Player Features and Ideas Discussion

2 years, and once again - nothing's changed.

You could always ask for something more modest like changing the DRF of some missile types to be less penalising especially against their own weight class of target?

hehe, to be honest, i have no hopes they give 2 cents on what players say;
i'll just get my popcorn and wait for the rage thread when this nerf hit tranq

Just double the missile velocity and remove the flight time for both modules, this makes missiles so much more enjoyable to use

I use 2+ application rigs in PvP all the time.

I have several cerberus laying about with RLML and dual rigor II because they are hilarious to kill interceptors with. Cerbs have the range and tank to get away with it pretty well and it really makes a big, big difference. By the time the first missile hits, another two vollies are in flight and unless he was aligned, they're basically dead. No-one ever expects that amount of damage to come down to a fast target like an inty and with the small gap between rounds landing, it's usually all too late.


Yup, turrets stack, they also do NOT have the application problems missiles have. They are also completely different and that is where these mods went off the rails the minute someone said "BUT MAH TURRETS!!!".



Put it this way - did anyone, ANYONE ever complain that these rigs should have a stacking penalty? Were they overpowered and needed brought into line? Hell no. Not ever.


Just because a questionable system (RHML) on a couple of hulls can make this work is not a good reason to be nerfing everything and everyone who used the rigs. Nor is using "but turrets!!!!" as a reason for changing numbers.

What is a good reason for this would be evidence, some math about things applying too well. A demonstration that a typical hull will be too strong and not using the odd outlier.

There's none of that, there is simply "have some stacking penalties, the turret users got percentile envy, so tough *******. #DealWithIt".

Disappointing doesn't even cover it.

Yet remains an overall nerf which was not remotely needed. No-one ever accused missiles of applying too well with rigs.

And why did we get the nerf? Because :turrets: (that's a **** reason and you know it.) and "feedback" - which I sure as hell can't find and it wasn't this thread. The fact the things need gunnery skills was brought up ages ago but they've only just noticed it in the test server thread (of one page...)

Again, can we expect the missile skills to start to match gunnery ones? They're overshadowed at every turn....of course not.

If it's not a very big deal, why can't it stays as it was before? It's not a big deal anyway right?

"Can I bring my draek?" will be an even better joke so I guess we are not empty handed...

Trajectory analysis. Which also requires gunnery IV.

We pointed it out on page 14 of this thread. After "great feedback", the nerf came on page 16. No mention of shady skill requirements

CCP seemingly didn't know about the bad skill until they got around to this thread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=431553&find=unread which they responded to yesterday - 4-5 or so days after they were first told in the "great feedback thread".

So you'll have to forgive me if I suspect they've ignored a bunch of this feedback.

Maybe they've not, but by gods it looks fairly damning - not even acknowledging it at the same time as the nerf.

While we typically never get a final say in anything eve related(we are not the developers after all) I am concerned with the nature of this thread on a single ground. The lack of direct feedback after the revisions when an obvious and reasoned community response pretty much requires one.


I understand the developer mantra of "sometimes it is wiser to say nothing" when being forced to make a change for the good of a game system. We don't know future plans. Other changes in the pipe might make a visibly terrible change now seem reasonable in 6 months.

However.. In this case this logic no longer applies.

CCP has stated they discussed this with CSMs and players. I do not see the fears presented in reddit or ccps forums. I have not heard of any discussions between people on webshows. There is zero public information to the nature of numbers of these discussions. The modules in question did not even get properly applied to the test server to be tested before being summarily nerfed and additional penalties applied. No public information exists to balance the nature of your actions.

If we were talking about CCP stock purchases the SEC would be crawling up someones rear end about now.

Take 30 minutes. Explain the why.. and if the position is still "deal with it the change will go live" then, as has been told to players before, HTFU and say it.