These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Oceanus] Interceptor Updates

First post First post
Author
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#241 - 2014-09-19 12:28:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Altrue
CCP Fozzie wrote:
in Oceanus Light Missile Launchers will have their Rate of Fire decreased by ~6%.


CCP Fozzie wrote:

When we use the word "bonus" in our descriptions, it generally means that the number goes in the direction you want it to go.


By the way, thanks to the context we know that you're nerfing the rate of fire of light missiles, but a rate of fire decrease usually means more dps! Or is it just my bad english?

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

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

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

Charlie Firpol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#242 - 2014-09-19 12:29:40 UTC
Dualprop Med Ancilary Shield Booster Blaster Raptor

Some toys go (poor Crow...) some toys come. The Fozzie gives, the Fozzie takes away.

The Butcher of Black Rise - eve-radio.com

Mizhir
Devara Biotech
#243 - 2014-09-19 12:32:29 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. A few more updates to this plan.

We've added some more powergrid to the Raptor, adjusted the Malediction mass/velocity/inertia so that it performs better when plated or while turning with the prop mod on, and added a touch of speed to the Claw.

OP is updated.


Like the new Malediction. Going to be a kickass trackle ceptor.

Just a question: Is there any reason why the Stiletto can't fit 3 guns? Is the dps really going to be that high if it gets 3 guns instead of split weapon?

❤️️💛💚💙💜

Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#244 - 2014-09-19 12:41:27 UTC
Altrue wrote:
By the way, thanks to the context we know that you're nerfing the rate of fire of light missiles, but a rate of fire decrease usually means more dps! Or is it just my bad english?

Decreasing means nerf. Light missiles specialisation increase RoF. So decreasing it is nerf. Lights needs range reduction not RoF reduction. Duo of Nerf strikes again.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

Steppa Musana
Doomheim
#245 - 2014-09-19 12:46:10 UTC
Mmmm, that tracking bonus on my Ares... I was already loving this ship. Thank you.

Hey guys.

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#246 - 2014-09-19 13:16:41 UTC
so why does the crow get all these special considerations to let it kill people, while the stiletto and ares just do nothing with their highslots?

kill crow please.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#247 - 2014-09-19 13:39:57 UTC  |  Edited by: scorchlikeshiswhiskey
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ynef wrote:

So just to be clear, you should have written "5% reduction to missile explosion radius per level"



When we use the word "bonus" in our descriptions, it generally means that the number goes in the direction Goons want it to go.

Edit for content: I'm anxiously awaiting the revealing of the rationale behind such a substantial nerf to an entire weapon system in the name of balance. I also await, with trepidation, the other changes that lurk in the shadows when CCP starts in on missiles again.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#248 - 2014-09-19 14:20:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronson Hughes
I've had some time to let these changes sink in, and overall I think they're good changes. The Khanid line of ships typically favors short-range missiles, so having the Malediction's RoF bonus only apply to rockets makes perfect sense. I think the changes to the Raptor will go a long way towards making it more viable, and most of the other changes I think are good.

But I think CCP is really breaking things with the Crow. Currently, the Crow can do too much at once with relatively cheap fits, and I agree with CCP that it needs to be toned down a bit. I like the change from missile damage to explosion radius and I think this part of the Crow change will go a long way towards toning it down a good bit from it's current state. But the proposed slot layout changes I think are horrible and really leave the Crow out of place with other 'ceptors, and leave the Caldari 'ceptors out of place with the other races. Here's why.

1. The Crow will be the only "fleet" 'ceptor with 4 high slots. Traditionally, only the "combat" 'ceptors have 4 high slots, whereas the fleet 'ceptors focus more on speed and tackle, not DPS. Increasing the number of weapons, even in the face of losing a damage bonus, is not focusing on speed and tackle.

2. The Crow will be the only 'ceptor with only two low slots period. This puts the Crow in a unique place in that it goes from being able to do everything to not being able to do enough. Speed is life to a 'ceptor, and to a 'ceptor that isn't the fastest of the bunch, only having two lows will cripple it. If it was already the fastest and most nimble 'ceptor, maybe this would be okay, but it's not.

3. What Caldari will end up with is effectively two combat 'ceptors. Even if it fits rockets for defensive use (which is fine for a fleet 'ceptor in my book), the Crow won't be able to maintain the mobility it needs to do it's primary job, which is fleet tackle. On the flip side, the Crow will become an incredible rocket kiter, arguably better at that role than at the fleet tackle role.

4. What happened to CCP's philosophy of making iterative, small changes instead of large ones? This change to the Crow is pretty large as it completely redefines it's strengths and roles.


Please, CCP, don't break the 'ceptor lineup in an attempt to fix one of it's members. Keep the change from damage to application, but for the love of all that is good and holy, please keep the Crow's slot and hardpoint layout the same as they are now.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#249 - 2014-09-19 14:24:59 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
One important module tweak that applies significantly to these ships (we'll be discussing it in more detail in an upcoming module balance blog) is that in Oceanus Light Missile Launchers will have their Rate of Fire decreased by ~6%.

Could you, or anyone else from CCP, please clarify this? Are you decreasing RoF, thus increasing DPS, or increasing RoF, thus decreasing DPS?

Details matter.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#250 - 2014-09-19 14:29:25 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. A few more updates to this plan.

We've added some more powergrid to the Raptor, adjusted the Malediction mass/velocity/inertia so that it performs better when plated or while turning with the prop mod on, and added a touch of speed to the Claw.

OP is updated.



great! That makes MY malediction way more interesting.

Fozzie, woudl you have any info on the general usage of rockets in game? Woudl not be the case that the rocket rebalance have not been enough to bring it on par with the other small weapon systems? Just seeing the general feel of " this is a massive nerf" on the bonus changes for malediction, you can see clearly that rockets are not highly regarded by players.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#251 - 2014-09-19 14:30:14 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
One important module tweak that applies significantly to these ships (we'll be discussing it in more detail in an upcoming module balance blog) is that in Oceanus Light Missile Launchers will have their Rate of Fire decreased by ~6%.

Could you, or anyone else from CCP, please clarify this? Are you decreasing RoF, thus increasing DPS, or increasing RoF, thus decreasing DPS?

Details matter.



If the DECREASE a bonus, they are making it WORSE.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Jaysen Larrisen
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#252 - 2014-09-19 14:50:56 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Altrue wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. A few more updates to this plan.

We've added some more powergrid to the Raptor, adjusted the Malediction mass/velocity/inertia so that it performs better when plated or while turning with the prop mod on, and added a touch of speed to the Claw.

OP is updated.


These are solid choices in my opinion.

Any plans to adress the fact that the missile explosion radius bonus on the crow is not very useful? Turn it into a missile explosion velocity and I can assure you that it would benefit both rockets and light missiles.


Explosion radius is quite valuable on the Crow. Remember that explosion radius bonuses help against fast targets as well, not just against small targets.


Fozzie, I really appreciate you chiming in on this. Honestly, I would rather have either simply lowered the damage bonus or perhaps looked at something similar to the Mordu's Legion line that increases velocity but shortens flight time but not to the same extent you do with that Pirate Faction.

My bigger concern is the slot layout and CPU / Power grid. My rough look at the Crow tells me that we are losing a significant amount of capability by having to make fitting trade offs that are deeper than the other interceptor lines.

I would vastly prefer taking the DPS nerf, staying with 3 highs and retaining the 3rd low slot. It looks like Caldari will have two decent combat frigates (but that's why we have AF's, right?) with these changes but really lack capability in fast tackle / scout role.

"Endless money forms the sinews of War" - Cicero

Biomassed - Dust & EVE Podcast

Twitter - @JaysynLarrissen

Brother Mercury
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#253 - 2014-09-19 15:04:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Brother Mercury
Bronson Hughes wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
One important module tweak that applies significantly to these ships (we'll be discussing it in more detail in an upcoming module balance blog) is that in Oceanus Light Missile Launchers will have their Rate of Fire decreased by ~6%.

Could you, or anyone else from CCP, please clarify this? Are you decreasing RoF, thus increasing DPS, or increasing RoF, thus decreasing DPS?

Details matter.



It's shocking how many people are confused by this, so I will make it clear for everyone:

A DECREASE in the RoF (RATE OF FIRE) means that light missiles will fire volleys slower than they had previously. This unequivocally (without other changes) means a DECREASE in DPS (DAMAGE PER SECOND) as well. It's simple if you think about it; If I was shooting you with a pistol once every 5 seconds, and shot you for 20 seconds I would do 4 bullets worth of damage, but then later if I shoot you once every 10 seconds for the same 20 second period, I'm only doing 2 bullets worth of damage.

SO HERE, Fozzie has said there will be a %6 DECREASE in the RoF, meaning a decrease in overall light missile DPS. In other words, the rate at which every light missile volley is launched is reduced by ~6%. For example, if I had a light missile fitted that is currently firing volleys every 6 seconds, that speed will be decreased by ~6%. Hypothetical Maths: 6 seconds * .06 = .36. So, with the changes, the same launcher will fire every 6.36 seconds now. As a side note, I'm pretty sure this means it will fire every 7 seconds now because of the way the servers work, tick by tick.

And, yes you guessed it, an INCREASE in the RoF of light missiles would mean and INCREASE in DPS (which is NOT the case here).
Aliventi
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#254 - 2014-09-19 15:11:22 UTC
Can you please reconsider making the crow only have 2 lowslots? I was looking at the interceptor lines and this would make the crow the ONLY interceptor that has 2 lows. Low slots matter a lot on intys because you frequently need a MAPC to fit a bit of tank, MWD, and some turrets/launchers. Then you can fit a DC for a touch more tank, and a nano for more speed. Making the crow the only inty not capable of doing this makes the crow go from one of the best interceptors to hands down the worst. I agree that the crow needed a nerf, but this makes it instantly worse as an inty than any other inty available.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#255 - 2014-09-19 15:11:27 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
One important module tweak that applies significantly to these ships (we'll be discussing it in more detail in an upcoming module balance blog) is that in Oceanus Light Missile Launchers will have their Rate of Fire decreased by ~6%.

Could you, or anyone else from CCP, please clarify this? Are you decreasing RoF, thus increasing DPS, or increasing RoF, thus decreasing DPS?

Details matter.



If the DECREASE a bonus, they are making it WORSE.

But this is a change to a module, not a bonus. Everybody has been assuming that it's a nerf to LMLs, but based on a strict interpretation of that CCP Fozzie said, it's a buff.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Brother Mercury
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#256 - 2014-09-19 15:18:19 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
One important module tweak that applies significantly to these ships (we'll be discussing it in more detail in an upcoming module balance blog) is that in Oceanus Light Missile Launchers will have their Rate of Fire decreased by ~6%.

Could you, or anyone else from CCP, please clarify this? Are you decreasing RoF, thus increasing DPS, or increasing RoF, thus decreasing DPS?

Details matter.



If the DECREASE a bonus, they are making it WORSE.

But this is a change to a module, not a bonus. Everybody has been assuming that it's a nerf to LMLs, but based on a strict interpretation of that CCP Fozzie said, it's a buff.



What? Please read my post about 2 slots up.

What do you mean "based on a strict interpretation ... it's a buff" ???

Sir/Madam, think about what you're saying for just a moment. Fozzie says a %6 DECREASE, A DECREASE in the rate of fire. How could you interpret that to mean an increase in damage?

He is saying this: THE RATE OF FIRE IS SLOWING DOWN BY 6 PERCENT ON ALL LIGHT MISSILE LAUNCHERS.

That's it, that's what he's saying. Read my other post above, and you'll realize that this means a decrease in overall light missile launcher damage.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#257 - 2014-09-19 15:19:04 UTC
Brother Mercury wrote:
(well thought-out, if slightly condescending explanation of rate of fire)

If the Rate of Fire statistic as listed in modules was in units of hertz, not seconds, you'd be correct. A decrease in frequency of firing would clearly equate to a decrease in DPS.

However, since the RoF statistic as currently listed in modules is actually a firing delay in seconds, not the rate of fire in hertz, that relationship is reversed.

So this is why I'm asking. Did Fozzie mean that the actual RoF is being decreased, or the module statistic RoF is being decreased? The two would have directly opposite results.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#258 - 2014-09-19 15:19:19 UTC  |  Edited by: scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
One important module tweak that applies significantly to these ships (we'll be discussing it in more detail in an upcoming module balance blog) is that in Oceanus Light Missile Launchers will have their Rate of Fire decreased by ~6%.

Could you, or anyone else from CCP, please clarify this? Are you decreasing RoF, thus increasing DPS, or increasing RoF, thus decreasing DPS?

Details matter.



If the DECREASE a bonus, they are making it WORSE.

But this is a change to a module, not a bonus. Everybody has been assuming that it's a nerf to LMLs, but based on a strict interpretation of that CCP Fozzie said, it's a buff.

Fozzie leaves no room for interpretation of the fact that this is a heavy-handed swing with the nerfbat. A decrease in Rate of Fire correlates to an increase in Cycle Time, and vice versa. A cycle time of 12 seconds means a rate of fire of 5 per minute, if you decrease that rate of fire to 4 per second the cycle time must be 15 seconds. This really can't be made any clearer without using crayons and drawing pictures. Stop being obtuse please.

As for Fozzie, whether these are his changes or not, he is still the face of them and I hold him responsible for the explanation of why such a heavy nerfbatting was required for an entire weapon system instead of particular hulls or ammunition.
Edited for phone spelling fixes
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#259 - 2014-09-19 15:26:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronson Hughes
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Fozzie leaves no room for interpretation of the fact that this is a heavy-handed swing with the nerfbat. A decrease in Rate of Fire correlates to an increase in Cycle Time, and vice versa. A cycle time of 12 seconds means a rate of fire of 5 per minute, if you decrease that rate of fire to 4 per second the cycle time must be 15 seconds. This really can't be made any clearer without using crayons and drawing pictures. Stop being obtuse please.

As for Fozzie, whether these are his changes or not, he is still the face of them and I hold him responsible for the explanation of why such a heavy nerfbatting was required for an entire weapon system instead of particular hulls or ammunition.
Edited for phone spelling fixes

Go look up "Rate of Fire" in any turret. The units are in seconds, indicating that the "Rate of Fire" statistic is a firing delay, not an actual rate of fire.

So, did CCP Fozzie decrease the statistic "Rate of Fire", or decrease the actual rate of fire? The two are directly opposite.

I highly suspect that the firing delay was increased, thus leading to a decrease in DPS, but this issue has come up before when CCP changes the RoF of something and it's not always clear what they're doing.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Brother Mercury
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#260 - 2014-09-19 15:32:25 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Brother Mercury wrote:
(well thought-out, if slightly condescending explanation of rate of fire)

If the Rate of Fire statistic as listed in modules was in units of hertz, not seconds, you'd be correct. A decrease in frequency of firing would clearly equate to a decrease in DPS.

However, since the RoF statistic as currently listed in modules is actually a firing delay in seconds, not the rate of fire in hertz, that relationship is reversed.

So this is why I'm asking. Did Fozzie mean that the actual RoF is being decreased, or the module statistic RoF is being decreased? The two would have directly opposite results.


You're being pedantic.

In real game practical EVE application: he's slowing the frequency of how often the light missiles come out of the launchers, thus reducing DPS.

It's a NERF.

That's it, there's nothing else to it.