These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#1041 - 2013-11-12 16:18:17 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
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).


that would be a way to fix that abuse then.

i just wonder if its that easy to program that change

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Urkhan Law
Black Rebel Rifter Club
The Devil's Tattoo
#1042 - 2013-11-12 16:22:03 UTC
Michael Harari wrote:
peaking of me being wrong, CCP has revised the stabber, >>> rifter <<< and asbs after release.

That means that In 1 year they will change the 40 sec reload timer to 39 and gives +1 missile to the launchers? Big smile
Sorry couldn't resist, I really shouldn't post, no experience with RMLs what so ever.
And Rise, you already set your mind and will go forward because the HUGE negative feedback you got in a MMO forum is disorganized? Really?

OBS: Changes are good, they keep the game moving, but you guys are doing so many of them, and so fast, that you should drop the line "if it's not ok will fix it later", because honestly, you don't have time, and you really should try to *make time for it*.
Chessur
Fweddit
Free Range Chikuns
#1043 - 2013-11-12 16:28:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Chessur
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.


Here is a very consise, and point by point explination:

1. RLMLs see proliferation because of the fact that HML's and HAM's are simply not usable in cruiser vs cruiser combat. HML's and HAM's need a re work, or the need to be looked at. They have horrible damage application ratios, with out the help of dedicated TP or webbing ships.

2. RLMLs are being pushed through too quickly, with no play testing. Using TQ as your 'test' server is a bad design philosophy.

3. Rise, you are not responding to our concerns in this thread, and instead are speaking with, and coming to conclusions with groups of people that have much less experience in regards to these weapon systems, than the arugments posted here.

4. 40 seconds is an eternity during combat. Considering the increased warp speed of fast tackle, you will have a much harder time running from a blob that employs a large amount of fast tackle. This 40 second delay will hinder your escape, and it will also destroy your ability to adapt to a changing PvP environemnt. This limites choices, and creates stale gameplay

5. You have not shown us your metrics, or data that you are somehow reading that is telling you about the use for HMLs / HAMs.

6. You are releasing a weapon system on to TQ, and fully admit that the inability to swap ammo- is a problem and will be looked at. You are delivering a half finished product, and this is disturbing.

7. Many people are concerned because of all the time, and SP wasted into missiles.

Off the top of my head i am not longer flying:

Drake

Drake Navy Issue

Caracal

Caracal Navy

Scythe Fleet

Osprey Navy

Tengu

Cerberus

Sacrilage

Cyclone

Bellicose

Nighthawk



That is a long list of ships, hit hard by the HAM, HML and RLM nerf. I feel cheated that all of the SP I have sunk into missiles, is now only relevant in Rockets / LML / Cruise Phoons / Torp Bombers.
Baron' Soontir Fel
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1044 - 2013-11-12 16:33:34 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:

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


Nobody is arguing about the mechanic. People are 'mainly' complaining about the loss of switching damage types, the DPS loss, and the 40 second reload.

Switching ammo types is a large problem. Retribution jumps into you, and you have explosive ammo loaded. You're screwed. You don't have time to change ammo, and because he can easily tank and tackle you, your only option is to run.

DPS loss - This is a MAJOR change. 20% sustained DPS loss over a 90second period. Think about how long most fights are, and think about putting out 20% less DPS over the entire fight. If the burst damage was sustained for longer it would be fine, but it's terrible atm. The burst damage isn't even strong enough to kill a MWD'ing Interceptor (which will be highly prevalent after Rubicon). And you're dead after he tackles you. Also.. Cerb with LML is stronger than a Cerb with RLML? What other crusier weapon in the game has worse DPS than it's frigate variant?

40 second reload - Nobody wants to be useless in a fight. Think about how much frustration ECM causes. Now think of self-inflicted ECM that lasts 4x as long. Or in TiDi, think about sitting around for 7 minutes while you watch your reload timer. I'll go fire my missiles, then go eat a sandwhich, come back and I still won't be able to fire again.
Ghost Phius
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#1045 - 2013-11-12 16:44:50 UTC
So now we get CCP Rise trying to explain this away and trying to convince us that 40 second reload time is good and makes all the sense in the world.....Roll

No a search for a game mechanic where one is NOT needed does not make any sense, nor does the actual suggested reload time in combat of 40 seconds.

Hey CCP this is where the saying (KISS)Keep It Simple Stupid comes from.Shocked
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1046 - 2013-11-12 16:50:37 UTC
Baron' Soontir Fel wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

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


Nobody is arguing about the mechanic. People are 'mainly' complaining about the loss of switching damage types, the DPS loss, and the 40 second reload.

Switching ammo types is a large problem. Retribution jumps into you, and you have explosive ammo loaded. You're screwed. You don't have time to change ammo, and because he can easily tank and tackle you, your only option is to run.

DPS loss - This is a MAJOR change. 20% sustained DPS loss over a 90second period. Think about how long most fights are, and think about putting out 20% less DPS over the entire fight. If the burst damage was sustained for longer it would be fine, but it's terrible atm. The burst damage isn't even strong enough to kill a MWD'ing Interceptor (which will be highly prevalent after Rubicon). And you're dead after he tackles you. Also.. Cerb with LML is stronger than a Cerb with RLML? What other crusier weapon in the game has worse DPS than it's frigate variant?

40 second reload - Nobody wants to be useless in a fight. Think about how much frustration ECM causes. Now think of self-inflicted ECM that lasts 4x as long. Or in TiDi, think about sitting around for 7 minutes while you watch your reload timer. I'll go fire my missiles, then go eat a sandwhich, come back and I still won't be able to fire again.


They agree that changing ammo types is an issue that will be addressed.

A loss in DPS "is" going to happen one way or another for these launchers. Doing it this way you get a short period of heightened damage to work with instead of just a nerf to damage. Personally, I prefer the heightened short term damage as it gives me some very interesting options. If you prefer a straight up nerf instead that is your prerogative.

Also, using your logic, Arty would be a vastly inferior weapons system that nobody would ever use simply because it's DPS is inferior to other weapons systems. Obviously, used properly, this is not the case.

40 seconds is an interesting amount of time to work with actually. I sincerely doubt that most people are going to sit around waiting for 40 seconds waiting to do something to benefit their situation, no more than they sit around waiting for an ASB to reload. Smile If you can't kite, warp out and reposition. 40 seconds is actually about right for that type of maneuvering in a cruiser or BS.

As I said, there is definitely some room for fiddling with the numbers (ROF, ammo capacity, reload timer). I personally don't have an objection either way if the decision were made to wait until the next point release. But most of the objections being raised are based in very 2 dimensional thinking and trying to shoe horn this into current gang comps and tactics... which is not playing to it's strengths very well. There are other methodologies, tried and true, that will compliment this weapons systems strengths quite nicely.

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

Sven Viko VIkolander
Allemannsrett
#1047 - 2013-11-12 16:53:52 UTC
I don't know if I speak for a lot of people, but I would really like this change if I had the option with my RMLs to either use v1 (perhaps with a slight dps nerf) or v2. There are some situations in which going into a fight I would want v2 RMLs set, but there are far, far more situations in which I'd rather have v1 even with a DPS nerf. So, Rise, if the goal is to add tactical choices to differentiate weapon systems, then why not add options?
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1048 - 2013-11-12 16:57:45 UTC
I'm not where I can check at the moment, but I believe a look should be given to the missile bonuses of a few ships to with these changes in mind.

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

Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
#1049 - 2013-11-12 17:06:47 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 don't see where any feedback has been taken into consideration, show us the TQ metrics you based all this on and show us the feedback you're using. If you can't show internal feedback, then get them to come post here.
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#1050 - 2013-11-12 17:11:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
CCP Rise wrote:
I'd like to have a conversation internally about missiles as a whole and figure out where we stand. Maybe there is some more changes needed and I'd like to look into that.

Low/passive modules and mid/active script-able modules affecting missile damage application and/or projection (or add effect to TE/TC), new e-war module that will affect missiles same way TDs affect turrets (or just include that effect into TDs). This will give same tank-or-application and damage-or-application choice turret users currently have for missile users, missile dreads might become useful (heresy!) on par with tracking dreads, more rig choices for long and short range missile systems aside from rigor+rigor+flare or speed+speed+time.
You promised these changes quite a long time ago.

While you are at it make TP a high-slot module as there are not enough "utilities" to use with utility slots you put everywhere and only then look for a way to balance missiles.

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.

Qaidan Alenko
Eezo-Lution Inc.
#1051 - 2013-11-12 17:18:14 UTC
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:
I don't know if I speak for a lot of people, but I would really like this change if I had the option with my RMLs to either use v1 (perhaps with a slight dps nerf) or v2. There are some situations in which going into a fight I would want v2 RMLs set, but there are far, far more situations in which I'd rather have v1 even with a DPS nerf. So, Rise, if the goal is to add tactical choices to differentiate weapon systems, then why not add options?

Scripts... Could that be the answer?
Go ahead... Get your Wham on!!!
Chris Winter
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#1052 - 2013-11-12 17:35:14 UTC
Why even bother asking for feedback if you're just going to ignore it all?

Why exactly do RLMLs need to be changed? Currently they do less damage with better application than HAMs or HMLs. Seems to me that's how it should work...

Entirely unrelated: will "overloaded" RLMLs be usable in the next alliance tournament?
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#1053 - 2013-11-12 17:36:02 UTC
Chris Winter wrote:

Entirely unrelated: will "overloaded" RLMLs be usable in the next alliance tournament?


Presumably not, based on ASB precedent
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#1054 - 2013-11-12 17:41:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Altrue
Qaidan Alenko wrote:
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:
I don't know if I speak for a lot of people, but I would really like this change if I had the option with my RMLs to either use v1 (perhaps with a slight dps nerf) or v2. There are some situations in which going into a fight I would want v2 RMLs set, but there are far, far more situations in which I'd rather have v1 even with a DPS nerf. So, Rise, if the goal is to add tactical choices to differentiate weapon systems, then why not add options?

Scripts... Could that be the answer?


Precisely !

People are disapproving the change because even if the burst mechanic is interesting, it also means almost certain death in other situations (Yes there is still an average dps, but missiles are already weak on paper dps and highly susceptible to speed and radius in terms of damage reduction).

The solution of a script would be more than reasonable, creating a new gameplay without affecting the current mechanic. If a nerf is needed concerning RLMLs in the way they work against other targets, it shall be done by other ways than giving the module a 40seconds reload time, because it greatly incapacitates a fleet that would need to wait 40seconds for one member reloading before unleashing the dps, and because it greatly impairs PvE with these modules, a point that is ignored currently. (no burst dps needed in pve, waiste of time if you have to reload for 40 seconds to kill one weak ship)


So what's bad ?

1- The proposed mechanic adresses the concerns about RLMLs and RHMLs the same way, whereas these concerns are actually entierly different. (You may take down a frigate without reloading, but not a battlecruiser...) Also, I don't think RLMLs needed a nerf in the first place. Neither RHMLs as demonstrated in TMCs post about the first iteration.

2- This is even more frustrating that it prevents BS missile platforms from finally finding a weapon against smaller targets.

3- The proposed mechanic helps killing things that were already killable, and prevents killing things that were already hard to kill with this weapon system, thus increasing the inbalance between the two situations, increasing frustration for frigate pilots and increasing frustration for cruiser pilots when they die because of the reload time. (BTW that's exactly why ECM is bad, because it is frustrating for both opponents)

4- The proposed mechanic further impairs caldaris that are limited in damage type (which is frustrating since they are the missile race) by giving them a longer reload time in the already rare situations when they must switch.

5- PvE almost impossible with these things.

6- Wasting time rebalancing tiny bits of missiles where the missile system as a whole needs to be redone, is pointless.

CCP RIse, I hope that this way the feedback is clearer because I can't find a best way to deliver it.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

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

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

Pertuabo Enkidgan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1055 - 2013-11-12 17:43:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Pertuabo Enkidgan
CCP Rise wrote:
, but we spent weeks talking


Why didn't you made this thread weeks or months ago? How long were the CSM aware of this?
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
#1056 - 2013-11-12 17:45:40 UTC
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
I'd like to have a conversation internally about missiles as a whole and figure out where we stand. Maybe there is some more changes needed and I'd like to look into that.

Low/passive modules and mid/active script-able modules affecting missile damage application and/or projection (or add effect to TE/TC), new e-war module that will affect missiles same way TDs affect turrets (or just include that effect into TDs). This will give same tank-or-application and damage-or-application choice turret users currently have for missile users, missile dreads might become useful (heresy!) on par with tracking dreads, more rig choices for long and short range missile systems aside from rigor+rigor+flare or speed+speed+time.
You promised these changes quite a long time ago.

While you are at it make TP a high-slot module as there are not enough "utilities" to use with utility slots you put everywhere and only then look for a way to balance missiles.



A new module that counters missiles would be interesting and workable, adding it to the current TD's would simply make TD the overwhelming choice for ewar (that's another thread entirely and has been visited already last winter).

But seriously, nerf the old launchers some and put the new ones in as another weapons system.

As for why we're stuck with this load of crap going live is simply because it's already been submitted to the upcoming TQ build as a finished product and it can't be removed apparently.

It isn't going to get revisited and we know it, just like industrial implants were going to work (and still don't), Tech 3 battlecruisers and BS's were going to be released, POS's were going to get reworked and a whole crapload of SOON™ projects that never happened and will not.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1057 - 2013-11-12 17:55:34 UTC
So nothing about fixing light missiles at all? It's pretty silly to be 'balancing' the launchers around an overpowered charge. If you fixed LMs, you'd be fixing about 5 overpowered kiting frigates, and then if RLMLs are still too good, you could take another look at them afterward.
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#1058 - 2013-11-12 17:57:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Mhari Dson wrote:
A new module that counters missiles would be interesting and workable, adding it to the current TD's would simply make TD the overwhelming choice for ewar (that's another thread entirely and has been visited already last winter).

SD affects all ships, ECM affects all ships, TP while not really e-war but affects all ships, neuts, webs, scrams - all affect all ships. Only TD is a special snowflake. It wont be OP if changing mode/scripts from turrets to missiles will take some time.

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.

Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
#1059 - 2013-11-12 17:58:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Mhari Dson
And is this seriously a joke? Finally someone puts the V2 update onto sisi and all weapon ammo and skill infocards are blank on the server.

What is the coverup now?


Nevermind, not worth trying to give feedback since it doesn't matter if it's on a CCP sponsored venue.
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
#1060 - 2013-11-12 18:09:50 UTC
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:
Mhari Dson wrote:
A new module that counters missiles would be interesting and workable, adding it to the current TD's would simply make TD the overwhelming choice for ewar (that's another thread entirely and has been visited already last winter).

SD affects all ships, ECM affects all ships, TP while not really e-war but affects all ships, neuts, webs, scrams - all affect all ships. Only TD is a special snowflake. It wont be OP if changing mode/scripts from turrets to missiles will take some time.



Scripts have the same reload timer as lasers currently, I could agree with a short reload to change scripts.