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) |

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
774
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 04:23:00 -
[1501] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:So what this essentially does is buff the RLML Caracal's ability to roflpwn frigates and dessies (because it needed help in that department???) while almost completely eliminating their potential to kill other decently tanked cruisers solo since you'll need to either kite/tank for 40 seconds or warp off to reload in safety (i.e. letting your target go).
CCP Rise Taking Solo Away Pretty much. Or, as Rise has pointed out you could always set your launchers into 2 groups and stagger them. This way, because an overall 20% drop in DPS is completely different if you use 2 groups, you'll have the same dps as you do now without the downtime. Also, if your ship blows up he'll sprinkle you with magic pixie dust from his pocket and let you ride on his boyfriend the unicorn all the way to Narnia where he did the math to come up with those figures.
Hey man, Rise doesn't need math to do game balancing: he just needs his natural talent. |

Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
573
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 04:41:00 -
[1502] - Quote
Is all this griping cathartic? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |

Sylvous
Bigger than Jesus
128
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 05:18:00 -
[1503] - Quote
Perhaps a new skill would be in order? Call it: Ordnance Auto-Loader Operation (reduce reload time of weapon modules by 3% per level)
Obviously not a fix, but could help with the long delay issue? (Would apply only to high slot modules (turrets and launchers) so as not to make the ASB needlessly more powerful)
Just a idea that I put no time researching the far reaching effects and how this would make anything imbalanced (so flame away if need be).
edit: 3% per level was just a suggestion, could be anything |

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
775
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 05:40:00 -
[1504] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Is all this griping cathartic?
Is white-knighting the work of an inept douchebag satisfying?
Sylvous wrote:Perhaps a new skill would be in order? Call it: Ordnance Auto-Loader Operation (reduce reload time of weapon modules by 3% per level)
Obviously not a fix, but could help with the long delay issue? (Would apply only to high slot modules (turrets and launchers) so as not to make the ASB needlessly more powerful)
Just a idea that I put no time researching the far reaching effects and how this would make anything imbalanced (so flame away if need be).
edit: 3% per level was just a suggestion, could be anything
Could that "anything" possibly consist of not making this stupid change in the first place? |

Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
575
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 07:03:00 -
[1505] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Is white-knighting the work of an inept douchebag satisfying? I'm not "white-knighting" anything. Scroll back to some of the first posts in this thread and you'll see that my take on this is "interesting". In terms of timing, my suggestion was to defer the proposed changes until players had a chance to test them. However, in their infinite wisdom TPTB have decided to forge ahead. Since it's abundantly clear that no amount of rational or logic arguments are going to persuade otherwise, griping is an even further waste of time. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |

Major Killz
Deep Core Mining Inc.
284
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 08:05:00 -
[1506] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:I'm thinking more and more that what should happen is that the rapid launchers should go back to the more conventional design, and this theme of high RoF, long reload time should be introduced in a complete new range of launchers (concept name: "salvo launchers"?) covering all missile types from rockets to cruise missiles (maybe even citadels!). Or maybe there should be no such thing as a weapon that turns you into an essentially tracking-free, ultra-high DPS weapon for any period of time, because EVE doesn't need even lower TTKs or even-harder-to-mitigate damage application. What was the point of nerfing tracking enhancers and fiddling with medium gun tracking values etc if they're then going to come in and add a missile launcher that hits to over 60km and does ~400 to ~600 DPS to frigates on the hulls that are bonused for their use? Rise keeps comparing his RLMLs to artillery because "both do front-loaded damage," while conveniently forgetting that alpha is not the same as sustained DPS over almost a minute of combat and that the guns that do that high alpha come with massive tracking drawbacks and the inability to apply any damage at all to small targets except for rare cases (high pilot skill, pilot error on the receiving end, bad luck, etc). Saying these RLMLs are like artillery assumes that artillery has the tracking and signature size of a small autocannon combined with the range and damage of 1400mm... and somehow the "long reload" is supposed to make this OK by "adding suspense." tl;dr: - Such damage! - Most application! - So scare! - Wow!
Glad you finally get it.
The changed module is VERY STRANGE. Using it for blob warfare is just bad and using it for solo is just difficult. What you want is the magical in-between where IT IS OVERPOWERED.
Blob (40 seconds wonGÇÖt be popular here) Small Scale (just right and nasty starting at 3 pilots and up to the point where using a Rapier makes sense and then heavy missiles makes more sense because of long range webs v0v)
Solo (difficult but can be mitigated threw module management, drones and or split weapon systems).
So where it shines and is OP is in small-scale fleets or small gangs if you will.
The whole thing still smacks of bad game design and the 40 seconds is horrible but you must adapt and move on. However, light missiles did need a NERF. Unfortunately we spent pages reading terrible and singularly focused facts and stats to support NO CHANGE INSTEAD OF SUGGESTING a slightly less lame module. . |

Tinkerrbell
Sefem Velox Swift Angels Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 08:08:00 -
[1507] - Quote
I do not support this idea at all. Ether keep the current weapon system or make this a new one. This needs to be tested by your paying customers before this goes ahead. I don't like the idea of a weapon system becoming useless once it was working "OK" beforehand. Would this make me use it more? Don't know it needs to be tested. The "40 second" Reload timer is a major killer for refilling or swapping ammo.
|

Vorll Minaaran
Centre Of Attention Middle of Nowhere
24
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 08:20:00 -
[1508] - Quote
I dont like these changes, but if you CCP want so much long reload, at least give the players tools to mitigate some portion of it: light missile skill affecting reload time, new reload rig, new reload skill, or something. With those players could be reduce reload time by 10-15 sec. Then you get your high reload time, we get chance to lower it to an acceptable level.
I know Rubicon coming very soon, but letting this change go out and fixing later dont sound good. |

Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
577
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 08:39:00 -
[1509] - Quote
RavenGǪ RHMLGǪ 1200+ DPS... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
777
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 08:44:00 -
[1510] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:Is white-knighting the work of an inept douchebag satisfying? I'm not "white-knighting" anything. Scroll back to some of the first posts in this thread and you'll see that my take on this is "interesting". In terms of timing, my suggestion was to defer the proposed changes until players had a chance to test them. However, in their infinite wisdom TPTB have decided to forge ahead. Since it's abundantly clear that no amount of rational or logic arguments are going to persuade otherwise, griping is an even further waste of time.
Fair enough. I didn't read the first pages of this thread (I found out about this moronic idea just a few days ago, unfortunately), but saying that "it's too late" and that we might as well not gripe is sort of defeatist. TBH I'm hoping someone else at CCP will read this stuff, realize how dumb this idea is, and take the matter out of Rise's hands. |
|

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
145
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 09:04:00 -
[1511] - Quote
Was nice of CCP Rise on the video today.. saying he wants feedback, when he's virtually ignored everyone and everything said.
I suppose my quality was set too low to see the *only if it reinforces the direction we've chosen to take. |

Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
577
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 09:12:00 -
[1512] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Fair enough. I didn't read the first pages of this thread (I found out about this moronic idea just a few days ago, unfortunately), but saying that "it's too late" and that we might as well not gripe is sort of defeatist. TBH I'm hoping someone else at CCP will read this stuff, realize how dumb this idea is, and take the matter out of Rise's hands. You won't get any argument from me. We tried for over a month to get some dialog on the original RHML iteration and this was the net result (I think it's fair to say it caught everyone completely by surprise, because RLMLs weren't on anyone's radar).
Sentinel Smith wrote:Was nice of CCP Rise on the video today.. saying he wants feedback, when he's virtually ignored everyone and everything said. I suppose my quality was set too low to see the *only if it reinforces the direction we've chosen to take. Nope, you didn't miss anything. In fact, RHMLs on Ravens pretty much dominated the subject (RLMLs were really only a footnote, gee - wonder whyGǪ)  I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |

Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
97
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 09:23:00 -
[1513] - Quote
Tinkerrbell wrote:I do not support this idea at all. Ether keep the current weapon system or make this a new one. This needs to be tested by your paying customers before this goes ahead. I don't like the idea of a weapon system becoming useless once it was working "OK" beforehand. Would this make me use it more? Don't know it needs to be tested. The "40 second" Reload timer is a major killer for refilling or swapping ammo.
Completelly agree with this.
Leaving aside meta variants there are only 3 launchers to choose from at the moment for mediums. This compares with 6 for most medium guns iirc.
Given that burst launchers are going to be niche weapons at best reducing the number of general purpose launchers to 1 short range and 1 long range for general purpose is very bad form.
Make this abomination as a new launcher type is a much safer idea, that way when it turns out to be trash at least missile users still have choices when it comes to fitting.
|

Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
57
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 10:03:00 -
[1514] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:TBH I'm hoping someone else at CCP will read this stuff, realize how dumb this idea is, and take the matter out of Rise's hands.
|

Kujun Nashja
Full Contact Blinky Red Brotherhood
10
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 10:04:00 -
[1515] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:RavenGǪ RHMLGǪ 1200+ DPS...
Extensively tested on internal testserver...yeah i was laughing my ass off as well. |

the jury
SPANK THE MONKEY
0
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 10:16:00 -
[1516] - Quote
because 90% of the csm is null sec operators ccp just give them a battleship weapon system that can kill tech 3 and smaller sig fleet's to balance out null sec combat. most battleship fleets in null only stay on grid for a while b4 pinging off for better position so they can reload while pinging . looks like everyone else got dumped on by messing with RLML's only way to show ccp that the new RLML's is a bad idea nobody use them.  |

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
777
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 10:33:00 -
[1517] - Quote
the jury wrote:because 90% of the csm is null sec operators ccp just give them a battleship weapon system that can kill tech 3 and smaller sig fleet's to balance out null sec combat. most battleship fleets in null only stay on grid for a while b4 pinging off for better position so they can reload while pinging . looks like everyone else got dumped on by messing with RLML's only way to show ccp that the new RLML's is a bad idea nobody use them. 
Really battleship fleets in nullsec mostly get dunked on by bombers, which is a big part of why people prefer to use tanky cruiser hulls instead of BS ships when they can afford to, but you're right: big fleets will be able to exploit the hell out of these things (though I see RLMLs being even easier to exploit this way, since they're much more manueverable / difficult to catch and their RLMLs will instagib any light tackle within 60km of them. Have fun trying to bubble a fleet of those for a bomb run!
In b4 100mn, interdiction-nullified RLML Tengus become fleet meta of the month! |

Kane Fenris
NWP
118
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 10:34:00 -
[1518] - Quote
the jury wrote:...... only way to show ccp that the new RLML's is a bad idea nobody use them. 
that wont work because of: a.) people adapt really slow to new meta most will jus keep on doing what they used to even if those launchers would suddenly be shooting yourself....
b.) even if everybody would stop using them ccps reaction wuld be like this: CCP.: "you just haven't figured out how awesome those modules are wee not changing them they are awesome you all suck" |

the jury
SPANK THE MONKEY
0
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 10:52:00 -
[1519] - Quote
Ganthrithor brings up a good point they buff the dictors but make it a lot quicker to kill with RLML's sounds like dictors are back to square 1 . all the big null sec bro's use battleships cfc with mega's + domi's n3 + nc. mealstroms pl + Russians raven's . will that change after patch might do but raven fleets with RHML's just might be a real pain in the ass for sig tank fleets .? |

Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
763
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 12:26:00 -
[1520] - Quote
Incredble how a balance thread over a module no one complained about before managed to create a new rift on costumers and CCP confidence and an overal PR hickup.
Just wait and see when it HITS the game, because most players have not seen this thread yet. THe rage on general discussion forums will be epic. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
|

Druthlen
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
41
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 13:05:00 -
[1521] - Quote
Cruise missiles out range Heavy missiles. So its ok if a rapid slightly outdamages its longer range counterpart. 40 sec reload time is garbage. Noone will use these. |

Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
57
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 13:11:00 -
[1522] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote: Just wait and see when it HITS the game, because most players have not seen this thread yet. THe rage on general discussion forums will be epic.
Could be interesting to see how many of those missioning in RLML Caracals will be enraged enough to (come here and) protest. |

Julian DeCroix
Socialist Death Panel
4
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 14:12:00 -
[1523] - Quote
As a primarily PvE pilot, I've greatly enjoyed flying my Caracal with RLMLs in missions, anomalies and escalations in which I have to deal with dozens of frigate-class ships with a smattering of cruiser-size targets. Anything smaller than a cruiser has trouble fitting the necessary tank, let alone fit a salvager/tractor/salvage drones; a larger ship often is not permitted, and standard mid-size weapon systems frequently cannot apply enough damage to small targets to be useful (at least, not without sacrificing a significant portion of tank, which defeats the purpose of bringing the larger hull to begin with). The cruiser using a juiced-up small weapon system is the perfect solution. I was looking forward to a similar solution for running some of the more advanced anomalies and L4 missions which focus on larger numbers of smaller elite targets; running them in a BC often is still problematic, while applying damage using cruise missiles or torpedoes is suboptimal at best. Drones can help to an extent, but still can't fully bridge the gap, especially not with the improved NPC AI. Being able to fit RHMLs to my Raven for such missions was a very appealing idea. However, for my purposes (and yes, I realize that my playstyle does not constitute that of the larger subscription base) I feel the proposed mechanics for RMLs render them useless to me. The biggest problem I see actually stems from missile flight time. For the sake of simplicity, let's assume a 5s cycle time on the launcher and 5k m/s velocity for the missiles. Unless you're being very careful, any target over 25km away will have at least one salvo en route when it explodes; anything over 50km, at least two salvos. With the current iteration, this isn't that big a deal, but for the new mechanics this would mean that 5-20% of your ammo capacity could easily be wasted *per target*...and then you hope you can survive the reload. When I first found the RLMLs, I was ecstatic; I immediately tried to find similar systems for turret ships, but instead found that the "dual/quad $smallergun" turrets do not follow anything close to the same formula for being a viable means of combating numerous smaller ships from a larger hull. Is it intended that drones be the most, or perhaps even only, reasonable solution for this situation? |

scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Black Slag Authenticated Corrosive.
6
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 14:18:00 -
[1524] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:RavenGǪ RHMLGǪ 1200+ DPS... That's just amazing and very exciting. What's even more exciting is when your launchers run dry and it's time for a 40 second game of everyone shoot the stupid Raven pilot. Sure he could warp off to reload, unless of course someone throws a scram on him before he blows his wad and he's left trying to kite in a Raven for close to a minute.
Idea for 1.1: How about we take cruise missiles and only make them effective beyond 50km? If you're closer than that you should be using torps and CCP just needs to show us what's good for us. Now some of you may be saying that torps don't work as well and that's why you would prefer to use cruise missiles, but the metrics clearly show that lots of people love using torps. Secondly, it torps are worse than cruise, cruise missiles need a nerf so they can be as ineffective as torps. Anyone ever read "Harrison Bergeron"? |

Kane Fenris
NWP
118
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 14:24:00 -
[1525] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:RavenGǪ RHMLGǪ 1200+ DPS... That's just amazing and very exciting. What's even more exciting is when your launchers run dry and it's time for a 40 second game of everyone shoot the stupid Raven pilot. Sure he could warp off to reload, unless of course someone throws a scram on him before he blows his wad and he's left trying to kite in a Raven for close to a minute. Idea for 1.1: How about we take cruise missiles and only make them effective beyond 50km? If you're closer than that you should be using torps and CCP just needs to show us what's good for us. Now some of you may be saying that torps don't work as well and that's why you would prefer to use cruise missiles, but the metrics clearly show that lots of people love using torps. Secondly, it torps are worse than cruise, cruise missiles need a nerf so they can be as ineffective as torps. Anyone ever read "Harrison Bergeron"?
if this is not troll plz do us all a favor and push the self destruct button... |

scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Black Slag Authenticated Corrosive.
6
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 14:32:00 -
[1526] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:RavenGǪ RHMLGǪ 1200+ DPS... That's just amazing and very exciting. What's even more exciting is when your launchers run dry and it's time for a 40 second game of everyone shoot the stupid Raven pilot. Sure he could warp off to reload, unless of course someone throws a scram on him before he blows his wad and he's left trying to kite in a Raven for close to a minute. Idea for 1.1: How about we take cruise missiles and only make them effective beyond 50km? If you're closer than that you should be using torps and CCP just needs to show us what's good for us. Now some of you may be saying that torps don't work as well and that's why you would prefer to use cruise missiles, but the metrics clearly show that lots of people love using torps. Secondly, it torps are worse than cruise, cruise missiles need a nerf so they can be as ineffective as torps. Anyone ever read "Harrison Bergeron"? if this is not troll plz do us all a favor and push the self destruct button... I can understand your consternation, and I think your post should have been the second post in this thread. |

Chrom Shakiel
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 15:02:00 -
[1527] - Quote
Plz increase mag size on the RHML , more like 40 would be way more useful. |

Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
577
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 15:03:00 -
[1528] - Quote
Chrom Shakiel wrote:Plz increase mag size on the RHML  , more like 40 would be way more useful. Time to save up for Faction or Officer. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |

Dr Sraggles
The Covenant of Blood
1
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 15:10:00 -
[1529] - Quote
Julian DeCroix wrote:As a primarily PvE pilot, I've greatly enjoyed flying my Caracal with RLMLs in missions, anomalies and escalations in which I have to deal with dozens of frigate-class ships with a smattering of cruiser-size targets. Anything smaller than a cruiser has trouble fitting the necessary tank, let alone fit a salvager/tractor/salvage drones; a larger ship often is not permitted, and standard mid-size weapon systems frequently cannot apply enough damage to small targets to be useful (at least, not without sacrificing a significant portion of tank, which defeats the purpose of bringing the larger hull to begin with). The cruiser using a juiced-up small weapon system is the perfect solution. I was looking forward to a similar solution for running some of the more advanced anomalies and L4 missions which focus on larger numbers of smaller elite targets; running them in a BC often is still problematic, while applying damage using cruise missiles or torpedoes is suboptimal at best. Drones can help to an extent, but still can't fully bridge the gap, especially not with the improved NPC AI. Being able to fit RHMLs to my Raven for such missions was a very appealing idea. However, for my purposes (and yes, I realize that my playstyle does not constitute that of the larger subscription base) I feel the proposed mechanics for RMLs render them useless to me. The biggest problem I see actually stems from missile flight time. For the sake of simplicity, let's assume a 5s cycle time on the launcher and 5k m/s velocity for the missiles. Unless you're being very careful, any target over 25km away will have at least one salvo en route when it explodes; anything over 50km, at least two salvos. With the current iteration, this isn't that big a deal, but for the new mechanics this would mean that 5-20% of your ammo capacity could easily be wasted *per target*...and then you hope you can survive the reload. When I first found the RLMLs, I was ecstatic; I immediately tried to find similar systems for turret ships, but instead found that the "dual/quad $smallergun" turrets do not follow anything close to the same formula for being a viable means of combating numerous smaller ships from a larger hull. Is it intended that drones be the most, or perhaps even only, reasonable solution for this situation?
The Devs would probably say "there are many other tools to successfully complete your complex available..."
Translation: "after about 2 months of training Drones and watching nothing actually fun get better (and paying us for the privilege) Drones are good enough to actually kill something, slowly... Then the 2 Drones for your Caracal bay really are worth $40...to us. When you realize this, you will spend another 2 months training for another ship to get it done and realize you need 5 months of gunnery skills to make that fun. We profit. The End." |

Chrom Shakiel
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 15:11:00 -
[1530] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Chrom Shakiel wrote:Plz increase mag size on the RHML  , more like 40 would be way more useful. Time to save up for Faction or Officer.
If only i was space rich then i to could pvp and win |
|
|
|
|
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 |