|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 00:51:28 -
[1] - Quote
Rise wouldn't it not make more sense to leave the script and module values at the original stats but introduce a negative modifier to each script to compensate? IE 100% Increase to Explo velocity -25% missile velocity as an example. Something to give, as you said, options to people with downsides to keep it balanced.
You either apply damage perfectly, have range, or have the ability to hit a very fast target. These are the types of situations missiles have issues with and the MGE/MGC have the opportunity to expand the weapon system rather than contract it as you have currently done. Additionally if you gave the MGE/MGC a longer cycle time like drone omnis it would encourage smart play rather than an omnibus style weapon enhancement. |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 18:52:52 -
[2] - Quote
While we typically never get a final say in anything eve related(we are not the developers after all) I am concerned with the nature of this thread on a single ground. The lack of direct feedback after the revisions when an obvious and reasoned community response pretty much requires one.
I understand the developer mantra of "sometimes it is wiser to say nothing" when being forced to make a change for the good of a game system. We don't know future plans. Other changes in the pipe might make a visibly terrible change now seem reasonable in 6 months.
However.. In this case this logic no longer applies.
CCP has stated they discussed this with CSMs and players. I do not see the fears presented in reddit or ccps forums. I have not heard of any discussions between people on webshows. There is zero public information to the nature of numbers of these discussions. The modules in question did not even get properly applied to the test server to be tested before being summarily nerfed and additional penalties applied. No public information exists to balance the nature of your actions.
If we were talking about CCP stock purchases the SEC would be crawling up someones rear end about now.
Take 30 minutes. Explain the why.. and if the position is still "deal with it the change will go live" then, as has been told to players before, HTFU and say it. |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 18:41:00 -
[3] - Quote
Why is a CSM answering a question asked to the devs?
Though that said I guess we can all rest easy knowing all threads in this forum are utterly useless if a closed door secret meeting without any oversight feels differently than it does.
The very worst overall weapons platform for PVP in the game gets nerfed without a single hard number to show why.. Whelp it is a dictatorship not a democracy so I guess par for the course? |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 19:13:23 -
[4] - Quote
I should make it clear that I have no issue with the CSMs or with Chance for bringing any info to this thread...
The problem is he, nor any other CSM, has direct authority to do that without it being hearsay.
They are unpaid users of CCPs product enlisted by player elections to provide advice. In other words they are a focus group. Sending a CSM here to bring any information to paying customers is disgusting. If I took one of my customers and had them go around and tell all my other customers how I'm changing my products I'd be out of business in a week.
If these changes have been vetted by clear information for the good of eve then fine.. all well and good. Shockingly enough I actually support CCP in many of the changes they have made over the last few years even if I disagree with some of them out of personal preference.
My issue is with the conduct of these discussions. If you enlist your player base to provide feedback.. then it is a two way street. Everything we the players have at our disposal is contradicting the gigantic volume of no information from CCP.. so where exactly is our carrot for providing any future feedback? |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
18
|
Posted - 2015.07.04 12:56:44 -
[5] - Quote
After extensively going over all possible missile ships the nerfed numbers are most likely thanks to bombers and bombers alone.
Which again.. makes zero sense. A solo bomber could, in theory, get an explosion radius of pretty darn close to fury light missiles. Doing this requires zero tank whatsoever. The massively increased applied damage to a target would be the only significant change to the original mods.
More and more this change looks to be still a backroom deal. I challenge anyone to actually post numbers showing how this will be good for eve. Even in the abstract.
So far I've come up with nothing. Worse it makes any possible missile based counters to the ishtar less effective. At the end of the day this change ensures the status quo of eve will be maintained and the only actual people it will hurt are new players who now have even less application until they get their skillpoints up. Even the 5% HM buff is lost in the noise of the application nerf which suggests CCP KNEW the stacking penalties would heavily impact the weapon system.
So is this the new future of EVE? The age of feedback and logical reasoning gone? |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
44
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 17:25:14 -
[6] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:I am consolidating feedback from this thread and presenting it in some bullet points to CCP. I hope to get as much of this addressed as possible.
Primarily: -Address fits that relied on application modules before stacking penalties nerfed them -Make mid slot application modules competitive with TPs and/or application rigs -Make low slot application modules significant enough that stacking penalties don't wipe out their bonus -Biggest concerns are for larger missiles that rely on application bonuses -Range bonuses are generally okay now
Let me know how that sounds at the top level or if I missed something global.
The only thing I would add would be a note that PVP missile issues are generally related to missile speed as well as application.
It might be worth CCPs time to look at increasing missile base velocity across the board. |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
44
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 01:35:22 -
[7] - Quote
Actually that's a simple question to answer. This thread has probably been deemed hostile to dev traffic. General PR rules say avoid hostile environments.
Downside is.. we are not hostile. This thread has remained amazingly civil considering the way our feedback was treated.
At the very least chance is attempting to get us proper dev feedback. He was already, in my opinion, mistreated by being the one to confirm issues asked directly at devs even though he has no legal authority to speak for ccp.
I sincerely hope his efforts pay off. The entire way this has been handled demands some form of response. Not for some prosaic reason as needing answers but more because of the blatant trend lately to ignore the community, math, and honest to goodness actual feedback for closed doors decisions with individuals and not backing up those decisions with actual facts. It brings several major ethical issues into question and as CCP has chosen to involve players into their testing environment they have obligated themselves to maintain proper decorum in such matters.
|
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
49
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 20:11:42 -
[8] - Quote
Note: Without having original dev notes the following is just reverse engineering from a players perspective.
100% application missiles just will never work. Its a terrible idea from every perspective. Missile need to be able to always apply SOME damage.. but at a trade off to provide effective counter options.
Missiles appear to have been designed with the intent of having application, a far superior tank, or superior range to artillery with equal effective alpha. On paper this is a great idea. It allows great flexibility for the missile weapons platform without turning them over to direct dominance of other weapon systems. Considering the nature of missiles makes them capable of operating in all other weapons systems ranges their trade offs appear to reflect directly on their raw versatility in terms of engagement.
The problem is they don't do this. It really is a razor edge to balance. Since missiles can replace every other weapons platform and have the potential to out perform multiples of those platforms a minor change can very quickly make missiles sickeningly overpowered. Drakefleet was a perfect example of this.. Other things could do what drakefleet did.. but almost nothing could do everything drakefleet did. Powercreep has since compounded the previous nerfs against missiles to drive them basically into the dirt from an effective basis.(except of course certain platforms)
These modules at inception were a great step forward in correcting the power creep and offering counters to ishtars etc. Stacking pen rigs are probably a good thing in the long run but significantly more review is needed on missiles to make them fit properly in the metas of eve. They actually returned the options function of missiles.. Either you hit like a brick hammer to the face, could pound them no matter how far they ran, or could say screw all modules and fit absurd tanks with that extra CPU. What unfortunately happened is all options were erased. You either fit them to apply damage.. or you apply nothing. The latter option, tank, isn't even an option thanks to powercreep and the fact that many fits in eve are functionally immune to missiles. These are the issues that need to be addressed. Fixing these mods to return options is only the first step.
|
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
49
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 04:38:46 -
[9] - Quote
I will clarify my previous comment. I see ZERO issue with equal class perfect application. A battleship vs a battleship should be applying its full strike or at the very least within the same damage band of comparable weapon systems.
You are not vocally advertising this. You are advertising perfect application in general. A cruise missile that blaps frigates is not a good thing and never will be. Or do you want a single phoenix to be able to wreck subcap gangs pretty much effortlessly?
Does application need a serious look? Oh hell yes. That's why many of us are baffled by the nerfs to application. |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
65
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 12:33:27 -
[10] - Quote
Unfortunately no there has been no response. The topic has quite obviously been deemed hostile or toxic and standard practice is to ignore such things.
I know chance is still trying to get a statement but how much traction he is getting is still unknown. |
|
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
65
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 01:46:51 -
[11] - Quote
Actually one of the few hulls I don't see mentioned by pretty much anyone is the RHML snake. It's one of the few CPU limited hulls that can't "quite" use its full potential... unless you slap RHMLs on it. MGCs work more effectively in this case by giving a range option without really hurting application since obviously you are using HM. Bling of course not required.. This fit skirts with a vindicator for top end damage with a significantly higher tank and considerably more effective range.
[Rattlesnake, RHML Flex]
Imperial Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Imperial Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Imperial Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System
Pithum C-Type Medium Shield Booster Kinetic Deflection Field II Thermic Dissipation Field II Omnidirectional Tracking Link II (no script.. actually allows for earlier application of damage) Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Precision Script Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Precision Script 100MN Afterburner II
Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Heavy Missile Drone Link Augmentor II
Large Drone Speed Augmentor II Large Drone Speed Augmentor II Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst II
The switch to HM also allows for this hull to use a native warp speed implant which puts the snake on par with marauders.
Eifyr and Co. 'Rogue' Warp Drive Speed WS-615 Zainou 'Snapshot' Heavy Missiles HM-705 Zainou 'Deadeye' Guided Missile Precision GP-805 Zainou 'Deadeye' Target Navigation Prediction TN-905 Zainou 'Deadeye' Rapid Launch RL-1005
Downside is.. the fits pretty much HiSec only and honestly one of the only ship in the game where MGCs are functionally superior to TPs.
So bluntly.. MGCs are useful.. MGE are barely functional(phoenix can use them) but both are niche mods that really didn't warrant dev time in their current configuration. They offer no real options and actually caused a global nerf of all other missile fits in the process. |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
66
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 06:30:33 -
[12] - Quote
Using RHML in PVE is more thought engaging than cruise or torps. You do have to volley count especially at ranges in excess of 50km. That fit handles reloads just fine and can wipe out several battleships before it needs to reload. With a 3km/s gecko or 2km/s+ faction drone you don't really have to wait to apply full 1900 nearly perfectly applied damage to anything within 50km.
Operationally its one of the more fun fits you can fly. Yes RHML reloads are a rather terrible design choice.. but I personally view bad design as a challenge to overcome. |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
66
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 07:36:47 -
[13] - Quote
No it is a terrible design choice. The ideology is a burst DPS weapon. Locking a user out for half a minute does not promote active gaming.
Its more effective to use volley mechanics or small clip sizes with a moderate reload speed. A 10 Missile clip with a 5s reload would actually give tactical flexibility, burst dps, and make it considerably less of a headache to use. 90s firing time+25s reload for 25 rounds vs 36s firing time + 5 s reload for 10 rounds Identical DPS.. better flexibility. Mission goal of burst DPS accomplished. |
|
|
|