Player Features and Ideas Discussion

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.