment), and you should have approximately 20k damage potential in a clip with the numbers given for the RLML/Caracal combo in the OP before needing a reload. That's really not bad and should be enough to smash through, say, an interceptor or two before a clip reload.
RHML setups should probably be able to get a cruiser off your behind relatively quickly. (Wouldn't want to take it solo/solo versus something T2, but a pile of say, 5 ravens might make any HICtor jumping onto a fleet think twice...) |

Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
721
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 13:30:00 -
[75] - Quote
This is a terrible idea.
1) Having a lot of downtime is just bad gameplay design. In a gang, you might stay on the field to provide point and webs, but if you are solo, you basically are going to kill 1-2 targets and warp out. And then nobody gets to do anything for the next 40s while you reload. It promotes non-interactive gameplay.
2) Its not intuitive. Its yet another thing that vets know that noobs dont.
3) Its not that people use rapid lights because they are really good. We use them because the other medium missile systems are utter trash. I would love to be able to use heavy missiles again, but there is just no reason since they are currently the worst weapon system in the entire game for anything but giant blobs.
4) There is no alternative. You can use normal shield boosters instead of ancillary boosters. You can use normal armor reps instead of ancillary reps. There are good reasons to choose each. For medium missile launchers, there isnt any alternative to rapid lights. Heavy missiles are too slow, do too little damage for the fitting, and apply too poorly. Heavy assaults are too short range, and apply even more poorly.
5) While roaming, its can be very difficult to make a 40s reload when going gate to gate. This will just slow gangs down, with no real reason to do so.
Making this change will basically just end the use of missile ships in small gangs. People will just go to other ships, instead of dealing with the possibility of being tackled and having to wait for close to a minute to return fire.
If you want people to choose heavy missiles, then make heavy missiles be something besides a trash tier weapons system. |

Pertuabo Enkidgan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
53
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 13:34:00 -
[76] - Quote
Mmmmm as a mostly solo player I can't agree with this kil2
Is there truly no other way? surely you can balance the weapon out without the Ancillary-like cooldown, that itself is sickeningly long. Nobody likes downtime. |
|

CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
3115

|
Posted - 2013.11.08 13:34:00 -
[77] - Quote
Quote:Summary: Burst DPS increases by 53.8%, prolonged DPS decreases by about 9.9%.
This made me scared for a second and then I realized you used the RHML charge amount instead of the RLML. So instead of 23 charges it should be 18 which will lower the DPS a bit more.
I think the ammo switching problem is valid, but I don't think it's a show stopper and I think it might be possible in the .1 release to find a work-around like the one mentioned above where ammo switching doesn't take as much time as reloading but doesn't fully refill your charges.
The comparison to ECM and not getting to be active doesn't seem right to me. This mechanic is much better because you have control over it rather than it being random, and also the gameplay around deciding when to fire and what to do during reload are both very active.
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.
Also, keep in mind that we will absolutely iterate following these changes (whether it's the first version, this version or some other). |
|

mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2116
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 13:38:00 -
[78] - Quote
Volstruis wrote:mynnna wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:By the way, Rise, I saw that little trick you did there using Fury-type T2 kinetic missiles on kinetic-bonused hulls to artificially inflate the DPS numbers. How about some numbers with T1 thermal missiles? People who are actually good at this game wouldn't shoot T1 thermal missiles from T2 launchers on a kinetic bonused hull. Hope this helps. And now the Goon CSMS are coming on an insulting people instead of addressing the issue. Yayness. Thread officially now made of win.
What's the issue? I see a bunch of people who think these are an interesting and fun approach, I agree with them. I see someone who thinks it would be good if you had a normal reload time while swapping ammo but that swapping under this circumstance should not reload your ammo bay - I agree with that as well. I also see a bunch of people who are assmad. I disagree with them.
If there's an issue here it's that you seem to think my job is to agree with the players every time. This is impossible, as the players rarely agree with each other. |

Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
942
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 13:38:00 -
[79] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:Summary: Burst DPS increases by 53.8%, prolonged DPS decreases by about 9.9%. This made me scared for a second and then I realized you used the RHML charge amount instead of the RLML. So instead of 23 charges it should be 18 which will lower the DPS a bit more.
Yep, just spotted that myself. Updating the post above. |

Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
723
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 13:38:00 -
[80] - Quote
You dont really have a choice about when you reload, unless you just stop shooting at stuff for some reason.
The swapping ammo types is actually quite a big deal. If you have EM missiles loaded and a jaguar shows up to tackle you, if you cant swap ammo, you are ******, regardless of how fast you shoot all your 0 damage missiles into him. You also cant reload between gates, or while jammed. |

Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
723
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 13:42:00 -
[81] - Quote
If anything, i think just make a new launcher type that does this burst dps, if that is what you want.
Light Missile Swarm Launcher Heavy Missile Swarm Launcher
Now you have a choice between burst dps and re-warping for the next 40s, and actually making continuous decisions about positioning and who to shoot, but without high burst. |

Gorski Car
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
126
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 13:43:00 -
[82] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:This is a terrible idea.
1) Having a lot of downtime is just bad gameplay design. In a gang, you might stay on the field to provide point and webs, but if you are solo, you basically are going to kill 1-2 targets and warp out. And then nobody gets to do anything for the next 40s while you reload. It promotes non-interactive gameplay.
2) Its not intuitive. Its yet another thing that vets know that noobs dont.
3) Its not that people use rapid lights because they are really good. We use them because the other medium missile systems are utter trash. I would love to be able to use heavy missiles again, but there is just no reason since they are currently the worst weapon system in the entire game for anything but giant blobs.
4) There is no alternative. You can use normal shield boosters instead of ancillary boosters. You can use normal armor reps instead of ancillary reps. There are good reasons to choose each. For medium missile launchers, there isnt any alternative to rapid lights. Heavy missiles are too slow, do too little damage for the fitting, and apply too poorly. Heavy assaults are too short range, and apply even more poorly.
5) While roaming, its can be very difficult to make a 40s reload when going gate to gate. This will just slow gangs down, with no real reason to do so.
Making this change will basically just end the use of missile ships in small gangs. People will just go to other ships, instead of dealing with the possibility of being tackled and having to wait for close to a minute to return fire.
If you want people to choose heavy missiles, then make heavy missiles be something besides a trash tier weapons system.
This pretty much sums up why this is a horrible idea. |

Morwennon
Aliastra Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 13:52:00 -
[83] - Quote
Xequecal wrote:Links make HAMs ****. It's true. HAMs have a very high DRF so any ship that has a speed of 160% of its signature radius or higher takes reduced damage from CN HAMs on an almost 1:1 basis. When links simultaneously provide a speed increase and a sig radius reduction, any missiles bigger than RLMs become garbage. Links mean RLMs are vastly superior to all other missiles on basically all other non-webbed targets. (even some battleships) RLMs also outdamage HAMs on most cruisers with a single web applied and will actually outdamage HAMs on the really low-sig cruisers (scythe fleet) even if they have two webs applied.
A linked ABing Machariel takes half damage from CN HAMs. A freaking battleship, but links mean you're doing half damage with a cruiser-sized weapon. That's with no mass/agility mods, no snakes or speed implants, and no overheating. Overheating the AB on the Mach drops HAM DPS down to 38.16%. For a start, this is more of a "links are stupid OP" issue than a problem with HAMs per se. More to the point, however, HAMs are close range weapons so anything you're shooting with them should be hard tackled already. In more realistic situations, their damage application is absolutely fine for the kinds of fights that you'd want to use them in. You wouldn't fit RLMs on a sacrilege or a brawling missile legion, even if their bonuses applied to light missiles because in the situations where those ships excel, the drawbacks of HAMs are easily mitigated and their strengths in terms of raw DPS become much more valuable than the superior application of RLMs. |

Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
942
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 13:55:00 -
[84] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:This is a terrible idea.
1) Having a lot of downtime is just bad gameplay design. In a gang, you might stay on the field to provide point and webs, but if you are solo, you basically are going to kill 1-2 targets and warp out. And then nobody gets to do anything for the next 40s while you reload. It promotes non-interactive gameplay.
2) Its not intuitive. Its yet another thing that vets know that noobs dont.
3) Its not that people use rapid lights because they are really good. We use them because the other medium missile systems are utter trash. I would love to be able to use heavy missiles again, but there is just no reason since they are currently the worst weapon system in the entire game for anything but giant blobs.
4) There is no alternative. You can use normal shield boosters instead of ancillary boosters. You can use normal armor reps instead of ancillary reps. There are good reasons to choose each. For medium missile launchers, there isnt any alternative to rapid lights. Heavy missiles are too slow, do too little damage for the fitting, and apply too poorly. Heavy assaults are too short range, and apply even more poorly.
5) While roaming, its can be very difficult to make a 40s reload when going gate to gate. This will just slow gangs down, with no real reason to do so.
Making this change will basically just end the use of missile ships in small gangs. People will just go to other ships, instead of dealing with the possibility of being tackled and having to wait for close to a minute to return fire.
If you want people to choose heavy missiles, then make heavy missiles be something besides a trash tier weapons system.
1. I don't see this as a problem. 2. Pfff, if people can't read weapon descriptions, more fool them. 3. They are actually pretty good.
4. This is a mess. HMs are faster than LMs, not slower. HMs are trash because they offer minimal advantages in range and applied DPS over RLMLS. HAMs apply damage better than than HMLs, ignoring range issues. Fix HMs and the alternative to RLMLs will exist.
5. This is a serious problem, agreed. |
|

CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
3117

|
Posted - 2013.11.08 14:01:00 -
[85] - Quote
Quote:1) Having a lot of downtime is just bad gameplay design. In a gang, you might stay on the field to provide point and webs, but if you are solo, you basically are going to kill 1-2 targets and warp out. And then nobody gets to do anything for the next 40s while you reload. It promotes non-interactive gameplay.
2) Its not intuitive. Its yet another thing that vets know that noobs dont.
3) Its not that people use rapid lights because they are really good. We use them because the other medium missile systems are utter trash. I would love to be able to use heavy missiles again, but there is just no reason since they are currently the worst weapon system in the entire game for anything but giant blobs.
4) There is no alternative. You can use normal shield boosters instead of ancillary boosters. You can use normal armor reps instead of ancillary reps. There are good reasons to choose each. For medium missile launchers, there isnt any alternative to rapid lights. Heavy missiles are too slow, do too little damage for the fitting, and apply too poorly. Heavy assaults are too short range, and apply even more poorly.
5) While roaming, its can be very difficult to make a 40s reload when going gate to gate. This will just slow gangs down, with no real reason to do so.
Making this change will basically just end the use of missile ships in small gangs. People will just go to other ships, instead of dealing with the possibility of being tackled and having to wait for close to a minute to return fire.
If you want people to choose heavy missiles, then make heavy missiles be something besides a trash tier weapons system.
1) Actual downtime is bad. Having to make decisions about how to manage timers is central to EVE and quite a few other games as well.
2) Having modules in a category not all work the same is pretty standard, and this isn't nearly as punishing of a mechanic before you understand it as several others.
3) People do use rapid lights because they're really good, they also use heavy missiles a lot despite your opinion that they are utter trash.
4) Just because you don't want to use HML or HAMs doesn't mean they don't exist. I don't like using normal shield boosters but that doesn't mean I can say there's no alternative to ASBs.
5) Gangs can decide if they are willing to wait an extra 5-10 seconds sometimes on some gates. I think module repair is a much more likely culprit in this example.
The idea that missiles won't get used in small scale pvp because of this change is bizarre considering people use missiles of all three types quite a lot already and this change has no effect on the other two types. |
|

GallowsCalibrator
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
384
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 14:03:00 -
[86] - Quote
Oh hey, Rise, while you're here can you make a new launcher specifically for Defender's so they aren't completely janky-ass terrible? Something like these but with a larger clip/fire rate but still massive reload time. |

Morwennon
Aliastra Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 14:07:00 -
[87] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:The idea that missiles won't get used in small scale pvp because of this change is bizarre considering people use missiles of all three types quite a lot already and this change has no effect on the other two types. Isn't this argument rather inconsistent with the one you make in the OP where you say that "[rapid launchers] are almost always the right choice"?
You can't simultaneously believe both to be true. If RLMs are already well-balanced against the alternative medium-sized missile launchers then there's no need for this change whatsoever, and if they're not then you can't just dismiss the statement that HMLs are trash by citing usage figures.
(most eve players take a looooooong time to react to shifts in the meta and will continue using ships and weapons that have become sub-par due to recent balance changes out of habit, so pointing to ~metrics~ about the relative usage of different ships/weapon systems doesn't necessarily tell you much of anything about their actual state of balance) |

Xequecal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
112
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 14:08:00 -
[88] - Quote
Morwennon wrote:For a start, this is more of a "links are stupid OP" issue than a problem with HAMs per se. More to the point, however, HAMs are close range weapons so anything you're shooting with them should be hard tackled already. In more realistic situations, their damage application is absolutely fine for the kinds of fights that you'd want to use them in. You wouldn't fit RLMs on a sacrilege or a brawling missile legion, even if their bonuses applied to light missiles because in the situations where those ships excel, the drawbacks of HAMs are easily mitigated and their strengths in terms of raw DPS become much more valuable than the superior application of RLMs.
RLMs outperform HAMs on pretty much all cruisers, even if webbed.
HAMs would have OK application if it wasn't for links, but the fact that applying links alone reduces HAM damage by 50% while doing nothing to RLM damage just kills them. I'm pretty sure it's correct to fit RLMs to the Sac despite losing the bonus, you'll still do more damage. Tengu is best with RLMs despite losing a bonus too. |

Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
727
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 14:09:00 -
[89] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:
1) Actual downtime is bad. Having to make decisions about how to manage timers is central to EVE and quite a few other games as well.
2) Having modules in a category not all work the same is pretty standard, and this isn't nearly as punishing of a mechanic before you understand it as several others.
3) People do use rapid lights because they're really good, they also use heavy missiles a lot despite your opinion that they are utter trash.
4) Just because you don't want to use HML or HAMs doesn't mean they don't exist. I don't like using normal shield boosters but that doesn't mean I can say there's no alternative to ASBs.
5) Gangs can decide if they are willing to wait an extra 5-10 seconds sometimes on some gates. I think module repair is a much more likely culprit in this example.
The idea that missiles won't get used in small scale pvp because of this change is bizarre considering people use missiles of all three types quite a lot already and this change has no effect on the other two types.
1) The choice in the timer is a false choice. The only way to manage the timer is to not fire your launchers, which is what the timer causes. There are very few situations in which you can fire, but dont want to fire.
2. ok
3/4. People use HMLs in blobs. People use RLMs in small gang. Nobody uses HMLs in small gang, at least not anyone that isnt terrible. HMLs are not a real alternative to RLMs. They are different weapon system, with different range, application and dps. Its like saying that autocannons are a alternative to artillery. In some sense sure, they are, but not really.
5. Its not 5-10s in many systems, esp in a cerb which warps faster. Module repair is a whole different issue, particularly how buggy repairing linked guns/launchers is (looking into this would actually be very excellent, although that might be some other team's domain)
|

Kaeda Maxwell
Calamitous-Intent
208
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 14:10:00 -
[90] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: 5) Gangs can decide if they are willing to wait an extra 5-10 seconds sometimes on some gates. I think module repair is a much more likely culprit in this example.
I would like to remind you that you are about to introduce massive changes to how quickly things can arrive on grid even from neighbouring systems and 5-10 seconds in 2 weeks will potentially have quite a bit more impact then they do now.
***
And once again damage type selection getting hit in the shins is a much bigger nerf then it's made out to be so far.
Also, yes HM's get used, but I'm willing to bet that's mostly for medium and up (>=20) gang PvP work where people can field sufficient webs and painters to undo the poor explosion characteristics of HM's, but obviously you have access to more data the us so I might be wrong. |
|
|
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 |