These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#1021 - 2013-11-12 15:26:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Michael Harari
CCP Rise wrote:
I'm not sure where the idea comes from that this plan came out of thin air in a few days has come from. Yes, it's late in the release cycle, but we spent weeks talking about how to deal with this problem and went through multiple review processes before anything showed up here, just like we do with all changes.

I also assure you that I am not ignoring negative feedback. There are absolutely a lot of people giving that in this thread. In the past when I've gotten negative feedback which is backed with well articulated arguments I don't hesitate to make changes (see industrial rebalance, electronic attack frig rebalance, battleship rebalance), but in this thread the majority of complaint is very disorganized and unhelpful, that's why I'm instead going with the positive feedback coming from the CSM, from our testing and from some posters here.



So, so ignore the disorganized feedback, and instead pay attention to the pages of well thought replies, pages of math and the opinions of the most prominent small gang fcs in the game.

And maybe put changes on sisi instead of deploying right to tq.

Edit: And if you have had this plan and been testing for a while, this thread should have been made weeks ago, and this should have been on sisi with the initial sisi rubicon deployment.
Kristoffon vonDrake
Forceful Resource Acquisition Inc
#1022 - 2013-11-12 15:32:23 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
I also assure you that I am not ignoring negative feedback. There are absolutely a lot of people giving that in this thread.


GUYS GUYS THIS IS CCP RISE RIGHT NOW
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#1023 - 2013-11-12 15:33:08 UTC
Interesting enough if you make ammo switch 10 seconds. What going to stop me from fireing till I have one charge left then switching ammo then switching back?

As that would only take 20 seconds over the 40 you suggest.

Why not just cut the crap and balance for 20 second reload?

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#1024 - 2013-11-12 15:37:30 UTC
"RLMs are too good there is no reason to use any other missile"
"Plenty of people use HMLs, so they are perfectly fine"

WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH EASTASIA
Silvetica Dian
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1025 - 2013-11-12 15:38:51 UTC
Karle Tabot wrote:
Well I was pretty interested in this one thread, and so I have been through almost every post in it twice now. I understand a lot more about the issues now, though do not have the time in game and experience to understand it all completely. There are a couple of things I will take away from this.

Has such a feedback thread in this game actually caused a change before? I cannot say since this is the first one I have followed. It seems from this one that "feedback" threads are likely pretty useless. The decision here was pretty obviously already made when the issue was posted for feedback. No one could read through this thread and objectively and honestly concluded that the positive feedback came anywhere close to the amount of negative feedback. The issue was also posted too late for it to have been so intended, allowing too little time, if the issue were ever truly up for decision.

While I know my time and experience here are too short and little to be sure as to this next conclusion, and what I am saying as to it comes from scattered reading here and elsewhere, and from being in fleets ingame and reading and hearing the comments of others, it sure seems a new player should be clearly warned against spending time training into Caldari. Most of their ships seem to heavily depend on missiles, and it seems pretty clear missiles are an inferior weapon system as far as the other choices, when training times and everything is considered, at least for PVP. For whatever reason, there is a sense that missiles are just not a weapon system that CCP likes itself as much as the others. On my main character I have apparently wasted a lot of my paid for training time in that any idea about "fixing" missiles is always going to be something they do not presently have time for, although they as herein shown always have time to continue to make them less equal.



In all these threads the people that are unhappy post most and when CCP has listened to people whining (cf maurader thread) it turned out what all the people had been yelling for was much much worse than the reasonable ideas that CCP had in the first place and so they changed it back. Not only are they professional devs but they also have a lot of access to data on how fights are being won/lost. If you got everyone in this thread who proclaimed to be elite PVP and asked them to show a fit for ship XYZ and then comment on each others fit then the shouting and calling of bad would be even louder.
Turns out 90% of the people that post in these threads rate their ability far higher than they should .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect this explains why
CCP are thus not listening to numbers on each side but weighting for whether the people posting actually have a clue.

Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1026 - 2013-11-12 15:41:10 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
I'm not sure where the idea comes from that this plan came out of thin air in a few days has come from. Yes, it's late in the release cycle, but we spent weeks talking about how to deal with this problem and went through multiple review processes before anything showed up here, just like we do with all changes.

I also assure you that I am not ignoring negative feedback. There are absolutely a lot of people giving that in this thread. In the past when I've gotten negative feedback which is backed with well articulated arguments I don't hesitate to make changes (see industrial rebalance, electronic attack frig rebalance, battleship rebalance), but in this thread the majority of complaint is very disorganized and unhelpful, that's why I'm instead going with the positive feedback coming from the CSM, from our testing and from some posters here.

That's funny. Let me refresh your memory with the original RHML thread. Well over a solid month with no updates or responses to any of the questions, concerns and suggestions that were posted. Then literally in the span of a weekend everything changes. And I'm just referring to RHMLs - let alone RLMLs. If you indeed 'spent weeks talking about how to deal with this problem', this is completely alien to most of us - since you'll be hard-pressed to find a single, solitary dev update indicating any issues whatsoever.

And saying that the 'majority of complaint is very disorganized and unhelpful' makes one question your reading comprehension skills. It's fairly obvious even to me where the concerns lie. And just to be clear, I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea. Where I have a problem is the extreme late-stage of the game where this is being rolled out regardless. This isn't a personal attack, but the lack of interaction in these two threads speaks volumes.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

HazeInADaze
Safari Hunt Club
Sanctus Cor
#1027 - 2013-11-12 15:42:45 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Quote:
RIP Caracal - You were my first solo cruiser. The first ship that I could fight overwhelming odds in and come out ahead.


Caracals will be incredibly dangerous if this goes through, providing you know when to engage and when to warp out.



It will also be very 1 dimensional and predictable, therefore extremely easy to kill. It won't be able to poke for fear of the reload timer. And HML and HAM fits will still have horrid damage application
and a gimped tank.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1028 - 2013-11-12 15:43:44 UTC
I think this particular image sums it up better than I ever could. Lol
http://johngushue.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451f25369e20120a513810c970b-800wi

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Kaeda Maxwell
Screaming Hayabusa
Neo-Bushido Movement
#1029 - 2013-11-12 15:44:00 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

I also assure you that I am not ignoring negative feedback. There are absolutely a lot of people giving that in this thread. In the past when I've gotten negative feedback which is backed with well articulated arguments I don't hesitate to make changes (see industrial rebalance, electronic attack frig rebalance, battleship rebalance), but in this thread the majority of complaint is very disorganized and unhelpful, that's why I'm instead going with the positive feedback coming from the CSM, from our testing and from some posters here.


First of all the CSM has 1 small gang PvP'er whom to my knowledge doesn't solo and does not fly in lowsec much, so how exactly they are a good group to give representative feedback on the change in that regard eludes me.

Some of the negativity in this thread comes from frustration, you tell us things 'like HM's get used' but is that HM's get used in small gang or does that number include 0.0 caracal fleets? Are the people fitting these able to fit both RLML's T2 and HM T2 (do they have choice)? We can't see the data you're using so if our experience is different from what you calim we'll be naturally inclined to mistrust said data.
Then people like me have asked you several times why you're only touching rapid launchers? Talwars (and Condors and Breachers) with light missiles are also very popular yet these don't need balancing? A strait forward answer as to why that is would provide us some critical insight into your thought process here.
Also why does this apparently have to be in Rubicon 1.0, what is the reasoning behind not giving us time with it on SiSi and waiting for 1.1 before you release them into the game? Who knows people like me and Michael might even come around if it turns out were wrong after all.

And even if the RLML change works out the way you hope it will, despite many of us thinking it won't. RHML's will be a no go on any non-fleet battleships from day one, while a caracal might be able to run a battleship unable to fire for 40 seconds is a tackled and dead battleship. Why pick them ever over precision cruises at that point?
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#1030 - 2013-11-12 15:45:42 UTC
Kaeda Maxwell wrote:
Who knows people like me and Michael might even come around if it turns out were wrong after all.


Speaking of me being wrong, CCP has revised the stabber, rifter and asbs after release.
Major Killz
Tr0pa de elite.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1031 - 2013-11-12 15:46:59 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Chessur wrote:

PS- It is CLEAR to me you don't play the game. And it is clear to most solo / small gang players that you, along with the vast majority of CCP continue to make changes to the PvP landscape, that are un-needed, gimicky, or have no actual relevance on the meta.

Lol, are you aware that CCP Rise is the former Kil2, one of the most renowned solo PVPers of all time?


Most ronowed is a bit of exageration.. famous OK. But we have some genos peopel in this thread that are more renowed and that hate that idea.


Also math is much older and more renowed than any PVPer in this game ever will be.

And I would love to see him do his old streams now in a Rapid launcher caracal with his new rapid missiles.


We are all just posting mathematically supported posts that this will nerf the very small gang style PVP that this expansion says it shoudl promote.



Roll

First of all. There are no "renowned Genos pilots" in this thread at all. There were only 6 Genos pilots off the top of my head that were REALLY GOOD pilots and or THEORY CRAFTERS/INNOVATORS. The rest could be broken down into 2 - 3 that were recruited and really good at an early age ingame (Leeloo comes to mind); another 4 - 5 REALLY GOOD pilots whom already made names for themselves and joined as such (Proz comes to mind). The rest were just rabble and coat tail riding (ok to good pilots). Like most OK or bad pilots who join "ELEET" corporations or alliances they were considered "really good" by outsiders by proximity. Still, Genos was one of the largest concentration of solo pilots in game. Now, most of their really good pilots are inactive or log in from time to time to **** about. With that said, they did not have a monopoly on the REALLY good pilots or just good ones ingame. There are a lot more of them outside of that corporation but many of those interact or have interacted with the Genos.

As for Kill2? His major contribution to EVE Online was his earlier PVP videos and to an ideology that was starting to formulate since I started playing (late 2007 - early 2008). He created or was a major factor in popularizing the term "small gang". Something I'm not even sure I know the meaning of anymore. I'm told 20 pilot fleets are small gang. While I thought 2 - 4 was small gang v0v

Anyways.

Kill2 was not to my mind or from anyone I considered REALLY GOOD a GREAT PILOT, just one of many ok or good ones. He stood out because he made PVP videos. Later, he started doing the "bringing back solo" stuff with Kovorix whom I knew and started interacted with back when he was in Python Cartel with Spector, Jawmare and Helicity (Krov didn't really start soloing until 2 years later I believe).

So, I suppose he should be thanked for his contributions as a player and a pilot. Personally I was never a fan of his, never watched his streams; did watch his old videos when they came out back in 2008. Still, he was never a knowledge base or innovator to already established solo pilots and I'm not a fan of the ideology he help spread. To me you're either a capable solo pilot or you're not. He brought more inclusion to a small community of solo pilots who flew together from time to time by popularizing the term "small gang" and from that also grew a solo pvper ideology. Which is probably why I avoid joining "ELEET" entities. I preferred the small quiet community who did things, made small videos and were ignored by the majority of players.

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ![/u]

Dav Varan
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#1032 - 2013-11-12 15:48:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Dav Varan
CCP Rise wrote:
I'm not sure where the idea comes from that this plan came out of thin air in a few days has come from. Yes, it's late in the release cycle, but we spent weeks talking about how to deal with this problem and went through multiple review processes before anything showed up here, just like we do with all changes.

I also assure you that I am not ignoring negative feedback. There are absolutely a lot of people giving that in this thread. In the past when I've gotten negative feedback which is backed with well articulated arguments I don't hesitate to make changes (see industrial rebalance, electronic attack frig rebalance, battleship rebalance), but in this thread the majority of complaint is very disorganized and unhelpful, that's why I'm instead going with the positive feedback coming from the CSM, from our testing and from some posters here.



So you're only listening to feedback you like ?

If you're having trouble understanding the complaints let me help with some bullet points.

1) Solo missile combat is based around firing the right ammo.

2) Your proposal means it take 40 seconds to change ammo.

Put 1&2 together and you come up with what ?
come on its not rocket science :P
Kane Fenris
NWP
#1033 - 2013-11-12 15:53:41 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
I'm not sure where the idea comes from that this plan came out of thin air in a few days has come from. Yes, it's late in the release cycle, but we spent weeks talking about how to deal with this problem and went through multiple review processes before anything showed up here, just like we do with all changes.

I also assure you that I am not ignoring negative feedback. There are absolutely a lot of people giving that in this thread. In the past when I've gotten negative feedback which is backed with well articulated arguments I don't hesitate to make changes (see industrial rebalance, electronic attack frig rebalance, battleship rebalance), but in this thread the majority of complaint is very disorganized and unhelpful, that's why I'm instead going with the positive feedback coming from the CSM, from our testing and from some posters here.



i seriously think you need a poll function(for devs only) in the forums which allows you to measure feedback in a objective way then you could easily categorize feedback into groups like:

- i like as is
- i like with changes to balance
- i dont like it at all leave as is

this would avoid lots of problems i think you mistake the concerns of the community because of how its voiced.

for my part i think:
- the idea is interesting
- not acceptable in proposed state
- should not be in rubicon 1.0 but developed further and maybe get into 1.1

ps.: as you mentioned bs you ignored nearly all feedback to the tempest because you were sure it was fine.
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
#1034 - 2013-11-12 15:54:20 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Good arguement


This is a fair and fine argument, and the point is perfectly valid except that, cruisers are not as fast as the frigates that RLML are designed to counter, and this also pushes RLML into a very niche style of play, removing the options of playing around with them, in say a brawling context, almost entirely.

Either way, I'd like to try these changes out on Sisi before anything is committed to tranquillity, where my cold hard ISK is basically being used to beta test new mechanics.

"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
#1035 - 2013-11-12 16:04:25 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
I'm not sure where the idea comes from that this plan came out of thin air in a few days has come from. Yes, it's late in the release cycle, but we spent weeks talking about how to deal with this problem and went through multiple review processes before anything showed up here, just like we do with all changes.

I also assure you that I am not ignoring negative feedback. There are absolutely a lot of people giving that in this thread. In the past when I've gotten negative feedback which is backed with well articulated arguments I don't hesitate to make changes (see industrial rebalance, electronic attack frig rebalance, battleship rebalance), but in this thread the majority of complaint is very disorganized and unhelpful, that's why I'm instead going with the positive feedback coming from the CSM, from our testing and from some posters here.



Come on CCP Rise - that is just not true. There are several long, well thought out critical feedback posts in this thread that have been posted. And yes, this is short notice, you might have talked about it for weeks internally, but you're basically giving it to the community, just over a week before release, and now digging your heals in over the people disagreeing with the whole idea. No chance to try it on Sisi and no chance for considered discourse. You posted on Twitter saying you wanted feedback. You got it.

I'm sorry if some personal attacks on you have made this seem like its become a you vs. the mob siege mentality you seem to have adopted, although I thought my cat video was funny Lol, this idea is being rammed down our throats, no matter how you slice and dice it, and you have completely ridden roughshod over anyone disagreeing with your idea - this post from you being the latest!

Take a deep breath. Put it on Sisi and push it to 1.1. Let us try the damn idea out. Then offer feedback.

I pay real money for EVE and fly the ships you're intending to change radically, so please don't be to upset, but quite literally you will be taking ISK out my wallet with this change. But if you don't want to change ideas based on our feedback - don't ask for feedback.

"The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans 

MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#1036 - 2013-11-12 16:06:22 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
I'm not sure where the idea comes from that this plan came out of thin air in a few days has come from. Yes, it's late in the release cycle, but we spent weeks talking about how to deal with this problem and went through multiple review processes before anything showed up here, just like we do with all changes.

I also assure you that I am not ignoring negative feedback. There are absolutely a lot of people giving that in this thread. In the past when I've gotten negative feedback which is backed with well articulated arguments I don't hesitate to make changes (see industrial rebalance, electronic attack frig rebalance, battleship rebalance), but in this thread the majority of complaint is very disorganized and unhelpful, that's why I'm instead going with the positive feedback coming from the CSM, from our testing and from some posters here.



How about this.

You state that the change ammo is a valid point.

lets say you make is so i can switch ammo with a 10 second reload time in 1.1 point.

whats to stop me from shooting till i have one ammo left then switching ammo from caldari navy scurge to guritas scurge.

this would bypass the 40 second reload timer and just make it 10 second.

i think if you have to make so many work arounds for a mechanic it might not be wise to go threw with the idea.

or just admit that 40 second reload is here to stay.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1037 - 2013-11-12 16:09:20 UTC
HazeInADaze wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Quote:
RIP Caracal - You were my first solo cruiser. The first ship that I could fight overwhelming odds in and come out ahead.


Caracals will be incredibly dangerous if this goes through, providing you know when to engage and when to warp out.



It will also be very 1 dimensional and predictable, therefore extremely easy to kill. It won't be able to poke for fear of the reload timer. And HML and HAM fits will still have horrid damage application
and a gimped tank.

How predictable is an arty Tornado? Very.

How effective is it against its chosen targets? Very.

Anything is easy to counter... if you know how and can execute.

What makes a doctrine successful is leveraging your strengths, and not allowing the enemy to capitalize on your weaknesses.

I can think of a dozen different ways to utilize the strengths of the system as it is currently proposed, and I am far from alone in this. Blink While there are several knowledgeable FC's in this thread, there are a LARGE number of other FC's and small gang specialists having completely different conversations outside this thread about this proposed mechanic and how they plan to capitalize on it.

I will agree that the numbers are going to need some fiddling with to get the balance where it needs to be, but the basic mechanic is very sound... and more than a bit clever. Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1038 - 2013-11-12 16:11:41 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
I'm not sure where the idea comes from that this plan came out of thin air in a few days has come from. Yes, it's late in the release cycle, but we spent weeks talking about how to deal with this problem and went through multiple review processes before anything showed up here, just like we do with all changes.

I also assure you that I am not ignoring negative feedback. There are absolutely a lot of people giving that in this thread. In the past when I've gotten negative feedback which is backed with well articulated arguments I don't hesitate to make changes (see industrial rebalance, electronic attack frig rebalance, battleship rebalance), but in this thread the majority of complaint is very disorganized and unhelpful, that's why I'm instead going with the positive feedback coming from the CSM, from our testing and from some posters here.



How about this.

You state that the change ammo is a valid point.

lets say you make is so i can switch ammo with a 10 second reload time in 1.1 point.

whats to stop me from shooting till i have one ammo left then switching ammo from caldari navy scurge to guritas scurge.

this would bypass the 40 second reload timer and just make it 10 second.

i think if you have to make so many work arounds for a mechanic it might not be wise to go threw with the idea.

or just admit that 40 second reload is here to stay.

I believe in that case the "switch ammo" time of 10 seconds would only load the same amount of missiles as what was left in the launcher (in your example it would switch exactly 1 missile).

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Zor'katar
Matari Recreation
#1039 - 2013-11-12 16:13:11 UTC
Now that we're getting longer reload timers for more things, can we change the reload indication to a countdown of some sort? When everything was <= 10 seconds it wasn't a big deal, but with ASBs, MJDs (not exactly a reload, but same principle), the potential new launchers... it's hard to "manage" timers when you have no idea where in the timer you are.
Major Killz
Tr0pa de elite.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1040 - 2013-11-12 16:17:39 UTC
CCP Rise hath spoken! Now. Take your medicine.

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ![/u]