These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Rubicon] Rapid Missile Launchers - v2

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#2261 - 2013-11-27 12:36:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Niena Nuamzzar
CCP Rise wrote:
I see that some places, especially in this thread, there's a lot of frustration still about the change in general but the majority of it is lacking any substance except for the simple claim that 40 seconds of reload isn't fun.

Yes, 40 seconds to switch ammo type isn't really fun. Besides, only 18 missiles clip is shameful - please increase it to at least 20* where 22 would be the right number considering how much of one's game play is ruined with needless inactivity.

EDIT
*that is for 30 seconds reload, because 40 seconds is gamebreakingly long and badly thought out Evil
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#2262 - 2013-11-27 12:38:00 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
Dav Varan wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:

Since launch, I've been continuing to monitor the effect of the rapid missile change through usage metrics, discussion with CSM, conversation with players I know who are using them and using them myself on TQ. I see that some places, especially in this thread, there's a lot of frustration still about the change in general but the majority of it is lacking any substance except for the simple claim that 40 seconds of reload isn't fun.


Put the 40 second reload onto every weapon in game if its such a great mech.




give me front loaded damage, selectable damage types, exccelent projection and tracking and I'd happily have it


@CCP Rise:

Could you please look into the turret version of these weapons (the Dual 150mm rails, quad light beam lasers etc) because those things are god awful at shooting frigates. The 150mm rails fitted to a thorax using Javelin with a scrammed and webbed and tracking computer can't even hit a cruiser anywhere inside it's engagement envelope.
The damage of these weapons and the range is just fine. Their tracking is just so terrible.


Rails with antimatter at antimatter range track way better than javelin at javelin range.
Lara Feng
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#2263 - 2013-11-27 12:54:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Lara Feng
CCP Rise wrote:
You guys really can't continue to claim I haven't acknowledged your negative feedback.

I first responded to concerns here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3851753#post3851753
then I responded again here after reading more feedback: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3864075#post3864075
and finally I directly commented on the volume of complaints and why I wasn't acting based on them in this post https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3864922#post3864922

Look at the previous page of feedback. Several posts calling me names or talking about ECM, and one post from someone actually using RLML who says they are enjoying them. This is a really good example of how the thread has gone in general and represents why I haven't made big changes so far.

Since launch, I've been continuing to monitor the effect of the rapid missile change through usage metrics, discussion with CSM, conversation with players I know who are using them and using them myself on TQ. I see that some places, especially in this thread, there's a lot of frustration still about the change in general but the majority of it is lacking any substance except for the simple claim that 40 seconds of reload isn't fun.


Seriously? People gave you tons of valid feedback. I could at least link a dozen posts of people with overwhelming game mechanic knowledge who posted coherent and very stringent feedback, laying out workarounds and pointing out the problems. You ignored every single one of that posts because some other people were quite upset (and rightfully so.) Instead you posted some rant about how you disliked the crowd going apeshit and would therefor exclusively listen to a bunch of CSM members who thought it was a great idea (i´m pretty sure not one of those guys actually used the stuff we are talking about in this thread in a long time.) Of course that made people even more upset considering that many just see the CSM as a bunch of lobbyist clowns who get free trips to Iceland.

You actually didn´t post one coherent answer concerning the proper feedback and solely focused on the hatemongering.
CCP Rise wrote:

I'm going to continue to watch this very closely and won't hesitate to make changes if I'm convinced (or others in my department) are convinced that they are needed.


Come on. We all know how these things work with CCP. Stuff is thrown into the game and remains untouched for years because there are always more recent things to do. In 5 years when your metrics tell you that nobody uses RLML anymore we can maybe get a Dev to have a proper look at them again.

CCP Rise wrote:

Since launch, I've been continuing to monitor the effect of the rapid missile change through usage metrics, discussion with CSM, conversation with players I know who are using them and using them myself on TQ. I see that some places, especially in this thread, there's a lot of frustration still about the change in general but the majority of it is lacking any substance except for the simple claim that 40 seconds of reload isn't fun.


It is not just ´not fun´, it is quite simple bad game design. People pointed out why a bazillion time in this thread and continue to do so. You can not really argue that there is no substantial feedback because that would be just insanely ignorant. And on another note: If the majority of people think that a 40s reload is not fun than thats an argument in itself. Last time i checked a game should at least be fun to a certain extent.

CCP Rise wrote:

I felt that it was worth it in this case because rolling out Rapid Heavies with the intention of making a big change to their mechanic shortly after release would be worse than getting them out with the right mechanic and time to tune them if the balance wasn't exactly right. This trickled down to RLML as well. I still think that was the right decision but I want to work to avoid having to do it in the future.


RHLMs could have waited, just a minority even cared for them being introduced. If you were not satisfied with them completely you could have just pushed them back and take your time to balance them out. Instead you forced the concept onto a totally different weapon system which only had very very minor balancing issues without even spending proper time for testing them on SiSi which would have been crucial for such a major change. How long you discussed them beforehand in the dev team does not really matter, because all you guys seem to do lately is deciding stuff on what some metrics and statistics say. I highly doubt anyone of you is actually playing the game on a regular basis any more. And that is okay, i know you will hardly have the time to do so. But in that case please don´t deal with user feedback like you have done with a lot of things in Rubicon.
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#2264 - 2013-11-27 13:36:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Altrue
CCP Rise wrote:
there's a lot of frustration still about the change in general but the majority of it is lacking any substance except for the simple claim that 40 seconds of reload isn't fun.


Well first of all, this single concern should be enough to make you rethink this system. I thought that CCP was trying to change mechanics that are not fun, that's why we have to endure the loot scatter thing for instance.

You're a developping a game. Okay it's serious business and the like, but it's still a game and it should be fun to play. In some way or another. But 40 seconds on inactivity cannot be fun in any way.

Then if you want some substance here is some :
1- RHMLs didn't have to end up having the same mechanisms than RLMLs. YOU decided that. It cannot justify such prompt change right before the release.
2- 40 second reload kills the ability to switch damage for a weapon that is already weak because it has the possibility to do that.
3- 40 second reload kills the ability to kill things that were already hard to kill with RLMLs, and helps killing things that were already killable with RLMLs. Further imbalancing the weapon.
4- Maybe you believe that ASBs are cool, but after extensively trying them in pvp I can confirm that I switched back to the old cap booster + regular shield booster. Expanding a ...mixed... concept to weapons is a bad idea.
5- From a game design perspective, there are better ways to reward player's decisions than a 40 second cooldown. There is no thinking in using the weapon, just betting. You bet, and you win or loose, but due to arbitrary numbers and randomness. There is absolutely no way to be good at using RLMLs because once you've fired your missiles you have to reload and do it again. A bot could do it.

So... Of course you can continue to say "I hear, I hear !" which equals a "shut up" by the way, you can continue to say that the only argument that didn't lack substance was a complaint about fun which equals a denial of 90% of the feedback here... Or you can actually act and forever forget the concept of having more than 10sec reload mechanics.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
#2265 - 2013-11-27 13:41:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Moonaura
CCP Rise wrote:

Look at the previous page of feedback. Several posts calling me names or talking about ECM, and one post from someone actually using RLML who says they are enjoying them.


Well, I guess that is a dig at me huh? Big smile In total, in this entire thread, there have been three posts mentioning ECM, one of them mine, and the reason it was brought up, was because of one of your answers on AMA and our now, genuinely instilled fears that you will repeat exactly the same mistakes with ECM as you have with the RLML changes, which are:

1. Short notice of the changes just before release.
2. Minimal time to test on SISI before release.
3. Asking for feedback, here and on social media, but then basically ignoring it claiming out of 115 pages, over 2260 posts and counting, yet you still insist on claiming that not a single one of them offered you constructive negative feedback. What does one have to do to write a post that will qualify at this point in your eyes, its frankly baffling???
4. Your promise to continue to listen to feedback post launch, but then unsticking this thread - which in itself was still very new - while other new threads have remained sticked!
5. Absolute no feedback on good suggestions like pushing it to 1.1 or creating new modules with your new mechanics in so people have CHOICE in fitting it. Not forced into an entirely new mechanic.

EDIT: Oh and you forgot all about PVE players, many of whom posted here, utterly confused by the whole thing.

CCP Rise wrote:


This is a really good example of how the thread has gone in general and represents why I haven't made big changes so far.

Since launch, I've been continuing to monitor the effect of the rapid missile change through usage metrics, discussion with CSM, conversation with players I know who are using them and using them myself on TQ.



But ignoring feedback here. Yeah we got that much on our own lol. Please honestly, don't bother asking us for feedback again if you're going to get on a high horse about it. You were a player just like us. Please value our opinions just as much as your friends and the CSM. Metrics - while useful - do not paint the full picture. Many people, myself included, have pointed out to you why so many people used the RLML - and explained why its use increased.

The way it has consistently come across, is that basically you've only wanted to hear statements that reinforce your view, and you've basically ignored anyone that said otherwise.

CCP Rise wrote:

I see that some places, especially in this thread, there's a lot of frustration still about the change in general but the majority of it is lacking any substance except for the simple claim that 40 seconds of reload isn't fun.


Oh dear gods. Its not that it isn't fun, its that you've removed a massive part of player skill and choice in picking the right missile for a fight and basically enforcing only one way of using them. Hit (pray) and run.

We don't care if you introduce a 40 second mechanic burst module - but don't give it to us as standard, but as a new choice - just like the ASB was a fun, new choice that added options to the game.

CCP Rise wrote:

I'm going to continue to watch this very closely and won't hesitate to make changes if I'm convinced (or others in my department) are convinced that they are needed.

edit: I want to add that I hope to never make a big balance change this late in a release cycle again.


TFFT.

CCP Rise wrote:

I felt that it was worth it in this case because rolling out Rapid Heavies with the intention of making a big change to their mechanic shortly after release would be worse than getting them out with the right mechanic and time to tune them if the balance wasn't exactly right. This trickled down to RLML as well. I still think that was the right decision but I want to work to avoid having to do it in the future.


Shocked

"The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans 
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#2266 - 2013-11-27 13:54:04 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
You guys really can't continue to claim I haven't acknowledged your negative feedback.

Look at the previous page of feedback. Several posts calling me names or talking about ECM, and one post from someone actually using RLML who says they are enjoying them. This is a really good example of how the thread has gone in general and represents why I haven't made big changes so far.

Rise, thanks for finally responding in this thread.

I went back through the few previous pages of feedback and the only example(s) I could find with respect to actual RLML use seem to be… mine. Just to clarify: I had to "guess" and pre-load the pair of RLMLs and HMLs with what ammunition I thought would do well prior, and I went with scourge mainly because of the +25% damage bonus on the Tengu. I couldn't afford to forfeit the first 40 seconds of the engagement, so I instead opted to kept the pressure on with the scourge RLMLs while I swapped the HMLs out to mjolnir to break his shields, chew through his armor and put him seriously into hull before he managed to disengage.

As indicated, RLMLs work best as a supplementary weapons system; the 40-second reload still has too many inherent drawbacks to use exclusively in a primary role.

CCP Rise wrote:
Since launch, I've been continuing to monitor the effect of the rapid missile change through usage metrics, discussion with CSM, conversation with players I know who are using them and using them myself on TQ. I see that some places, especially in this thread, there's a lot of frustration still about the change in general but the majority of it is lacking any substance except for the simple claim that 40 seconds of reload isn't fun.

I'm going to continue to watch this very closely and won't hesitate to make changes if I'm convinced (or others in my department) are convinced that they are needed.

The 40-second reload isn't fun. I put the RLMLs on, go feed my ravenous Siberian Husky and by the time I return I've got one volley out with an auto-reload. Fun for the dog, not so much for me.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
#2267 - 2013-11-27 13:59:52 UTC
CCP Rise, for your purview, from earlier in this thread. Opening line apart, how can you NOT consider this constructive feedback? I mean its about as detailed as you could get, and well thought out.

It is basically saying that stuff like this is not constructive in anyway, and thus you are ignoring it, that has created so much rage in this thread.

Altrue wrote:
This change is crap.

CCP Rise wrote:

The problem we're facing is that it's very hard to create a good balance between rapid launchers and their on-size counterparts(torpedo launchers, cruise launchers, heavy missile launchers and heavy assault missile launchers). Currently I feel we have the numbers high enough that they are almost always the right choice, but if we tune them down at all they will almost never be the right choice.


Of course ! The missile system as it is as a whole is bad, that's the problem.
Because, and it was extensively demonstrated on the article of TMC, currently Cruise missiles are SNIPE ammo, and Torpedoes are BS + Structure sized only. There is NO WEAPON that is able to deal with BCs and smaller. The problem is not about RHML being overpowered : if they are more powerful then cruise or torp it's simply because there is no BS sized missiles to fill the role. A role that precisely happen in 90% of the situations in PvP. When did you see a BS missile ship being used in pvp for the last time ?

RLML and RHML are the only weapons enabling missile ships to decently engage in pvp when they believe that there will be smaller ships. Not because there will be ONLY smaller ships, but because they know that one single smaller ship will be able to tank them for the eternity due to the way missiles work.

As such, and even if it's an interesting idea, this change will simply make RLML and RHML useless. Who would bother choosing a weapon system that, MAYBE, will help them kill smaller ships (because either they will kill them with or without this change, or either they won't) but will CERTAINLY make them loose the rest of the time ? This is also an indirect buff to buffer tanking, since the only concern is to tank the incoming damage for 50 seconds before getting 40 seconds of freedom which means basically a free kill (no missile ship is really tanky except the drake, and he was nerfed).

So, what does this tell us ? Cruiser and BS-sized missiles are crap in pvp, because they aren't effective against smaller targets, even with stasises. Whereas large turret ships can do wonders with stasises.
The way target painters work is, as well, an heresy. How do you make a difference when the debuff is a percentage ? By nature this means that against smaller ships, non-bonused TP are irrelevant.

My proposal :
1- Make speed more relevant than sig radius for damage calculations below a certain speed threshold (or for close-range missiles). So that if you make the ennemi ship motionless you don't need TPs.
2- Make Sig radius more relevant than speed for damage calculations above a certain speed threshold (or for long-range missiles). So that target painting becomes a wiser choice against fast targets.
1 & 2 preserve some love for the decision making, while enabling a new wide array of uses for long-range missiles. (Do anyone here use cruise missiles currently ? ^^')
3- Sized target painters ? 1nm, 10nm, 100nm (random numbers) target painters ! When a battleship target paints a frigate with its big ray, it should increase the sig radius accordingly to the size of weapons he is using. It also prevents abuses with small and fast frigates being used to support cruise missiles snipers.
4- New hybrid-damage missiles types ! (50%/50%) Caldaris's kinetic bonuses only applies if the missile is making 50 or 100% of its damage in kinetic (but apply to both damages). There is still the race's favorite damage, but you cannot just fill the kinetic resist and be assured that it will work perfectly against missiles and still very decently against hybrids. Keep the 10sec reload time of course.
5- No new increase in missile DPS ! Above changes make damage application easier, but paper DPS should remain the same.
6- Upgrade F.O.F ammo to make them actually useful. OR delete them entierly and create a ship-wide FOF toggle if you prefer. At the expense of missile sig radius so that you cannot just FOF if a frigate runs by and oneshot it, but you can still say NO to the nasty ship ECMing you. The ennemy fleet will have to think and manage who is the closest ship from you if they manage to jam a missile ship.
7- With these changes, what happens to RLMLs and RHMLs ? Well imho it would be better to leave them in their previous state without the 40sec cooldown. EDIT : Actually since others missiles would be more useful, RHML and RLMLs could keep their niche of burst dps with this 40sec CD.

"The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans 
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
#2268 - 2013-11-27 14:01:58 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
I went back through the few previous pages of feedback and the only example(s) I could find with respect to actual RLML use seem to be… mine.


Arthur, from start to finish, all your feedback has been top notch.

"The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans 
Lara Feng
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#2269 - 2013-11-27 14:06:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Lara Feng
Woops, doublepost.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#2270 - 2013-11-27 15:00:48 UTC
Moonaura wrote:
Oh dear gods. Its not that it isn't fun, its that you've removed a massive part of player skill and choice in picking the right missile for a fight and basically enforcing only one way of using them. Hit (pray) and run.
In fact the module added *a lot* of player skill to its utilization than it required before.

40s reload need planning, and planning is a good part of player skill.

Landing on grid and farming frigate killmails by pressing F1 was not player skill BTW.
Lara Feng
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#2271 - 2013-11-27 15:07:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Lara Feng
Bouh Revetoile wrote:


Landing on grid and farming frigate killmails by pressing F1 was not player skill BTW.


Landing on grid and killing one frigate before you warp off is though?
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#2272 - 2013-11-27 15:20:20 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
40s reload need planning, and planning is a good part of player skill.
Landing on grid and farming frigate killmails by pressing F1 was not player skill BTW.

Not to diminish what you're saying, but the only planning involves not utilizing the current RLMLs entirely as your primary weapon system. While you can split RLMLs into groups, you're still more or less dealing with a 40-second reload (albeit staggered). The also comes at the expense of a weakened opening volley. Pre-selecting the best ammunition choices is a crapshoot, at best. And if you guesstimate wrong, well...

While you're waiting for the 40-second reload your opponent can continue to deal damage or reload his ASB or AAR while he's given a reprieve. Unless you have another weapon system (such as HMLs or HAMs) that you can continue to apply pressure with or swap ammunition types out.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2273 - 2013-11-27 15:23:31 UTC
For the 5th (?) time, the issue with RLMLs

1) Medium missiles are ....difficult, HAMs aren't as bad as they are made out to be, BUT without a webber and/or pointer, they are terrible against the the same ship classes. Couple this with the speed nerf to the drake, and cyclone being "meh" and Caracal having at best a meh tank and you DON'T have a formula for a short range weapon system. Particularly when you have T1 cruisers with relatively small sigs going over 2000km/s they lose to much damage.

2) Heavy missiles......that is a problem in itself. I'll be the first to admit that a tweek was needed BUT look at the ranges now, a Caracal gives up what 10km range TOTAL with identical fits (besides the launcher) between RLMLs and heavies, heavies don't scratch an interceptor, of even a Dram on afterburner. On a Drake with Rigor AND a Flare you are talking a 139/ms explosion velocity and a 92m radius. So without getting the calculator out you are lossing what a 1/4 to a 1/5 of your damage on an afterburn BATTLESHIP...seriously a battleship......with DUAL application rigging

With a medium weapon system, what does that do against something like a mega that can reach 1200m/s with proper boosts going? At the time that was justified.......then you guys when and added ALL of the damage that you took from Heavies and put it on the medium LR turrets. That was a bit of a head scratcher. So when you have 800DPS Brutix and 500+ DPS Thoraxes (never though I would say that) you act surprised that everyone flocked to Rapids OF COURSE they did they were the only medium missile that didn't require a dedicated support ship to work, and even then that application was niche, a 300 DPS cruiser isn't a huge threat to most other cruisers, but it was workable because it was potent againt frigates.

....now heck with it, I can use a fleet stabber or vaga in the same roll and get 40% more uptime, and that is everything.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#2274 - 2013-11-27 15:30:29 UTC
Well guys, CCP40sec has gone ahead and shown us that he is perfectly willing to disregard any kind of constructive feedback because we're being mean to him. I guess that explains why his mother just called my mother and I'm grounded for forever and ever.
But seriously, "Rise" you just disregarded every single one of the constructive and detailed posts because we called you names. And you wonder why we're calling you names? Your entire approach to this is simple-minded and childish.
You asked for feedback and then disregarded it because it was mean to you. Grow the hell up.
And next time, you don't need to go through all this trouble to tell us to shut up and take what you're going to force on us.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#2275 - 2013-11-27 15:31:30 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
You guys really can't continue to claim I haven't acknowledged your negative feedback.

I first responded to concerns here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3851753#post3851753
then I responded again here after reading more feedback: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3864075#post3864075
and finally I directly commented on the volume of complaints and why I wasn't acting based on them in this post https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3864922#post3864922

Look at the previous page of feedback. Several posts calling me names or talking about ECM, and one post from someone actually using RLML who says they are enjoying them. This is a really good example of how the thread has gone in general and represents why I haven't made big changes so far.

Since launch, I've been continuing to monitor the effect of the rapid missile change through usage metrics, discussion with CSM, conversation with players I know who are using them and using them myself on TQ. I see that some places, especially in this thread, there's a lot of frustration still about the change in general but the majority of it is lacking any substance except for the simple claim that 40 seconds of reload isn't fun.

I'm going to continue to watch this very closely and won't hesitate to make changes if I'm convinced (or others in my department) are convinced that they are needed.

edit: I want to add that I hope to never make a big balance change this late in a release cycle again. I felt that it was worth it in this case because rolling out Rapid Heavies with the intention of making a big change to their mechanic shortly after release would be worse than getting them out with the right mechanic and time to tune them if the balance wasn't exactly right. This trickled down to RLML as well. I still think that was the right decision but I want to work to avoid having to do it in the future.
I'd like to pose a challenge to CCP Rise possibly stop the negative feedback..
Considering the 2 main ships that used RLML's before the change, Caracal and Bellicose don't have kinetic bonuses in fact neither of them get a damage bonus at all.
Please find a toon with T2 light missiles and missile support skills to lvl 4 ( the skills many who fly these ships have) take that toon out and run a few lvl 3 missions with it (yes rlm's used to be fitted for PVE).

Then take it into faction warfare, try it using RLML's split (to negate the lengthy reload) and see if you can break the tank on a duel rep incursus with equal skills ( I couldn't on SISI).
Then see how you go vs 2 frigates (quite common for frigate hunters), you have to kill them before they call in friends or die as you are webbed and scrammed, see how long it takes to kill just 1 of them. If you have your launchers split into 2 groups you won't have to worry too much about reload but you also won't have the dps/alpha to kill either of them. If you have the weapons grouped, you may kill 1 of them before having to reload and prepare to read your lossmail.

I know a weapon can't be balanced specifically to suit lower skilled pilots but to take a weapon and make it virtually unusable for a large majority of pilots is also a bit harsh. Not everyone in eve wants to take part in blob fleets, many of us enjoy roaming solo or with 2 or 3 others.

Unless EVE Online is moving away from being a sandbox to a game of blob warfare, ALL styles of play and skill levels should be considered when balancing is done.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#2276 - 2013-11-27 15:38:56 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Unless EVE Online is moving away from being a sandbox to a game of blob warfare, ALL styles of play and skill levels should be considered when balancing is done.

If anything we need to look at changes to revitalize solo gameplay.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2277 - 2013-11-27 15:41:27 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:


Unless EVE Online is moving away from being a sandbox to a game of blob warfare, ALL styles of play and skill levels should be considered when balancing is done.


As a point of order (from a card carrying blobber) I've never seen a rapid caracal in space....a couple cerbs that were primarily being annoying, but not a Caracal.


....Its the small gang/solo types that are screaming the loudest (with reason).
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#2278 - 2013-11-27 15:54:04 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

I also assure you that I am not ignoring negative feedback.


But you are.

Claiming that people dislike the 40 sec reload "because it's not fun" (which isn't really untrue, being combat ineffective against anything that isn't a lone t1 frigate isn't fun.) is ignoring what people are actually saying.

And I don't mean the guys talking about the ammo swapping.

You guys got so hung up on the paper DPS numbers that no one thought about what such a reload does. The only person a 40 second reload creates "options" for is the guy flying against it, because he now has a significant window of opportunity to pump out a serious amount of unanswered damage without having to worry about trying to mitigate yours.

Lastly, these things aren't shield boosters, staggering them does not help.
Dr Sraggles
The Covenant of Blood
#2279 - 2013-11-27 16:22:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Dr Sraggles
Thanks for replying CCP Rise.

Any forum interaction with the ****tards that play games has got to be with a thick skin. You know how it is with the internet.

Be that as it may in addition to my previous posts I would like to comment on your planned surveillance of "use metrics" as a means of measuring acceptance of the new launchers.

Without knowing precisely how this "use metric" is determined I would still like to offer some user feedback on statistical analysis of such things.

1. Keep in mind that your users are locked into what they can and cannot use based on the number of skill points they have in an area. If you do not have the missile skills to use HAMS or HML instead of RLML you are stuck.

2. If you have trained missiles but have weak gunnery skills you are stuck.

3. If you have trained Caracal but not Vexor you are stuck with using RLML.

etc etc

You see where I am going here? The point is that your "use metrics" may not be able to discern who is using them because they have no choice whatsoever in the matter rather than out of a true preference. The question you should be asking (and may not be able to answer readily) is who is using RLML that has a true *choice* in what launcher/ship/racial cruiser to use? What are the players that have every tool available to them choosing?

Consequently, "use metrics" when one has many captive players due to skill point limitations is very weak statistically and it would take months for the measure of the use of RLMLs to really have statistical significance. It really would take at least how long it is for someone to train another racial cruiser to competency plus a PITA factor. Then they would have a choice and their use or not of RLML would have true statistical significance.

TL;DR There is weak statistical significance to "use metrics" when players have to spend long times to train skills. They are often "locked in" users. Only users with choices are statistically significant when measuring what they choose to use.

Lastly, newblings to PvP or PvE have been locked into these changes and many have been set back weeks to months (by having to retrain) by their lack of viable choice. They are forced to continue using RLML and it is precisely this lack of control and player perceived wastage of time and money that can lead to name calling.

Consequently, I think this was a very poorly thought out introduction for what is often a "newbling" weapons system and one that would be far better as an *addition* to the launcher bag of tricks rather than one that those who have only trained light missiles are forced to use as the alternative....is to lose 2 weeks doing nothing/not having fun getting HAMs up to speed or suffering regular slow LML only on their Caracal or pondering a racial change and being set back months...These dilemmas do not draw or keep players in Eve.

I think what was lost in your calculus is how this blocks or creates a barrier to new Caldari pilots from going missiles as they climb the PvP/PvE and Skill Point ladder. They don't need OP missiles. They need fun, effective game play to really get sucked in. This, is a kick in the nuts.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#2280 - 2013-11-27 16:23:30 UTC
After all the hype about RHMLs got in the immediate days before Rubicon, I can see pushing them back wouldn't have been an option. However, wouldn't it have been possible to launch them with this new mechanic as an experimental sort of thing and leave RLMLs as they are until more data from TQ had come in - and possibly until after a proper and comprehensive missile rebalance? Yes indeed I do keep chanting "missile rebalance" and "fix the ammo" like some kind of mantra, I know.

On the other hand, if someone's comment from another thread is true and most of this rebalancing effort is being done with skirmish links in mind.. isn't the problem the link and not the module or ammo and doesn't rebalancing something to be "good" with the links result in it being "subpar or bad" without those links?