These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

CSM Feedback Request: Missile SP Rebalance, Missile Hull Progression, and Module Tiericide

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ransu Asanari
Perkone
Caldari State
#21 - 2013-11-10 13:26:40 UTC
Thanks for the response Malcanis.

Could you please point me to some documentation about missiles being a secondary/support weapon system in the past? The EVE Wiki only says:

Quote:
Caldari (and some Minmatar) ships favor missiles over other weapons, although many Amarr and Gallente ships have missiles available as a supplementary weapon.


As a new player, I chose Caldari hulls and missiles and specialized in them, because I thought that was what you were supposed to do, in order to be able to fly those ships [almost] as effectively as an advanced player. If I had seen somewhere that said "Missiles are a support weapon system", or "Turrets are the core weapon system, pick one of those", instead of a line of ships that focused on missiles as a primary weapon system, I probably would have gone with turrets to start.

Also, could you comment on the CSM being consulted on the Gunnery Tiericide skill changes as stated in the Dev Blog, and if there was any discussion around how they would balance that skill advantage compared to missiles?

Thanks!
Marcus Walkuris
Aww yeahhh
#22 - 2013-11-10 14:51:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcus Walkuris
Malcanis wrote:
The original conception was that the core weapon system was turrets, and that missiles and drones were support weapon systems. Both support weapon types had ships that specialised in them, but far fewer than turrets. This was reflected in the way that the skills were organised (missile skills look more like drone skills than gunnery skills).

I don't want to make a "what is is what must be" type argument, just wanted to shed a little light on the reason for the way things are.

With respect to the OP, players get very attached to their favorite ships, and converting a much loved gunboat into a missile platform will make a lot of people unhappy. I'm certainly happy to support a proposal that we could do with a few more missile platforms, especially pirate ships.

However it's not true at all to say that missile users don't have an excellent range of ships available to them, nor is it true that CCP have ignored missile users. Each of the tiercide phases has added an excellent option for missile users, either by making a previously horrible missile ship excellent (eg: Kestrel, Cerb, Navy Scorp, to name but a few) or converting what was previously a gunboat into a missile platform (Eg: Claymore, Cyclone). Missile specialists have done extremely well over the past few months, and they will continue to do so.


Thank you for the serious reply.
When I first started EvE this was the accepted premise.
However shortly after the cruiser class primary missile systems (HML) were decimated essentially dismantling missile skills as that was the widest/most used hull class.
I quite recall the bitterness of CCP reps anytime they mention said expansion with lumps in their throats and tears in their eyes.
Surely not all because of HML.
What Im trying to say is there has been very little niche after the HML nerf, not just because of it but in reference to what you posted.
Missiles started out as something very different, AoE damage namely, and later the too strong HML and its versatility when I started.
Too many hulls got shafted on that one and I wonder why on Science's green earth they didn't just lower the amount of launcher slots "only" on said OP 2 ships, one starting with a T the other with a D.
In any case missile's aren't that niche anymore and one should wonder if they ever were, since they have always occupied high slots.
No ship carries both missiles and gunnery into an extent as gun+drones go side by side.
Even minmatar ships don't carry 6 gunnery slots and 2-3 launcher hard points all intended to be used and maybe one utility high extra while going without a drone bay.
Which has a lot to do with the way slots are configured, which could use change for more flexible ship builds but ohh well thats another wall of text.
Missiles are a primary source of damage for half the caldari boats and a secondary weapon-system on rifters and PvE minnie BS ehe ehe.
They occupy high slots on dedicated boats and can not currently be defined as "support" and I wonder if it could eve be a couple of years ago when split weapon systems were very real on very unpopular ships.
Not to say HML every other sentence but it completely carried the missile skill tree, it made up for the drivel, plz don't think I want them back.
Even then it was not common to see a typhoon, anyone would laugh at the proposition of going as that deep into missiles to get cruises just for one pretty niche BS hull.

Drones support in the actual sense of the word, and they create a viable capital platform not to forget.
They add dps, repair and little E-war to existing platforms, heck the salvage and mine.
Not to mention the SP disparity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3853036 I mentioned here as well as others have.
Missiles have been a primary weapon-system and realistically almost exclusive for Caldari for too long, with its shiddy hybrid line.(Edit: Has some real gems nowadays).
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#23 - 2013-11-10 20:11:27 UTC
I have argued very strongly that the HML nerf be at least partly reversed. Most of the arguments in favour of it struck me as emotive, based on anecdotal data or simply fallacious. On the other hand, if you're going to talk about what HMLs lost, you should also be honest and talk about what Cruise gained.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Marcus Walkuris
Aww yeahhh
#24 - 2013-11-11 09:49:18 UTC
Absolutely cruises are much better although very much PvE.
As mentioned earlier though BS do not make or break a weapon-system like cruiser sized ones do.


It is not my intention to **** on whatever CCP does, the common nagging isn't my style.
But constructive discussing about the reality today, very much so.
That said, Ransu raises a good question, first post page 2.
He puts it a little better then I do perhaps, the funnel trap that Caldari+missiles can be for new players.
Which I raised in the skill discussion thread, detailed albeit lengthy.
Ransu Asanari
Perkone
Caldari State
#25 - 2013-11-13 22:58:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Ransu Asanari
Bumping this thread for more CSM feedback, as it seems the Rapid Launcher changes are going through as is, despite the amount of feedback on thread. CCP Rise has said that the changes were discussed with the CSM, so can we get some feedback from the members who discussed the missile changes in Rubicon around the RHML/RLML changes, and the balance around Gunnery Tiericide change? I still haven't seen anything back on either of these points.

-edit- Found the CSM feedback in the thread - thanks for replying in there Malcanis and Mynnna.
Marcus Walkuris
Aww yeahhh
#26 - 2013-12-07 22:48:26 UTC
Yeah, I am still kind of wondering what the brainstorm is going to spit out.
Kenshi Hanshin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#27 - 2013-12-08 18:10:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenshi Hanshin
Malcanis wrote:
Marcus Walkuris wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Missiles are more properly compared to Drones.


Ohhh interesting, elaborate.


The original conception was that the core weapon system was turrets, and that missiles and drones were support weapon systems. Both support weapon types had ships that specialised in them, but far fewer than turrets. This was reflected in the way that the skills were organised (missile skills look more like drone skills than gunnery skills).

I don't want to make a "what is is what must be" type argument, just wanted to shed a little light on the reason for the way things are.

With respect to the OP, players get very attached to their favorite ships, and converting a much loved gunboat into a missile platform will make a lot of people unhappy. I'm certainly happy to support a proposal that we could do with a few more missile platforms, especially pirate ships.

However it's not true at all to say that missile users don't have an excellent range of ships available to them, nor is it true that CCP have ignored missile users. Each of the tiercide phases has added an excellent option for missile users, either by making a previously horrible missile ship excellent (eg: Kestrel, Cerb, Navy Scorp, to name but a few) or converting what was previously a gunboat into a missile platform (Eg: Claymore, Cyclone). Missile specialists have done extremely well over the past few months, and they will continue to do so.

Doesn't matter what they do to the ships when the missile mechanics are **** and we all know it.

If I have said it once, I have said it a hundred times by now. The damage application equation for missiles is the worst piece of math that I have ever seen. You will lose 50% of your damage without fail (practically) without using at least 2 TP and 1 Web and not even counting the scram. Therefore that is four of your mid-slots. Using the drake, that leaves 2 for tank...

I can get better results from a stabber than I can from a Caracal or the Hurricane compared to the Drake. Simply because I can still fit something that would actually qualify as a tank.

I am ******* tired of this missiles and Caldari are fine bullshit. I would appreciate it if you guys and gals in CSM actually do the job. That would mean in this case as acting as an independent entity that is able and does their own analysis of issues and proposals by CCP. You have failed utterly for the third time in a row...

Ps. CMs needed a buff to compensate but that doesn't offset that HMs are trash, HAMs are trash, Rockets are meh, Torps are trash and only LMs even deliver damage acceptably. Don't get me started on the rubbish heap that is Citadel Torps and CM.

If you cannot or will not do your jobs correctly, then I demand a full SP refund of all missile skills on my toons. No fing exception or bullshit!
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#28 - 2013-12-08 20:25:11 UTC
You "demand", do you?

Presumably this is some kind of "I will hold my breath until I die, then CCP will be sorry" kind of deal?


Because obviously they'll go to prison. For murder.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#29 - 2013-12-09 08:02:58 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
You "demand", do you?

Presumably this is some kind of "I will hold my breath until I die, then CCP will be sorry" kind of deal?


Because obviously they'll go to prison. For murder.

No, because if the CSM don't actually get seen to do their job, they will be treated as irrelevant by the greater player base, who will then despair of CCP not nerfing them repeatedly, and end up quitting rather than talking to the CSM, leading to EVE collapsing because the CSM couldn't be assed to do their job.

Now, we get the 'original' design of missiles. However, that design is obviously fatally flawed and has been for a number of years with missiles becoming a primary weapon system
The argument that has long been raised against missiles getting their skills fixed has been removed with the latest change to the gunnery skill tree.
So, does CSM 8 have any plans they have taken to CCP to fix the fact that gunnery SP is quite simply worth significantly more due to the fact that the support skills normally apply to two turret types vs only missiles, and the fact that you only have to train small/medium/large once for a type of gun, twice for missiles before specialising.
And if so, what are those plans.

If you don't have anything and you haven't discussed the SKILL TREE with CCP, then say so, and I'll be ok with that. But the weapons being nerfed into the ground is utterly separate from the skill tree being terrible.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#30 - 2013-12-09 14:05:58 UTC
My word, I had no idea I was dealing with such a powerfully influential player. I shall certainly watch what I say going forward.

Also I used my CSM Time Machine to insert my position on HMLs earlier in the thread.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Ransu Asanari
Perkone
Caldari State
#31 - 2013-12-10 04:53:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Ransu Asanari
Right.

So lets stop with the personal attacks, bad slippery slope arguments, and sarcastic responses. I created this thread for collecting constructive ideas on fixing missiles. If you don't have anything constructive to say, then don't bother posting.

ArrowNevyn Auscent - Ali Aras (CSM) picked up part of my question in the CSM Town Hall last month, and said she would talk to CCP Rise about Missile SP:

Ransu Asanari wrote:
With regards to the Gunnery Tiericide change coming in Rubicon which removes the prerequisite of requiring one size gun to be fully trained before training the next, the Dev Blog states CSM approval was given for this change. In the discussions around this change, was it considered how removing the training requirement would cause an imbalance in SP investment compared to missile users?

It costs more SP to train missiles to an equal weapon size compared to gunnery, but because it could be done without training the previous size fully, it allowed missile users to specialize faster. Now that this difference is being removed in Rubicon, can the CSM bring up a proposal on unifying Missile and Gunnery SP training times to address this imbalance?"

Answer: I didn’t get to this one, although it’s a little “can you make ccp”. That said, you did ask *us*. This is something I’ll look into and talk to Rise about. Frankly, I think missiles need a whole rebalance once we see how RHMLs and new RLMLs work out, and a skill change would fit there.


Arrow Malcanis if you could answer that first part of the question, I think that would be helpful, as I asked about it earlier in the thread, and I still haven't seen an answer. Would information on the discussion around decoupling the Gunnery skill prerequisites be in the CSM minutes, or are they not available/NDA?

Arrow You are right that Cruise Missiles got a significant buff in Odyssey, and I've seen a few Raven/Typhoon doctrines flown by Darkness of Despair and Pandemic Legion, but infrequently or as tests. I haven't flown Battleship sized weapons yet so I can't really comment on how effective they are.

Arrow Malcanis, thank you for arguing to walk back some of the nerf to Heavy Missiles. I hope that a proposal can be brought to fix this, especially in light of all of the people discussing the effectiveness of heavy missiles in the Rapid Missile Launcher thread (now at 149 pages). I think it needs more than just an explosion radius/velocity tweak. A lot of the discussion is around how well it applies damage to targets of the same size (Cruiser/Battlecruiser) versus one size down. Also, the need for webs and target painters to properly apply that damage, which for shield tanking ships, means you have to significantly reduce your tank to fit those modules.

Arrow I posted some other concerns that might be good to look into when planning a refocus for missiles in this thread. I'll try to edit my original posts to add some more detail and references when I have a chance.
Previous page12