Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4507
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 17:19:54 -
[781] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:-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 You can fix these by rolling the explosion radius and explosion velocity bonuses for both modules back to their pre-nerf values. Which was indicated (ignored), then requested again (and subsequently ignored again) with the nerf.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
44
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 17:25:14 -
[782] - 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. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4507
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 17:29:59 -
[783] - Quote
Torpedoes need a better application bonus: they should have an explosion radius smaller than cruise missiles. Actually, just see my comprehensive missile balance list that I posted earlier in this thread...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1658
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 17:41:18 -
[784] - 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.
Fitting cost needs a long hard look.
Or change the rig penalty to like....cargo space or something. |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
582
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 23:49:08 -
[785] - Quote
Why is chance the one doing the feedback stuff when this is a thread the devs themselves opened?
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
746
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 01:06:31 -
[786] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Why is chance the one doing the feedback stuff when this is a thread the devs themselves opened?
Entertainment while sitting on the beach in the holidays.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
44
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 01:35:22 -
[787] - 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.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4513
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 01:50:32 -
[788] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Why is chance the one doing the feedback stuff when this is a thread the devs themselves opened? Good one.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 10:04:34 -
[789] - Quote
+1 for Chance.
You have already secured my vote for next CSM elections.
Can we suggest getting the differential between a triple t1 rigor rigged missile system pre and post nerf added to the base modules more or less?
This would place triple rigor setups where they were before the nerf, place rigor/ flare rigging in a better place for dealing with same sized speed tanked targets but less applicable for small targets, place un-rigged missile systems in a batter state than they were while not making application setups over powered.
I feel this is a good compromise. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1186
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 11:04:02 -
[790] - Quote
they need too sort out the short range missiles, HAMS having the same range as torps is stupid and devalues range bonuses as who needs 45km HAM's? they need better damage instead of battleship range, and the knock on effect of a rocket range nerf so they don't have the same range as HAM's, they could use a damage buff with a exp rad nerf as 20 makes exp rad bonuses pointless.
Tech 3's need to be multi-role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 slots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster eagle worth using
|
|
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
307
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 13:40:46 -
[791] - Quote
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:+1 for Chance.
You have already secured my vote for next CSM elections.
Can we suggest getting the differential between a triple t1 rigor rigged missile system pre and post nerf added to the base modules more or less?
This would place triple rigor setups where they were before the nerf, place rigor/ flare rigging in a better place for dealing with same sized speed tanked targets but less applicable for small targets, place un-rigged missile systems in a batter state than they were while not making application setups over powered.
I feel this is a good compromise.
So I agree, and especially for triple t1/double t2 I'd like to see the base stats moved to compensate. For some missiles the base expl velocity should imo see big movement too. But this is also just due to the speed meta and links etc so maybe it can be addressed indirectly.
As for why I'm doing this, is because I am a torpedo delivery professional. I live and die by missile application! And before getting in the thread I was trying to bit some of this stuff on the backend so I don't want you guys to give up hope yet!
You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
|
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
17
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 19:33:21 -
[792] - Quote
The question, as always, is if CCP realised the issues the stacking penalty change would create and intentionally chose to go that route, OR someone tried to explain it to them but they chose to ignore it OR our balancing dream team went "duuuurrrrrr" for a few months and they didn't even expect any issues in the first place.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4513
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 00:08:51 -
[793] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:And before getting in the thread I was trying to bit some of this stuff on the backend so I don't want you guys to give up hope yet! Just remember that we're still waiting for a rapid launcher fix for swapping ammunition...
Look, this was basically a missile nerf for everything but torpedoes (capacity doubled) and heavy missiles (+5% damage increase which was offset by stacking penalties for rigors and flares). The missile modules themselves are borderline useless, because you have to effectively run twice as many to get the same benefit (which doesn't even take into consideration the stacking penalty nerf). Missile guidance enhancers are completely useless since they provide almost zero benefit while taking up a valuable low slot (Caldari ships have almost none to spare and you won't see these on any armor-based missile setups, either).
The original values were fine, but then these got halved - and then we had the stacking penalties snuck-in the day the patch notes were released. It's becoming borderline absurd how these 'balance' packages are being introduced...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
17
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 06:13:57 -
[794] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Tiberius Heth wrote:The question, as always, is if CCP realised the issues the stacking penalty change would create and intentionally chose to go that route, OR someone tried to explain it to them but they chose to ignore it OR our balancing dream team went "duuuurrrrrr" for a few months and they didn't even expect any issues in the first place. Does it really matter? The end result is effectively the same.
It affects the approach one should/could have, for both as player as CSM member, to try and convince CCP they're doing it wrong.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2276
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 07:51:45 -
[795] - Quote
The problem is not in the modules or the rigs or the stacking penalties. All these things are fine. The problem is in the base weapon stats. When 40% of your damage against the same class ship is mitigated BEFORE boosts/prop mods/boosters there is a significant problem. Change that figure to be 100% with standard missiles against the appropriate sized class, then you have a better match up and you aren't employing all your rigs simply to get any application at all. |
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
20
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 10:27:24 -
[796] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:The problem is not in the modules or the rigs or the stacking penalties. All these things are fine. The problem is in the base weapon stats. When 40% of your damage against the same class ship is mitigated BEFORE boosts/prop mods/boosters there is a significant problem. Change that figure to be 100% with standard missiles against the appropriate sized class, then you have a better match up and you aren't employing all your rigs simply to get any application at all.
The base weapon stats were based on missile rigs not having stacking issues, suddenly they do but they didn't bother (for whatever reason) to address it. I expected them to change stats so that with just rigs, as it would have been before, it would now perform slightly less but making it perform better with one of the new guidance mods. It doesn't, so now missile users have to waste an extra mid slot while STILL performing worse.
Your idea about damage application is hilarious and goes exactly the other way and would have to, for the same reason, result in a rebalance (lower base dps). One of those "be careful what you wish for" which is quite apt given how people wanted these modules for years, somehow expecting a flat buff. |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
224
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 10:47:50 -
[797] - 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.
all this looks fine but i would advise you to avoid this one:Quote:-Make mid slot application modules competitive with TPs and/or application rigs why? well in the purest "rise buffing stile" he will probably just nerf the tp's to the lvl of the new application mods and call it buffing missiles; and no, i'm not even joking, remember when no one was using his new toys, rlml? his solution was to nerf light missile launchers so everyone had to switch to rlml >problem solved... |
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
310
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 13:27:00 -
[798] - Quote
gascanu wrote: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. all this looks fine but i would advise you to avoid this one: Quote:-Make mid slot application modules competitive with TPs and/or application rigs why? well in the purest "rise buffing stile" , one day we will probably "find out" that tps are "OP"(insert some graph here), and for the good of the game he will nerf the tp's to the lvl of the new application mods and call it "ballancing" missiles; and no, i'm not even joking, remember when no one was using his new toys, rlml? his solution was to nerf light missile launchers(one day they where fine, the next day they where OP), so everyone had to switch to rlml >problem solved...
I'm sure TPs will see some kind of switchup when they get module tiericided.
You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
|
stoicfaux
6146
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 14:14:13 -
[799] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote: I'm sure TPs will see some kind of switchup when they get module tiericided.
I am not looking forward to that. It will mean T2 TPs will be the stronger than meta TPs. T2's require 50% more CPU than PWNAGE, and the ships that need multiple TPs (e.g. Rattlesnake) are already CPU starved as is.
Yeah, could fit that Compact TP on a Rattlesnake, but that's going to be a (slight?) nerf due to using effective TPs. And if you can't fit a TP, then you sure as heck can't fit a 35 CPU MGC. Oh wait, Compact MGC to the rescue! Oh never mind, the Compact MGC is also 24 CPU. =/
CCP needs to stop touching missiles and missile related things until they have the time to do some serious analysis.
/rabble,rabble
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1671
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 14:24:29 -
[800] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Chance Ravinne wrote: I'm sure TPs will see some kind of switchup when they get module tiericided.
I am not looking forward to that. It will mean T2 TPs will be the stronger than meta TPs. T2's require 50% more CPU than PWNAGE, and the ships that need multiple TPs (e.g. Rattlesnake) are already CPU starved as is. Yeah, could fit that Compact TP on a Rattlesnake, but that's going to be a (slight?) nerf due to using effective TPs. And if you can't fit a TP, then you sure as heck can't fit a 35 CPU MGC. Oh wait, Compact MGC to the rescue! Oh never mind, the Compact MGC is also 24 CPU. =/ CCP needs to stop touching missiles and missile related things until they have the time to do some serious analysis. /rabble,rabble
Take the hint. Fly vargurs, like all the sane people. |
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
586
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 19:07:58 -
[801] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:The problem is not in the modules or the rigs or the stacking penalties. All these things are fine. The problem is in the base weapon stats. When 40% of your damage against the same class ship is mitigated BEFORE boosts/prop mods/boosters there is a significant problem. Change that figure to be 100% with standard missiles against the appropriate sized class, then you have a better match up and you aren't employing all your rigs simply to get any application at all.
If you don't see how 100% application wouldn't be OP I don't know how to help you.
There's a lot to consider here and while the 40% mitigation is too much you can't give them 100% application either.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
49
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 20:11:42 -
[802] - 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.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
749
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 20:27:19 -
[803] - Quote
Nafensoriel wrote: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... somenonsense..
You really shouldn't let e2 see what you write or... ooops - too late!
Son, please let the grownups talk. Nevyn is right, missile need to do 100% damage and they already HAVE enough counters. If you do not know them, look them up.
It not my problem that some people are too unbright to figure this out and unless I see a gigantic payday I will not solve mankinds problems.
And now an EVE history lesson.
From 2003 to 2005 weapon system needes some tweaks but all was new and nobody had the skills to see what those weapons could actually do. Listen noobs everywhere, we started with much less than you and we stayed because it was hard.
After a few tweaks here and there and powergrid increases weapons where okay. Missiles did have 100% application but for the last time they where never able to do 100% damage, which seems to be most pilots comprehension problem.
100% application is not 100% damage and it never was.
Now a tiny detail which get forgotten really fast when it comes to missiles - the big picture of things.
While missiles had 100% application IF you could not outrun them or smartbomb them dead and as a tradeoff all turrets - drones and fighters has turrets too folks - has wrecking shots which is 3x 100%.
Speaking of op and missiles do not belong in one sentence and if you would have listened to me last year, we didn't have to have this conversation.
Now if only someone told you this a year ago - wait I did
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1675
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 21:43:08 -
[804] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:The problem is not in the modules or the rigs or the stacking penalties. All these things are fine. The problem is in the base weapon stats. When 40% of your damage against the same class ship is mitigated BEFORE boosts/prop mods/boosters there is a significant problem. Change that figure to be 100% with standard missiles against the appropriate sized class, then you have a better match up and you aren't employing all your rigs simply to get any application at all. If you don't see how 100% application wouldn't be OP I don't know how to help you. There's a lot to consider here and while the 40% mitigation is too much you can't give them 100% application either.
That would hold more water if DPS wasn't anaemic. If it was on par the turrets, fine, but it ain't - not by a loooooooong way. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2277
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 22:15:39 -
[805] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote: If you don't see how 100% application wouldn't be OP I don't know how to help you.
There's a lot to consider here and while the 40% mitigation is too much you can't give them 100% application either.
100% BEFORE all fittings, boosts & boosters on the correct size target is not hilarious. It is exactly what guns have. With piloting and neither of you using any fittings you can keep 100% DPS application with guns. Now add in prop mods, boosts, implants, boosters and everything that changes sig size and speed..... And you no longer have 100% application in real situations, but you have started from a sensible place and no longer need to pile 6 mods onto your ship in order to create application.
Sure you will nail a webbed scrammed TP'ed ship...... But you will do that with guns also. So it's pretty irrelevant using that case. Shooting the kitting ships will still be seriously low application as will shooting unwebbed/unscrammed frigates.
Sure, paper DPS might also end up needing a downwards tweak, but if applied DPS actually goes up, who gives a damn about paper DPS changes when currently paper DPS is a myth anyway. |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
586
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 04:18:53 -
[806] - Quote
For the moment then I would posit that you use TD against turret ships to reduce their dps if you can't do anything else. Woe the day when missiles get their equivalent even though you'll barely see them.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
49
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 04:38:46 -
[807] - 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. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
749
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 04:53:34 -
[808] - Quote
Nafensoriel wrote:...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?..
That minmatar tang and the moros can do it, why should the Phoenix be different? As long as dreads can shoot subcapitals I don't see a reason why the Phoenix should be the exception.
I do not need to advertise anything. In nine years I have repeated myself often enough. I still want 100% application across the board but I can be persuated to settle for the same size thing.
And the next one who writes about a tracking disrupter for missiles will get disrupted in a way that is to gruesome to write down.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
25
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 06:42:36 -
[809] - Quote
Nafensoriel wrote: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.
Application issues, even to same size targets, forces one to give their fit, tactic and possible teamwork a good think. Removing that means you suddenly have free extra slots and require a whole lot less planning. So they'd have to then rebalance all the ships involved to make up for that and there's no need to do that because it IS balanced, at least it was till they introduced stacking on the missile rigs. No reason to make a complete 180 fitting/balance logic wise and redo everything.
Also, missiles are so easy to use with zero piloting input and pretty much range independent performance that it has to, somehow, be given downsides. Application of their damage IS that downside, forcing to adapt fit or accept the lowered damage. You can't just go "yeah lets change it to 100% application vs same size target" and leave it at that, it would create a MASSIVE balance change. |
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
25
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 06:50:53 -
[810] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:I still want 100% application across the board but I can be persuated to settle for the same size thing.
And the next one who writes about a tracking disrupter for missiles will get disrupted in a way that is to gruesome to write down.
Full 100% application is silly and removes any sort of tactics and choices from the game creating a massive power creep. EVE had it early on and while it was hilarious it was also dumb.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |