Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
13 PagesFirst pagePrevious page111213
 

RLML and HML balance pass

First post First post First post
Author
Spaceship Bebop
#241 - 2017-06-22 20:13:35 UTC
I approve these proposed changes!

The Othrus will be a bit weaker, the Caracal will be more suited to it's cost, and the Scythe Fleet issue will be a bit more attractive to fly.

And perhaps the DRAKE FLEET will make a triumphant return!! Muahahahaha!!


...though the 35s reload time was painful enough already -_-
#242 - 2017-06-22 23:15:25 UTC
I think only the second part whould be applied, so 35s cooldown.
35s is enough to make bad misile selection enough of a pain.

actually, make it 60s. and double the damage of rapid. same overall dps, more selective and "hit and run".
Pandemic Legion
#243 - 2017-06-28 01:26:01 UTC
RIP Bhargest, you are now utterly trash. :(
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#244 - 2017-06-28 11:02:25 UTC
Lelob wrote:
RIP Bhargest, you are now utterly trash. :(


Sold mine ages ago, as soon they posted these terrific ideas... What?
#245 - 2017-07-01 02:35:34 UTC
Quote:
Specifically restricted conduct.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to courteous when disagreeing with others.

In order to maintain an environment where everyone is welcome and discussion flows freely, certain types of conduct are prohibited on the EVE Online forums.


I have removed a thread for the following reason: Personal Attacks
Fidelas Constans
#246 - 2017-07-02 02:52:30 UTC
CCP Foxie......Will this changes be implemented before the AT or by the end of the summer??
C C P Alliance
#247 - 2017-07-05 15:33:16 UTC
To update everyone, this proposal is currently on hold. We will continue to consider the feedback from the community here and determine whether to move forward with this particular proposal or something else.

Either way no changes in this area will be arriving over the summer, so I've changed the title accordingly.

Thanks.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

#248 - 2017-07-05 16:01:14 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
To update everyone, this proposal is currently on hold. We will continue to consider the feedback from the community here and determine whether to move forward with this particular proposal or something else.

Either way no changes in this area will be arriving over the summer, so I've changed the title accordingly.

Thanks.

Avoiding summer clusterf***?

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

Two Maidens One Chalice
#249 - 2017-07-05 16:19:08 UTC
Holy ****, this weren't actually an April fools joke?

Fozzie have you ever actually played this game? You do realise this change would make alot of ships such as the cerb/caracal/orthrus/barghest and pretty much all other rapid launcher based ships complete trash?

I can understand a slight increase to reload time but completely removing the range bonuses? Are you insane?

Also whats the point in even trying to give heavy missiles a damage increase? It wont dig them out of the pit of uselessness they are currently in, they need better damage application, not more raw damage.
#250 - 2017-07-06 07:32:22 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
To update everyone, this proposal is currently on hold. We will continue to consider the feedback from the community here and determine whether to move forward with this particular proposal or something else.

Either way no changes in this area will be arriving over the summer, so I've changed the title accordingly.

Thanks.


Why not just update the test server with this? So we can take common fits and actually put them through their paces?
#251 - 2017-07-06 08:42:54 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
To update everyone, this proposal is currently on hold. We will continue to consider the feedback from the community here and determine whether to move forward with this particular proposal or something else.

Either way no changes in this area will be arriving over the summer, so I've changed the title accordingly.

Thanks.


Why not just update the test server with this? So we can take common fits and actually put them through their paces?


Cause they have listen feedback and won't make this change ?
Gallente Federation
#252 - 2017-07-07 14:45:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Alderson Point
CCP Fozzie wrote:
To update everyone, this proposal is currently on hold. We will continue to consider the feedback from the community here and determine whether to move forward with this particular proposal or something else.

Either way no changes in this area will be arriving over the summer, so I've changed the title accordingly.

Thanks.


I've got to admit, I am relieved by this news, the proposal was not something I would have wanted to see, it didn't address the issues, and it was the wrong solution on top of that.

Hopefully when we restart the discussions, it will start from a place far far away from this proposals starting point.

You might want to consider why People fit these, and whether if the standard launchers were able to be effective, would there any need for rapids to exist at all?
Caldari State
#253 - 2017-07-10 16:52:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Kitty Bear
Alderson Point wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
To update everyone, this proposal is currently on hold. We will continue to consider the feedback from the community here and determine whether to move forward with this particular proposal or something else.

Either way no changes in this area will be arriving over the summer, so I've changed the title accordingly.

Thanks.


I've got to admit, I am relieved by this news, the proposal was not something I would have wanted to see, it didn't address the issues, and it was the wrong solution on top of that.

Hopefully when we restart the discussions, it will start from a place far far away from this proposals starting point.

You might want to consider why People fit these, and whether if the standard launchers were able to be effective, would there any need for rapids to exist at all?


I generally used RLML's on a Gila
They are excellent for taking out small ships, leaving my drones to concentrate on the larger ships
I used RHML's on the RS for the same reason.
Even with several application mods and rigs, cruise missiles are not very effective against smaller (s/m) ships

I don't have an issue with current reload times, nor do I expect to have 1 with slower reloads (it will be mostly somewhere around how it used to be before they got a buff anyway)



As both systems utilise smaller ammunition loads, with a corresponding reduction in range, I found my self using a more brawler based approach which I found to be more engaging than sniping from extreme ranges. (this is the why)


The proposed reversion on the old HML nerf is good news, the original problem with them was their range and not the damage they could do.



My observations/thoughts on the 2 weapon systems
RLML - A system that launches small missiles designed to be used on Medium (C/BC) sized hulls
Effective range shout NOT outstrip the maximum effective range of the standard small launchers equipped on small (F/D) ships
Fitting requirements should be much higher than for a standard small launcher, but may be a little lower than for a standard medium launcher.
Maximum effective damage should be higher than a standard small launcher, but less than a standard medium launcher.

Using the RLML on a cruiser or BC should mean the player making a choice between having longer range and higher damage against m/l targets with poor performance against small (F/D) targets, or poor performance against m/l targets and improved application against small targets with a shorter effective engagement range.

For the RHML the same general concepts apply (and it saves me typing almost identical stuff :D)
Project.Mayhem.
#254 - 2017-07-13 09:32:36 UTC
Kitty Bear wrote:
Alderson Point wrote:

I've got to admit, I am relieved by this news, the proposal was not something I would have wanted to see, it didn't address the issues, and it was the wrong solution on top of that.

Hopefully when we restart the discussions, it will start from a place far far away from this proposals starting point.

You might want to consider why People fit these, and whether if the standard launchers were able to be effective, would there any need for rapids to exist at all?


I generally used RLML's on a Gila
They are excellent for taking out small ships, leaving my drones to concentrate on the larger ships
I used RHML's on the RS for the same reason.
Even with several application mods and rigs, cruise missiles are not very effective against smaller (s/m) ships

I don't have an issue with current reload times, nor do I expect to have 1 with slower reloads (it will be mostly somewhere around how it used to be before they got a buff anyway)



As both systems utilise smaller ammunition loads, with a corresponding reduction in range, I found my self using a more brawler based approach which I found to be more engaging than sniping from extreme ranges. (this is the why)


The proposed reversion on the old HML nerf is good news, the original problem with them was their range and not the damage they could do.



My observations/thoughts on the 2 weapon systems
RLML - A system that launches small missiles designed to be used on Medium (C/BC) sized hulls
Effective range shout NOT outstrip the maximum effective range of the standard small launchers equipped on small (F/D) ships
Fitting requirements should be much higher than for a standard small launcher, but may be a little lower than for a standard medium launcher.
Maximum effective damage should be higher than a standard small launcher, but less than a standard medium launcher.

Using the RLML on a cruiser or BC should mean the player making a choice between having longer range and higher damage against m/l targets with poor performance against small (F/D) targets, or poor performance against m/l targets and improved application against small targets with a shorter effective engagement range.

For the RHML the same general concepts apply (and it saves me typing almost identical stuff :D)


Or just give back the old stats before burst/reload thinngy!!!

NCPL (Necromonger of new Eden) will make EVE great again!

Spaceship Bebop
#255 - 2017-07-19 16:38:13 UTC  |  Edited by: ivona fly
Light missile: a missile tuned to cause maximum damage to smaller ships

Give it a bonus vs smaller ships, reduce its overall damage. then caracal / cerb still have role, frigates can still use them etc.

make the rage ones have longer reload
13 PagesFirst pagePrevious page111213
Forum Jump