Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Tiberizzle
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
157
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 16:20:51 -
[31] - Quote
tfw fozzie is such an awful game designer you can't decide if it's an april fools post or not |
Querns
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2838
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 16:34:42 -
[32] - Quote
Re: the Orthrus and Barghest, does the removal of the range bonus to these ships also remove a range malus? The Mordu's Legion ships have both a bonus and a malus (that averages to a net bonus.) Removing just the bonus would be sort of weird.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Hendrink Collie
Contra Ratio DARKNESS.
108
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 16:45:06 -
[33] - Quote
Man... all this salt on the thread. He asked for feedback, not 'lol ur dumb'. Anyways.
Quote:Increase Rapid Light and Rapid Heavy launcher reload time from 35s to 40s
I'm actually ok with this change tbh. I love the bursting nature of the rapid line and this particular nerf wouldn't hurt the feel of the weapon system.
Quote:Change ship missile range bonuses to not apply to undersize missiles
This one I disagree with completely. The missile range bonus tied along with the burst nature of the rapid line defines a lot of those ships. Now it is possible there are other buffs etc etc that we have not seen yet related to these hulls, but as of now... I'm not a fan. Perhaps concentrate more on nerfing the particular problem ships in this case, not the particular missile bonus. Or just increase the PG requirements of the launchers a bit.
Quote:Increase all Heavy Missile damage by 5.6%
I'd prefer a slight application bonus buff, but for mid-sized gangs and larger that can spare TPs, this particular buff is going to be sexy for cerbs, tengus, etc.
|
Lucius Kalari
Mass Collapse It Must Be Jelly Cause Jam Don't Shake
44
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 16:45:51 -
[34] - Quote
If it isnt a ruse, can you go one step further and remove wolf rayet effect from light missiles please. Things like cerb fleets with rapid lights are aids to fight. |
FeistyOne
13. Enigma Project
13
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 16:54:38 -
[35] - Quote
Lucius Kalari wrote:If it isnt a ruse, can you go one step further and remove wolf rayet effect from light missiles please. Things like cerb fleets with rapid lights are aids to fight.
or specifically, the RLML's in a wolf Rayet :) |
Sven Viko VIkolander
Friends and Feminists
387
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 17:01:10 -
[36] - Quote
Quote:The goal of these changes is to help improve the balance between the cruiser-sized missile systems and make the choice of what missiles to fit more interesting. We have also been hearing from you folks that Rapid Light Missiles are continuing to feel quite oppressive in their extremely strong combination of burst dps, range and application.
I'd like to hear more about what your goals are with this balance change, because they seem at odds with what I've heard from many players and think myself.
The main problem with RLMLs in solo, small gang, and fleets alike is that due to a combination of good application, burst damage and low fitting cost, they make obsolete virtually all other anti-support cruisers, and even beat many brawling cruisers in a fight starting at zero. Due to the combination of good application, burst damage and low fitting cost, they also make many other medium sized weapon systems largely obsolete: HMLs, HAMs, and in many situations rails, arty, and ACs.
The solution, then, is to nerf/tweak one or more of their application, burst damage and low fitting cost. Application is built into the fact that they are light missiles and anti-support, so that seems fine to stay. However, that means RLML burst or fitting needs nerfing (as many have suggested in the thread, blogs, other posts, etc.). Instead, though, you've kept burst and fitting the same and have hurt sustained DPS (which wasn't ever an issue), missing the entire point of why RLMLs are oppressive and limit fitting options.
I'd suggestion going back to the drawing board and either taking Suitonia's advice for lowering both reload time and clip size to lower burst DPS or (/and) nerfing the fittings of RLMLs so that they are more like fitting HMLs. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1285
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 17:06:36 -
[37] - Quote
I think "anti-support" just means overpowered? |
Trespasser
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
74
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 17:09:09 -
[38] - Quote
this is a good step in the right direction, but i think one of the bigger changes that needs to happen is all missiles ships that have a damage bonus to only one type of damage.. needs to get changed to all damage types
Tengu's a good example, just remove the kinetic only damage bonus and replace it with a normal damage bonus that effects all types.
Also at fanfest you guys said that faction launches and turrets were going to be able to use t2 ammo.. you did it with the capital ship weapons but haven't got around to doing it with subcap weapons.. i think you guys really need to make this happen ASAP! |
Space Captain Austrene
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
211
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 17:15:58 -
[39] - Quote
good jokes mate real funny |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
172
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 17:17:01 -
[40] - Quote
All around good looking tweaks.
Now to brass tacks, when do we get to make Torpedoes Great Again? Maybe bring back the aoe effect, give them 100km range with 10x the speed.
In all seriousness, a bump to range is all they really need. An extra 20km range would do it even with their current application. Though an application bonus wouldn't hurt to bring them more in line comparison wise to what we see with current rapid vs normal missile systems. |
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1285
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 17:22:01 -
[41] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:All around good looking tweaks.
Now to brass tacks, when do we get to make Torpedoes Great Again? Maybe bring back the aoe effect, give them 100km range with 10x the speed.
In all seriousness, a bump to range is all they really need. An extra 20km range would do it even with their current application. Though an application bonus wouldn't hurt to bring them more in line comparison wise to what we see with current rapid vs normal missile systems.
I think the fitting is the main problem with them, they use more than cruise. the range is worse than blasters and makes no sense because it's the same as hams, but if ccp want to make them a proper short range weapon rather than yet another mid range, I'm down |
XJIE6YLLIEK 6OPOgUHCKUU
PEETOOSHKEE PRIMARY OK Scourge.
0
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 17:41:05 -
[42] - Quote
Yuu really should buff HAML damage and HML expl radius before nerfing only viable missle weapon |
Maximus Andendare
The Scope Gallente Federation
927
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 18:00:13 -
[43] - Quote
Taking this at face value, why the continual erosion of the sandbox? Further limiting modules and ship bonuses to certain things really hurts the freedom the sandbox offers. Definitely a step in the wrong direction.
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day.
>> Play Dust 514 FREE! Sign up for exclusive gear today! <<
|
Dorijan
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
101
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 18:14:08 -
[44] - Quote
Ah yes, I see another two years of very minor balance changes to better observe and study the impact on the meta in RLML's future. |
elitatwo
Dicker Quick and Hyde Defense Attorneys O.U.Z.O. Alliance
1696
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 18:26:19 -
[45] - Quote
ISD Max Trix wrote:Having tested these changes out, this seems like a great idea.
I am not sorry, they are not.
Heavy missiles are still the worst kind of weapons in EVE and HAMs being a close second.
Here Fozzie read this:
Heavy missile explosion radius base = 100m
Heavy missile explosion velocity base = 200m/s
Heavy ass missile base explosion radius = 75m
Heavy ass missile base explosion velocity = 250m/s
Medium missiles fixed. What is so damn difficult with that?
Eve Minions is recruiting.
This is the law of ship progression!
Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
|
Gleb Koskov
Hedion University Amarr Empire
16
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 18:31:02 -
[46] - Quote
I receive these changes with open arms, hopefully the rlmls on my stabber won't be affected much. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
821
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 18:33:03 -
[47] - Quote
RLML changes.. ehh, its not fixing the main issue. Their burst damage is oppressive, having a longer reload doesn't solve anything when they have enough damage per magazine to wipe most cruiser sized ships off the field. They are a support weapon/anti-frigate correct? Why should they be able to stomp out cruisers with 1 magazine?
Anyway, this is what i'd suggest for RLML, which goes along with what some others have mentioned.
-Their magazine size needs to be reduced and reload time reduced to compensate, this lowers their damage per magazine, but doesn't really affect the burst damage.
-keep the velocity bonuses to the hulls, but reduce the range of all light missiles. As far as small ship weapons go, light missiles have ******** range anyway. Most small long range weapons max out around 20-30km, not 42km. Reduce their base range and let the hull bonuses still apply, resulting in a net range nerf, but still keeping the flexibility of the hull bonuses.
If caracals didn't have such high damage per magazine, their range wouldn't be a huge issue. From a nullsec or home defense fleet goes, i think them having a good role as anti-support with range does fill some valid roles for groups defending against things like inty fleets or kiting gangs. Doing the other things mentioned here would still allow them the same role, but not make them quite as powerful.
-RLML need higher fittings to balance them out better. Caracals with dual LSE's, invuln, DCU and x3 BCU and shield rigs is stupid. There is no trade-off. Make them sacrifice a rig for a CPU rig, or drop a BCU, or at least meta some mods so they aren't getting max EHP/damage
HML Buff:
Really? Another 5% buff? FIX.THEIR.APPLICATION.
Plus, by buffing HM damage yet again, you're buffing RHML more than the HML themselves.
So, i'll use a HML drake for example, i'm doing about 400dps with 3 BCU and 6 heavies, this bonus will bump that to about 420 dps. Woooo... still terrible application. I'll see maybe a 5 dps increase because it still applies like ass.
Keep in mind, this drake is fit with a Rigor, missile computer and target painter just to apply somewhat decently. Is this your idea of being balanced? I need 3 application mods + crash just so i can apply more than 50% of my damage to anything that isn't a BC or shield tanked cruiser?
Also, 5% buff will do nothing to cruisers that fit HML, doing a pitiful 280-300dps when equipped on most cruisers.
I'd be fine with lower damage, if i didn't need to use 3 slots just for application so they apply. I don't even care if i still had to use 2 slots + crash, or just 2 slots. But tweak their application some. I'm not saying they need to smack frigates out of space with no effort of application, but adjust their application. Let HML synergize with target painters or missile computers, and let HAMs synergize with webs for application by adjusting explo velocity down really low on HAMS and high on HML.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
Make the Muninn great again!
|
Cade Windstalker
1209
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 18:48:24 -
[48] - Quote
Suitonia wrote:Th e problem is the burst damage killing most attack cruisers and similar anti support options while having twice the EHP as those options, please reduce the reload time to 30 seconds but reduce the clip size to 17 instead for T2. This retains almost identical Dps to now but allows ships like the rail Thorax, stabber, omen and other anti support ships to survive a reload.
Also, please, please consider increasing the fittings because the main issue with rapid light ships right now is they can fit absolutely everything with no sacrifice, mid to long cruiser sniper ranges, close range turret burst DPS, with high EHP. Increasing the reload time won't address any of this. Most people ping and reload while in Warp in bigger fights.
I kind of like this approach better, the reload makes them less of a choice in any situation in which... they're already not a great choice.
Yeah, you can never 100% know what you're going to run into on a roam/fleet op, but I don't feel like a longer reload is really going to dissuade people from taking these, or make anyone killed by them feel any better or feel like they were any more survivable. They're still inducing a sort of floor on viable EHP for smaller ships of "Can you survive 1/2/x ships spamming RLML/RHML at you before they have to reload"
The range changes feel better in this regard, but I'm not sure they're really going to have a big impact. Comparing the Caracal (range bonus) to the Caracal Navy Issue (no range bonus) the range on bonused RLMLs is 63.3km at All-5s, which is ridiculous, but the unbonused range is still 42.2km, which is long enough to create a pretty significant bubble of "nope" around one of these ships that most small hulls can't hope to project significant damage into from outside without long-range guns and a fairly specialized fit. For reference the Rifter, which has a Falloff bonus, will still be fighting at Optimal + Falloff if it wants to apply damage from outside the death zone of a Caracal with these changes. That's better than now when it can't even get close, but it's still not great.
In that vein this actually starts to look like something that's mostly going to impact the ability for groups to catch and kill kitey Frigate setups, at least on the RLML side of things. The range is still long enough to wreck most Frigates, so this only really opens up room for a longer range Frig or Destroyer. A burst damage change would need to happen for this to open up room for smaller brawling ships. |
Kines Pavelovna
Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels
9
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 19:00:43 -
[49] - Quote
Application with heavy missiles and HAM's was always the problem not the raw damage. With HAMs on cruisers you need a TP/Web to fully apply and it's just not practical to do that often enough that they'd be competitive. |
Valkin Mordirc
2755
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 19:01:40 -
[50] - Quote
Long reload times shouldn't be the answer,
Long reloads are not fun, they are boring.
Also what Suitonia said, notch the fitting up. I shouldn't be able to fit a 100mn AB , XL-ASB, small neut, and Scram/Point an Orthrus without gimping it. With RLML this is possible.
#DeleteTheWeak
|
|
Justin Cody
Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens
357
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 19:45:04 -
[51] - Quote
I am ok with this. |
Tom Gerard
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1407
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 19:50:22 -
[52] - Quote
I like this idea it would allow us to extract all missile skills without any loss in combat effectiveness.
Missiles are a cancer upon EVE, remove the entire weapon system, after that remove drones for the love of god.
Now with 100% less Troll.
|
Iv d'Este
OEG Freedom Among the Stars
166
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 20:19:59 -
[53] - Quote
Leave the rlm alone. Do not change them. Improve the damage bringing (signature of explosion or explosion speed) on the heavy assault missiles. The problem is not in the RLM but in the absence of choice. Other missiles just do not suit. HAM have no damage in real combat against cruisers. |
Gleb Koskov
Hedion University Amarr Empire
16
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 20:32:28 -
[54] - Quote
It's either this new change or integrating a new family of rapid missiles that feels more balanced, I don't think they have the resources for the latter. |
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
742
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 20:49:53 -
[55] - Quote
Agreed with others, the RLML issue is more the burst damage during the clip, the long reload is almost inconsequential if you delete your target before you ever need to reload. Decreasing clip size so that rapid launchers are still good to delete ships downclass, but not a no-brainer versus same-size or higher opponents, is probably a better idea. It would make same-size missiles a more obvious "sustainable" DPS solution versus downsized missiles as a utility pick.
You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
|
Crimson Draufgange
Black Wolf Syndicate Cosa Nostra.
1072
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 21:00:58 -
[56] - Quote
I would love to see the application of Heavy Assault Missiles buffed. In my opinion, HAMs should be able to apply their damage perfectly to cruiser sized hulls and up, but anything destroyer and below would take considerably less damage from HAMs. Perhaps also tweak the reload times and ammo capacity of HAMs to prevent them from becoming overpowered.
I barely ever see HAMs used in PvP, and would love to see this change.
My Velator is overpowered.
"I use my hairgel to tackle my targets because it has a long lasting firm hold." - Me.
|
michael chasseur
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
93
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 23:07:48 -
[57] - Quote
increase HM damage by 4.20% |
Atomeon
The Scope Gallente Federation
80
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 23:33:17 -
[58] - Quote
If you have to put penalties to make a weapon viable, then the weapon it should'nt exist. Remove Rapids from the game. |
Mr Rive
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
155
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 23:48:47 -
[59] - Quote
So before the changes, the barghest has on faction missile:
30.3km on siege missiles 94.3km on rapid heavies 222km on cruise missiles
After the changes, the bargest will have on faction missiles: 30.3km on siege missiles. 62.9km on rapid heavies. 222km on cruise missiles.
It just highlights the problem with large missile ships all over. They just dont have a decent mid-range option. You either go cruise, which hit like garbage on even BC's, OR you go so close range, there is no point in using them in the first place.
Suggestion: Make siege missiles a viable mid-ranged option. Why on earth siege missilles are SO short range in the first place is a bit wierd. You're basically incentivising people not to use them because turrets are so much more versatile.
I don't think you are going to get to the core of why missiles need balancing by just looking at heavy missiles tbh. |
Lug Muad'Dib
Wise Humans Sword
57
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 00:20:19 -
[60] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
-keep the velocity bonuses to the hulls, but reduce the range of all light missiles. As far as small ship weapons go, light missiles have ******** range anyway. Most small long range weapons max out around 20-30km, not 42km. Reduce their base range and let the hull bonuses still apply, resulting in a net range nerf, but still keeping the flexibility of the hull bonuses.
You know, missiles flight and target move.. thank for the laugh. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |