These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#1061 - 2013-11-12 18:14:45 UTC
Mhari Dson wrote:
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.


How about a 40s reload time to create tension?
Platypus King
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1062 - 2013-11-12 18:17:24 UTC
The conversation about adding new modules like a TD for missiles is pretty absurd. Please consider that missile damage is hugely related to signature radius. That means there are implants and links readily available to counter missiles. Secondly missiles range is a flight time and velocity equation that is simply (flight time)(velocity)=distance traveled. That equation is also counter able however that is more difficult to do.

It is only fair to keep the idea of new modules that negatively affect missiles in the garbage bin until missiles are given modules to increase velocity/flight time.
Ion Blacknight
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#1063 - 2013-11-12 18:19:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Ion Blacknight
Really? How negative and how overwhelming does the feedback have to be? I am pretty new so I am seeing this with fresh eyes. Now I understand you old bros.

I can't believe my beloved RLM Caracal is gone. Wow.

This way of changing things is not good for the game.

War reports: Blacknight active
Chris Winter
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#1064 - 2013-11-12 18:20:49 UTC
Can we get a list of which CSM members supported this change, so I know who not to vote for?
Ravcharas
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#1065 - 2013-11-12 18:34:29 UTC
Platypus King wrote:
The conversation about adding new modules like a TD for missiles is pretty absurd. Please consider that missile damage is hugely related to signature radius. That means there are implants and links readily available to counter missiles. Secondly missiles range is a flight time and velocity equation that is simply (flight time)(velocity)=distance traveled. That equation is also counter able however that is more difficult to do.

It is only fair to keep the idea of new modules that negatively affect missiles in the garbage bin until missiles are given modules to increase velocity/flight time.

There are rigs and implants for that so you're not left out completely.
FightingMoose
Deep Core Mining Inc.
#1066 - 2013-11-12 18:36:42 UTC
I haven't said anything in this thread yet, and I've been thinking about it for a while. There are a couple issues that I see, and they're all related to timing.


  1. Rise, I agree with you when you say that a lot of the opposition is from the "we don't want to lose our overpowered system" camp, but I think you're failing to recognize that missiles as a whole need a rebalance, and that it might be smart to hold off on knocking RLMLs around until the point of that rebalance. We'd rather you take six months and get a comprehensive solution than rushing small fixes and breaking things.
  2. This was announced way too late in the dev cycle. This is a significant rebalance, and compared to things like the marauders changes, the community was given absolutely no time to respond to it. When the community did respond and pointed out serious problems with ammo types, something you agreed with, rather than holding off on the changes it was decided to push them through anyway, and look for a solution afterwards. This points to some seriously worrisome trends, and angers the player base. Again, take your time and get it right.
  3. Reload time as a dps nerf is something that's never really been done before with maybe bombs as an exception. I think it's a good idea, and I agree that it encourages tactical decision making, but maybe announcing it ten days before it is going to be introduced was a bad idea? Again, timing.
  4. Did I mention that missiles need a serious looking at?


When I was a kid and would screw things up, my dad would always say, "Slow it down, take your time, and do it right." I appreciate CCP's new methodology, lots of new little things every six months that build upon each other. I think it works really well as a whole, but for balancing things like missiles, it would make sense to do it in one fell swoop, with lots of time testing it on SISI.

Proud owner of an Ibis.
Kaeda Maxwell
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#1067 - 2013-11-12 18:47:26 UTC
FightingMoose wrote:
I haven't said anything in this thread yet, and I've been thinking about it for a while. There are a couple issues that I see, and they're all related to timing.


  1. Rise, I agree with you when you say that a lot of the opposition is from the "we don't want to lose our overpowered system" camp, but I think you're failing to recognize that missiles as a whole need a rebalance, and that it might be smart to hold off on knocking RLMLs around until the point of that rebalance. We'd rather you take six months and get a comprehensive solution than rushing small fixes and breaking things.
  2. This was announced way too late in the dev cycle. This is a significant rebalance, and compared to things like the marauders changes, the community was given absolutely no time to respond to it. When the community did respond and pointed out serious problems with ammo types, something you agreed with, rather than holding off on the changes it was decided to push them through anyway, and look for a solution afterwards. This points to some seriously worrisome trends, and angers the player base. Again, take your time and get it right.
  3. Reload time as a dps nerf is something that's never really been done before with maybe bombs as an exception. I think it's a good idea, and I agree that it encourages tactical decision making, but maybe announcing it ten days before it is going to be introduced was a bad idea? Again, timing.
  4. Did I mention that missiles need a serious looking at?


When I was a kid and would screw things up, my dad would always say, "Slow it down, take your time, and do it right." I appreciate CCP's new methodology, lots of new little things every six months that build upon each other. I think it works really well as a whole, but for balancing things like missiles, it would make sense to do it in one fell swoop, with lots of time testing it on SISI.


Yes they told us back when they announced the rocket and T2 ammo re-balance prior to incursions that they didn't want rush such changes without solid testing, then they told us again with hybrid weapons prior to crucible.

Guess they changed that policy. Sad
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#1068 - 2013-11-12 18:52:04 UTC
So, to sum up the last pages, since last Rise post, we have :
- Hell noooooo !
- You noob listen to pro !
- Please take more time !
- It's too soon ! We haven't had time to convert you !
- Don't listen those who make positive feedback, they are big noob !

Did I miss anything ?

Do you seriously think that any of these comment will change his mind ?

All the real concerns have been answers already (if not adressed), and for the most part the concerns for the burst mode (aka 40s reload) is completely ignoring everything the functionality give and focus on the long reload.

Numbers have been brought and Rise have certainly seen them. Try now to guess why instead of being stubborn children from whom the toy have been taken.
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#1069 - 2013-11-12 18:53:41 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
I understand that the current RLML missiles are very strong and you guys like them and that many people would be very unhappy for them to get a significant change regardless of the method we chose. We definitely feel they need a change though. It's a weapon system designed to be best in a particular kind of situation rather than being the best choice for most situations and so one way or another it was going to get tweaked. However, if this change means the system isn't powerful in the situations it's meant for (dunking smaller ships), it will get adjusted until it is. The second part of this topic is whether or not the other medium weapon systems are actually viable. The way players are behaving says they are, but following this release 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.

Well don't listen to the crap about HMLs being bad. They are presently number one on eve-kill for weapons used in kills. They need no buffing. Possibly your nerf didn't go far enough, or it's truly the residue of the Tengu needing it's nerf. Anyway, I'm sure you will have future headaches with potential op missiles once you finally introduce the missile TD/TC/TE modules.

Btw, if you are going to buff the burst damage of RLMLs and new RHMLs then we really need missile TDs in this game. Small ships will basically be flying perma- bent over waiting for the missiles to fly into their exhaust ports.Ugh

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#1070 - 2013-11-12 19:00:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Michael Harari
Deacon Abox wrote:

Well don't listen to the crap about HMLs being bad. They are presently number one on eve-kill for weapons used in kills.


Not only is that not true (they are way behind just 250mm rails), and considering an honest comparison would be HMLs vs medium autocanons, medium blasters, etc, and not HMLs vs 425mm autocannons or 720mm arty, etc, but that statistic has little to no bearing on the claim that HMLs are garbage for small gangs. That statistic is almost entirely nullsec fleets and rvb.
Thaddeus Eggeras
Urkrathos Corp
#1071 - 2013-11-12 19:06:11 UTC
I'm with many others, missiles as a whole need looked at. I don't think any really need nerfed, but the rapids do need adjusted. But it should be held off a till ALL missiles are looked at. I think missiles deserve more options, and it be nice if they got a module to help with velocity and/or flight time.
I do think they need need a better module for defense against them then defnders, smartbomber work too but then no high slots for weapons. I Don't think TDs should be used, but maybe make another module that would effect the missile in flight, like a med or low slot that act somewhat like flares act on planes today. It would give a good defense, and could be a cool effect also.
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
#1072 - 2013-11-12 19:08:02 UTC
Ion Blacknight wrote:
Really? How negative and how overwhelming does the feedback have to be? I am pretty new so I am seeing this with fresh eyes. Now I understand you old bros.

I can't believe my beloved RLM Caracal is gone. Wow.

This way of changing things is not good for the game.


Now you know why anyone who plays eve long enough becomes a bitter vet hahahahaBig smile

"The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans 
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1073 - 2013-11-12 19:22:08 UTC
Hmmmm, seems like a good time to corner the market on small smart bombs that will keep frigs alive from the new RLMLs for 50s or so.... Big smile
Klister Ethelred
Parallax Shift
#1074 - 2013-11-12 19:29:46 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.


There is NO problem. People don't just use RLML boats in combat. There is plenty of diversity out there in the game. Also, using one doesn't guarantee you'll win or live.

Also, even if they did, "if everyone is special, then no one is special." Having everything perfectly balanced would be BORING.

And again, why make fiddly little changes to ships and weapons when there are much larger problems with EVE?

"I'd rather be pissed off then pissed on"

"This is one of those times when it's important to know the difference between 'then' and 'than'."
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1075 - 2013-11-12 19:35:11 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.


Just to let you know -1 + -1 =/= +1

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
#1076 - 2013-11-12 19:42:54 UTC
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:
I'm with many others, missiles as a whole need looked at. I don't think any really need nerfed, but the rapids do need adjusted. But it should be held off a till ALL missiles are looked at. I think missiles deserve more options, and it be nice if they got a module to help with velocity and/or flight time.
I do think they need need a better module for defense against them then defnders, smartbomber work too but then no high slots for weapons. I Don't think TDs should be used, but maybe make another module that would effect the missile in flight, like a med or low slot that act somewhat like flares act on planes today. It would give a good defense, and could be a cool effect also.


I think this is the crux of the issue here, and has been for a long time. Most races who use missiles, tend to be on shield ships, so mid slots are at a premium, so target painting and webs aren't always feasible. In a gang it can be improved by bringing a dedicated target painting ship along, but when it comes to improving missiles, that is basically it.

The missile rigs can offer some improvements, but typically at the cost of a tank module etc, and we finally saw the inclusion of all the missile skills to affect all the missiles - again a big step forward - although medium sized missiles were also nerfed at the same time.

Most gun based ships are armor, and they have more mid slots to use either tracking computers, target painters, webs or e-war etc. So from the get go, gunnery is at a distinct advantage in many respects and can change scripts on the fly, although unlike missiles, gunnery is more vulnerable to eve mechanics and doesn't have the same kiting benefits AND is vulnerable to e-war in ways missiles are not. There was some talk previously of letting tracking disruptors also affect missiles, which is still a possibility, but one that feels misplaced - fixing defender missiles would be a more realistic idea, or some sort of anti missile module.

But I for one, would like the choice to switch out BCU's for a module that improved the mechanics of the missiles being fired, increasing their accuracy or range. This would immediately fix the issue with torpedo's for example, and give more fitting options and immediately increase the variety and types of fits that we see.

When the core mechanics of missile launchers are altered, as we are seeing here, it sets a dangerous precedent. EVE has typically been about offering a certain level of flexibility and customisation. That customisation needs to be increased, not decreased, and more modules that alter the way ships work should be encouraged, rather than changing core weapon modules like the RLML to fix, a perceived problem, that I'm yet to be convinced ever existed.

"The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans 
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#1077 - 2013-11-12 19:51:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Deacon Abox
Michael Harari wrote:
Deacon Abox wrote:

Well don't listen to the crap about HMLs being bad. They are presently number one on eve-kill for weapons used in kills.


Not only is that not true (they are way behind just 250mm rails), and considering an honest comparison would be HMLs vs medium autocanons, medium blasters, etc, and not HMLs vs 425mm autocannons or 720mm arty, etc, but that statistic has little to no bearing on the claim that HMLs are garbage for small gangs. That statistic is almost entirely nullsec fleets and rvb.


My bad, HML II is indeed, second place. However, they are not "way behind" 250mm Railgun IIs. 22k kills v 16k kills means the weapons are being used in relatively similar numbers. "Way behind" would be more like the second place ship being the Ishtar, appearing on 31k kills, but the first place Tengu appearing on 89k kills. Because that is almost a 3 to 1 ratio between the first place ship and the second place ship. Numbers like that are reminiscent of the terrible 3 years of the Drake.

Anyway, my points still stand. HML are not a terrible weapon system. Also, I only fly lowsec small gang pvp. True I don't see much HML use, although some Caracal gangs will use them. But it appears the nullsec Tengu blob only took a brief vacation. And small gangs can't/don't use workarounds to a lack of anti-missile ewar like the smartbombs that nullsec blobs shoehorn into an anti-missile platform.

But then in small gang fighting I really don't see much 250mm Rail use either (probably because, tracking, and oh yeah any tom **** or harry can fit a TD and totally **** them up). I do see quite a lot of use already of RLML use by Caracals, and light missile Talwar blobbage, in addition to the ever present arty and ac of all sizes. Light missiles are by no means in the dumpster. Beam lasers are. But then no one has given a serious **** about them for quite a long time, least of all CCP. And tiericide on the module level seems to be a patchy phenomenon (here's looking at turrets like quad beam lasers and dual 150 rails etc., will their day ever come?).

Missiles appear fine atm. Maybe more than fine. I don't know why they would want to stir the pot on them this way, potentially giving them an op mechanic at least against small ships, while completely ignoring turret inequities. What?

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

X'ret
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1078 - 2013-11-12 19:57:07 UTC  |  Edited by: X'ret
RLML changes now available on Sisi.

Also, at 18th evening, i'll ritually self-destruct my RLML Cerberus, feel free to join! Twisted
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#1079 - 2013-11-12 19:57:47 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
This is definitely the most difficult thread to try and interact with that I've made so far, so please excuse the delay between post if you can find it in your hearts to do so.

I've been discussing the response to this change almost constantly since the thread was posted, both with the CSM and with my fellow designers. I'll cut to the chase and say that the conclusion is to go ahead with the change, with the understanding that it needs to be carefully looked at following release.

It really seems there's two different discussions taking place. One is simply whether or not rapid light missiles deserve a nerf of any kind, and the other is whether or not the proposed mechanic will be fun/powerful.

I understand that the current RLML missiles are very strong and you guys like them and that many people would be very unhappy for them to get a significant change regardless of the method we chose. We definitely feel they need a change though. It's a weapon system designed to be best in a particular kind of situation rather than being the best choice for most situations and so one way or another it was going to get tweaked. However, if this change means the system isn't powerful in the situations it's meant for (dunking smaller ships), it will get adjusted until it is. The second part of this topic is whether or not the other medium weapon systems are actually viable. The way players are behaving says they are, but following this release 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.

As far as the long reload mechanic, the feedback is mixed in this thread and mostly positive elsewhere (CSM, internal development, external forums) from what I can tell. Again, I will say that the concerns about ammo swapping are completely valid and I've talked to my team and we can hopefully address that sometime after Rubicon. Part of the reason I lean towards putting this change in is the common sentiment in most balance threads that homogenization is a big fear among our players. I think favoring new types of interactions rather than adjusting numbers slightly within the same mechanic makes the game more interesting, and everything I've heard from the community points that direction as well (except sometimes when doing something new means changing something old). On top of this, there's no arguing that front-loading damage is powerful. As others have said, artillery is a good example of that. Whether or not it's powerful enough to compensate for the sustained dps nerf is just something we will find out once people get it in their hands.

I think we will come out of this with a very fun pair of weapon systems. If we don't, it will get changed.

PS - saying I don't play the game or use Caracals is completely ridiculous, I think you guys can find more reasonable lines of attack.


Just to be clear, you aren't interacting. You are posting every few days telling us we are wrong and you are right. You don't engage anyone directly and you don't refute the points people are making at all. If you are just going to break...err I mean change things unilaterally why did you start this thread in the first place? You are not getting mixed reactions. Pretty much every veteran player in this thread is telling you your idea is terrible and will render these weapons near useless, and you just talk about other groups liking it, negating our opinions entirely. What external forums are supporting this idea by the way? I really want to see that.
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#1080 - 2013-11-12 20:03:36 UTC
Moonaura wrote:
[quote=Thaddeus Eggeras]
But I for one, would like the choice to switch out BCU's for a module that improved the mechanics of the missiles being fired, increasing their accuracy or range. This would immediately fix the issue with torpedo's for example, and give more fitting options and immediately increase the variety and types of fits that we see.


All they need to do is give BCU's scripts for damage, rate of fire, missile velocity, explosion velocity, and explosion radius. No new module is needed.