Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Drigo Segvian
Black Fox Marauders
27
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 00:26:55 -
[61] - Quote
Good Changes.
Goodbye Navy Osprey and Orth. You will be remembered.
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
824
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 00:41:24 -
[62] - Quote
Lug Muad'Dib wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:
-keep the velocity bonuses to the hulls, but reduce the range of all light missiles. As far as small ship weapons go, light missiles have ******** range anyway. Most small long range weapons max out around 20-30km, not 42km. Reduce their base range and let the hull bonuses still apply, resulting in a net range nerf, but still keeping the flexibility of the hull bonuses.
You know, missiles flight and target move.. thank for the laugh.
Use rigs if you want velocity, just like turrets have to use optimal rigs or TE's to increase range. There are these things called ballistic tracking enhancers now, use them instead. Stop being bad.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
Make the Muninn great again!
|
Jackaryas
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
129
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 01:19:51 -
[63] - Quote
I think we can all agree The orthrus is a bit OP right now, i personally dont think a huge amount needs to be done to rapid lights and nerfing them into the ground will just see nobody use them at all.
Without repeating whats already been said too much
lel cruise / torp barghests +1 reducing clip size on rapid lights increasing reload time wont help solve the problem Upping fitting probs isnt a bad idea Maybe nerf the orthrus range a bit on rapid lights Rapid heavys are fine (above applies only to RLM imo)
Suddenly Spaceships Youtube
Suddenly Spaceships Recruitment Thread
|
Lug Muad'Dib
Wise Humans Sword
57
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 01:58:18 -
[64] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Lug Muad'Dib wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:
-keep the velocity bonuses to the hulls, but reduce the range of all light missiles. As far as small ship weapons go, light missiles have ******** range anyway. Most small long range weapons max out around 20-30km, not 42km. Reduce their base range and let the hull bonuses still apply, resulting in a net range nerf, but still keeping the flexibility of the hull bonuses.
You know, missiles flight and target move.. thank for the laugh. Use rigs if you want velocity, just like turrets have to use optimal rigs or TE's to increase range. There are these things called ballistic tracking enhancers now, use them instead. Stop being bad.
You only touch at 42km if the target don't move, real range are far less, stop being bad. |
Korvin
Shadow Kingdom Best Alliance
605
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 02:07:39 -
[65] - Quote
Something I told you at CSM8.
Next step - removing the light missle dps, than boost RLMS so they are usefull.
Finally you got it.
Member of CSM 4&5 ... &8
|
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
111
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 03:38:45 -
[66] - Quote
Ripard Teg wrote:Assuming this is not an April Fool's Day joke, this is a terrible idea.
The whole point to giving missile ships light missile bonuses in the first place is the fact that they were running dead last by race in terms of damage application in a screen or light combat role where such ships -- particularly the Caracal -- are used most frequently. We're not exactly talking about a DPS powerhouse on its best day, perhaps 250 or 275, which you propose to reduce by increasing the reload time. If you're looking to adjust, that adjustment alone should meet your goals without removing the ammo bonus as well.
By removing the ammo bonus as well, you push the Caracal back to 150 DPS with very bad application, which you propose to increase by 4%... to 160 DPS, or 150 DPS and very poor range. This compares to the Omen, which has 280 DPS without its drones and much superior application, then the Thorax/Vexor at 250 DPS or so. Even the Minmatar options will be superior to the Caracal. You're in essence proposing to put a whole set of doctrines right out of business and I don't see a good compelling reason why and you don't state one.
If you're looking to work on a small/medium weapons system, how about working on a small/medium weapons system that is clearly and obviously completely broken: autocannons?
I think you're misreading. The only ship bonus that's changing is the one to range. Application/damage bonuses to LMLs aren't changing. |
KillCamSpecteR
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 03:50:43 -
[67] - Quote
Well ... Waiting Orth for 100kk , Bargh - 300kk . Ahahah It's time 100ab tengu ... |
Creecher Virpio
Alcoholocaust. Test Alliance Please Ignore
10
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 04:13:24 -
[68] - Quote
How about we work on missiles systems that actually need a buff, like XL torps? The application on these is still god awful. losing application on archons that are moving more that 35m/s is just frankly unacceptable. I realize that NC/PL don't use missile capitals, but they still need fixing. |
Wyper insane
The Hornets Cartel
2
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 04:27:41 -
[69] - Quote
Ripard Teg wrote:Assuming this is not an April Fool's Day joke, this is a terrible idea.
The whole point to giving missile ships light missile bonuses in the first place is the fact that they were running dead last by race in terms of damage application in a screen or light combat role where such ships -- particularly the Caracal -- are used most frequently. We're not exactly talking about a DPS powerhouse on its best day, perhaps 250 or 275, which you propose to reduce by increasing the reload time. If you're looking to adjust, that adjustment alone should meet your goals without removing the ammo bonus as well.
By removing the ammo bonus as well, you push the Caracal back to 150 DPS with very bad application, which you propose to increase by 4%... to 160 DPS, or 150 DPS and very poor range. This compares to the Omen, which has 280 DPS without its drones and much superior application, then the Thorax/Vexor at 250 DPS or so. Even the Minmatar options will be superior to the Caracal. You're in essence proposing to put a whole set of doctrines right out of business and I don't see a good compelling reason why and you don't state one.
If you're looking to work on a small/medium weapons system, how about working on a small/medium weapons system that is clearly and obviously completely broken: autocannons?
I'm sorry, when did you thought minmatar should be always behind caldari ? Or ever was in fact. Stop being disrespectful. + all your argumentation is wrong lol, vexor and thorax rail, just to quote a few of what you said (applies to all), don't apply as perfectly as rlml. Now you're saying ACs are broken ? Come on... Rlml is the only thing more ******** than drones and other missiles imo.
|
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
905
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 05:21:32 -
[70] - Quote
I'm sorry, these changes do absolutely nothing.
The non application of the hull bonus for RLMLs, is the only thing that might mitigate the RLML caracal meta, but even that doesn't mitigate the absolute superiority of RLMLs. The rest is just not going to do what CCP wants.
A deeper analysis was done almost a year ago here. Even with the numbers CCP wants to use, RLMLs are still the ONLY choice for damage application, out DPSing Heavy missiles.
"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves."
The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
|
|
Conmen
Syndicate Enterprise Northern Coalition.
41
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 06:54:09 -
[71] - Quote
love the changes for eve hate the changes for the newbros rapid light platform low sp entry level to be effective. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
824
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 08:10:15 -
[72] - Quote
Lug Muad'Dib wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:Lug Muad'Dib wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:
-keep the velocity bonuses to the hulls, but reduce the range of all light missiles. As far as small ship weapons go, light missiles have ******** range anyway. Most small long range weapons max out around 20-30km, not 42km. Reduce their base range and let the hull bonuses still apply, resulting in a net range nerf, but still keeping the flexibility of the hull bonuses.
You know, missiles flight and target move.. thank for the laugh. Use rigs if you want velocity, just like turrets have to use optimal rigs or TE's to increase range. There are these things called ballistic tracking enhancers now, use them instead. Stop being bad. You only touch at 42km if the target don't move, real range are far less, stop being bad.
Thats why i said put missile velocity rigs or missile TE's on your ship. That will increase your missile velocity/range at the sacrifice of tank or damage, which is how it is for every other ship that wants to project damage. Learn to read.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
Make the Muninn great again!
|
Chan'aar
State War Academy Caldari State
99
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 10:11:29 -
[73] - Quote
Really hope this is an April fool. HML's need application. |
Okuu Reiuji
PEETOOSHKEE PRIMARY OK Scourge.
2
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 11:00:49 -
[74] - Quote
So we have:
>Orthrus Which deserves some balancing, but with given changes it will be RIP.
>Caracal RIP, you will be remembered.
>Cerberus Will still be used as HML platform
>Onyx Nobody cares about weaponry in mobile bubble.
>Osprey Navy Issue RIP
>Cyclone, Drake, Drake Navy Issue These three weren't very alive to begin with, now it will be even more dead.
>Barghest
RIP. Ship is already unpopular and without RHML it is RIP.
Give us some real boost to HML/HAML, explosion velocity and radius. 5.6% damage is nothing if you can't apply it to anything but capitals. |
Michael Oskold
BURN EDEN Northern Coalition.
29
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 11:12:56 -
[75] - Quote
as a soloist i am mad
as an fc i am hella happy
godbless |
light heaven
JUST SET TIMES Fraternity.
9
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 11:23:23 -
[76] - Quote
RLML is good at deal dps on frig, so it did better on cruiser. RLML always apply full dps on cruiser which HML can't do it. Even plus reload time, HML always apply less dps than RLML. This is the biggest thing make HML useless compare to RLML. By reduce RLML range will give ppl a reason to use HML when they want to deal dps at long range. But core problem is if you have a lot of RLML ships, you can kill both large and small target very well. Reload time is not a big problem for large fleet, you can do it in warp and so on. You should reduce RLML dps for large target, make it only good at kill frigs. |
Caleb Seremshur
Black Scorpions Inc Circle-Of-Two
868
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 12:18:14 -
[77] - Quote
Kendarr wrote:Yes, finally the ******* RLML nurf!
please buff HML application not damage and also buff the range of HAMs a tiny bit please
The point of buffing the damage is to promote the use of, you know, actual dps application modifiers like tracking computers and target painters, instead of just making all ships a flat X% more effective.
Years and years ago we all lamented the extremely heavy nerfs to HML and it took years of lobbying from people including myself to get something done. Once upon a time I proposed a flat 5% damage buff nothing else, we got that 5%. Obviously the devs have after some consideration decided to iterate by another 5%.
Because this damage will barely affect frigates and destroyers. It will make a marginal difference to shooting other cruisers (the calculations are determined against you having TONS of extra application) and a decent % more damage against large targets. That's why they chose for damage increase instead of application increase, because it just balances the weapon better. |
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
362
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 12:45:28 -
[78] - Quote
The changes sound like they were done by someone who goes by paper figures and not in-game experience...
range isnt the issue. a 10% base range nerf to LM would be plenty.
the main issue is the burst damage
reduce the clip size by 5 missiles, drop the reload time to 30 seconds.
this would result in a slightly more balanced playing field.
also, polarized RLML please :p |
CyberJanus
Panic Stations. Panic Attack.
0
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 12:57:42 -
[79] - Quote
If you remove the velocity bonuses from undersized missiles, RLMLs become an absolutely useless anti tackle system. It would allow them to be outran by some fast frigs, let alone interceptors (5.6km/s missile speed. lol). The range nerf is also massive. a ~20km range nerf to the Orthrus, really? Yeah these ships are currently super strong but gutting everything worthwhile about them isn't the best way to go about it.
The problem, like everyone has tried to say before, is that they are WAY too easy to fit. Increase the fitting requirements and let us have to make compromises, as opposed to having ships that can go super fast, fit an LSE AND an XLASB without a single fitting module/rig.
Just my two cents (PS. No % increase on damage will fix a missile that is negated by deciding to move slightly. lol. Consider an explosio |
Panther X
High Flyers Northern Coalition.
119
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 13:51:07 -
[80] - Quote
Tom Gerard wrote:I like this idea it would allow us to extract all missile skills without any loss in combat effectiveness.
Missiles are a cancer upon EVE, remove the entire weapon system, after that remove drones for the love of god.
I think you oughtta look at your signature again.
I love my Balanced Legion ships. Please balance something else. Heavies need an application bonus, not a vanilla dps boost.
HAM's are still in need of love, as are pretty much every other missile system.
Make the Levi and Phoenix great again!
My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
|
|
Jasper Binchiette
Aliastra Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 14:14:59 -
[81] - Quote
If this is a joke then it's in poor taste after the March update joke... |
Valence Benedetto
South of Heaven Ltd Blades of Grass
7
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 14:38:22 -
[82] - Quote
Overall - it is nice to see CCP working on missile balance. Some love to heavy missiles is welcome (though I think a light touch is best), and nerfs to RLML are long overdue.
As to the specific changes
1. As others have said, I think you need to start this balance pass with a review and adjustment of launcher PG requirements.
2. As others have said, I think clip size is an important variable that you may be overlooking.
3. Personally I agree with nerfing range. I understand why that bothers some people, as it does fundamentally change the capability of several hulls. But it makes sense to me conceptually that RLML should emphasize shorter range, burst and oppressive anti-support (without also being such a powerful anti-cruiser weapon).
Fozzie, I think much of the recent changes and balance passes to the game have been great. With this one, it feels like you are trying too hard to be non-disruptive to current fits. I suggest you take the opportunity to step back and think conceptually about what you really want the RLML system to be.
Thanks.
|
Kines Pavelovna
Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels
9
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 15:19:06 -
[83] - Quote
Falin Whalen wrote:I'm sorry, these changes do absolutely nothing. The non application of the hull bonus for RLMLs, is the only thing that might mitigate the RLML caracal meta, but even that doesn't mitigate the absolute superiority of RLMLs. The rest is just not going to do what CCP wants. A deeper analysis was done almost a year ago here. Even with the numbers CCP wants to use, RLMLs are still the ONLY choice for damage application, out DPSing Heavy missiles.
That article is good. Heavy Missiles basically always do 30-60% paper dps and can't practically use t2 ammo. RLML's always fully apply and the target has to equip a 4+ slot passive tank to survive a full clip.
So what's different with this change is that you have to burn deeper into range before you start firing your RLMLs. |
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
440
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 16:03:44 -
[84] - Quote
Fozzie, why dont you start with an easier task and fix the torpedoes? Those are ridiculously underperforming. I doubt anyone uses them at all, aside from stealth bombers. Instead, people use RHMLs as a high damage mid to close-range weapon system that can actually hit a target smaller than an Upwell structure. Cruise missile battleships find some use in PVE and large fleet meta, but their close-range brethren are already a rare breed that can go completely extinct.
HAMLs may also need some love. Once both torps and HAMs are fine, you'll feel more freedom to adjust rapid launchers without screwing up a whole bunch of missile ships.
Fix the torps. Just do it. |
Blood Animus
Plundering Penguins Solyaris Chtonium
40
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 17:21:59 -
[85] - Quote
I'm honestly not sure if this is a joke or not, if it is then it's a poor one, ditto if this is a real post. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
824
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 17:26:00 -
[86] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Fozzie, why dont you start with an easier task and fix the torpedoes? Those are ridiculously underperforming. I doubt anyone uses them at all, aside from stealth bombers. Instead, people use RHMLs as a high damage mid to close-range weapon system that can actually hit a target smaller than an Upwell structure. Cruise missile battleships find some use in PVE and large fleet meta, but their close-range brethren are already a rare breed that can go completely extinct.
HAMLs may also need some love. Once both torps and HAMs are fine, you'll feel more freedom to adjust rapid launchers without screwing up a whole bunch of missile ships.
Fix the torps. Just do it.
I use torps all the time. Torps need fitting adjustments and maybe some minor tweaking in application and resulting nerf in bomber application to compensate. Otherwise, they're actually pretty strong when you fit for them. 3 shotting sabre's with a torp RNI is fun.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
Make the Muninn great again!
|
Muon Farstrider
Partial Safety
50
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 18:09:25 -
[87] - Quote
After pondering for a while, I don't think these proposed changes are on the right track.
The problem with RLML isn't their range, or their sustained DPS. The problem is how their raw burst damage, combined with the way their light fitting and perfect application (on cruiser scales) completely frees up the rest of their fit for tank/oversized prop/etc, obsoletes other medium missile systems for fighting other cruisers and up rather than just lighter ships.
Range and velocity are actually necessary for their *intended* role of anti-light support. Unbonused light missiles only go about 40 km @ 5.6 km/s with max skills, which in a fleet context isn't actually much. The battle area is usually notably larger than that, and the low velocity is also problematic - many inties can straight-up outrun them, and even a ship moving 'only' 3 km/s can force the missiles to chase long enough to expire in many cases. Removing the velocity bonuses will weaken RLML, for sure, but not in the right manner. It makes them worse at anti-support without weakening their oppressively strong brawling potential.
RLML nerfs need to focus on making them weaker against cruiser-up targets *without* excessively nerfing them against small targets. This is why I think Suitonia's suggestion of reducing clip size instead of increasing reload time is heading in the right direction - most small ships will still die in a single clip, but the more chance cruisers have to survive one, the better.
However, there's still a fine balance to walk here, mostly because there are a lot of quite tanky small ships these days. Keeping RLML strong enough to properly threaten them can easily make it still too good against cruisers. As such, I'd personally suggest playing with a different stat on RLML - application.
While the application on light missiles is very good, it's often overlooked that it's not *perfect* - a lot of small ships will somewhat reduce the damage from them. If you pyfa up a few examples, you can see that many t1 frigates mitigate 10-30%ish of the damage, while in the extreme case inties often mitigate over 60% with MWD on. Destroyers, meanwhile, don't avoid any faction missile damage, but the advanced versions often avoid significant amounts if the firer is using fury.
As such, playing with application is one possible way to allow for lowering RLML damage against cruisers while keeping it good against small ships. If rapid platforms all had a light missile expvel or exprad hull bonus (or if the launchers themselves applied this bonus to the missiles they fired? not sure if the game mechanics can do that), it would allow the clip sizes or fire rates on RLML to be further lowered to reduce their oppressive damage against cruisers while the application bonus counteracts this against small ships.
TL:DR - leave RLML range alone, reduce RLML clip size, give missile cruisers a light missile application bonus. Probably also increase RLML fitting cost.
Meanwhile, as this article indicates, the problem with heavy missile launchers (and their cousins HAMs) isn't just the damage, it's the application. A 5% damage bonus is all well and good, but when you can't *apply* that damage even to peer targets it doesn't help much. This update really ought to also include buffing HML/HAM *application* by a good 10% or so at least. |
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
196
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 18:14:41 -
[88] - Quote
Congrats CCP on ******* up the only missile system still efficient.
RLML are fine like they are. People complaining about the RLML being overpowered are the nones that fly paper tin fits that sacrifice everything to velocity. If a fit is decent enough to hold the burst damage from a RLML system most probably will beat the other ship using the RLML.
Then the HML buff ? Thats a bad joke. The problem is not the DPS or the Alpha or whatever it's their CRAP APPLICATION. If you fit a Afterburner, you laugh at a ship using whatever Missile system people have available. Except the now nerfed RLML.
Congrats once again CCP...
You want to talk about balance, balance the Keres or the Maulus or do you think they are balanced ships ?
|
Vic Jefferson
Brand Newbros Test Alliance Please Ignore
1210
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 18:23:02 -
[89] - Quote
RLMLs are so much to so many different fits at the moment, there's simply no easy way to adjust them without breaking lots of hulls at the same time. Some parts of EvE reinforce the idea that specialization is a trade-off, but RLMLs have just violated this for so long and simultaneously been a crutch for much of the missile line up that it's going to be impossible to simultaneously present a real fitting choice and have much of the missile line be viable.
I mean we can chew on the numbers for a while, but I don't think that's going to make it much easier - this is a needed change, but not one that will ever achieve the desired result in one step. Echoing others, I think the entire process would go better if any changes were coupled to changes in heavy missiles.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
|
Nightfox BloodRaven
SQUIDS.
45
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 18:26:53 -
[90] - Quote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njJAnWzKDfQ
At the end of the day.. RLML are not op by any chance.. u can barely kill a properly tanked vexor in an orthrus
properly fit thoraxes can solo tank orthrus no problem. Hell an exequror rep fit can kill orthrus and tank its dps no problem.
What you have are legions of idiots in **** fits hitting approach and mwd right at you and they complain op when they die.
but once again CCP has decided to take a dump on caldari lol.. caracal will be entirely useless... what it gonna be like not even 200dps with reload?
You wanna fix op? Vexor, Algos, Tristan all top of their meta.. for years.. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |