Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Kane Fenris
NWP
141
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:53:00 -
[61] - Quote
Vinyl 41 wrote:rly were nerfing TPs now ? is that some sort of a hidden war against pve missle users ?
i too dont like the pve tp nerf the change implies |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
287
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:01:00 -
[62] - Quote
Overheating is something you do situationally, not all the time. When would you ever really, really need to overheat your target painter?
You overheat your point and web to get initial tackle. You overheat your ECM to get that first jam. Overheating your sensor damp or tracking disruptor makes sense. But your TP? No. You just ruined it for the only use it has. |
Dariusz Betonowy
Psychopathic CareBears Hand of Despair
8
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:19:00 -
[63] - Quote
Gah! Another nerf to ratting and PVE in general, if you are going to nerf TP usage in PVE, change the missile application bonus on the Golem to explosion radius, like it's on CNR. |
Jack Miton
Semper Ubi Sub Ubi Unmentionables
2925
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:40:00 -
[64] - Quote
Really dont like this. In particular, TPs are used heavily in PVE when youre never going to heat them so this is a flat nerf to them. Stuck In Here With Me:-á http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/ |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
1773
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:47:00 -
[65] - Quote
Target painters should remain 100% of present effectiveness, but be 90% of present range baseline and 112.5% of present range overheated. I agree they are considerably weaker than webs while doing a broadly similar thing.
The RSD changes will really shake up some nullsec subcapital fights. I'm glad I am not at all invested in the Celestis/meta 4 RSD market at the moment as I feel they will be weaker overall with these changes.
One thing to keep in mind is how stacking penalties magnify the effect of the baseline decrease. In numbers:
Presently - Decreased targetting range 34% on non-bonused ship, 34% * 1.375 = 46.75% on a Celestis, Lachesis or Arazu
One module: Range = (1-0.4675) = 0.5325 x baseline Two modules: Range = (1-0.4675) (1-0.4675*0.87) = (approx) 32% baseline Three modules: Range = (1-0.4675) (1-0.4675*0.87) (1-0.4675*0.57) = approx 24% baseline
New: One module: Range = ~58% baseline Two modules: ~38% baseline Three modules: ~28% baseline
Note that the changes make diminishing returns more significant than before.
Suggestion: Those modules that are subject to diminishing returns should be tested at 95% of present strength baseline, with +15% effectiveness OH'ed. In practice, a -5% penalty will feel like the module is 10% worse anyway. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. EVE's golden rule: Never trust anyone in-game unless you are sleeping with them in real life. Even then, they may only be screwing you to screw you. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
1773
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:52:00 -
[66] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Really dont like this. In particular, TPs are used heavily in PVE when youre never going to heat them so this is a flat nerf to them.
I do PVE (mostly to rebuild sec status) and I most certainly put overheating to use there. It's not uncommon for me to finish a mission with my local repair module 25% heat damaged, my MWD damaged, and my webs damaged or (rarely) burnt out.
Only takes 5 seconds to interact with the station repair interface to repair the damage, so if overheating aggressively can save me more than five seconds (and double-webbing a frigate rat at 12km rather than 10 makes a very big difference to medium blaster damage application) then I will definitely do so.
Really the only reason not to overheat in PVE content is if you want to keep your heat racks at 0 in case of unexpected PVP. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. EVE's golden rule: Never trust anyone in-game unless you are sleeping with them in real life. Even then, they may only be screwing you to screw you. |
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Ace of Spades.
67
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:18:00 -
[67] - Quote
With -10% reduction to TP values, your also making the choice of RLML vs HAM or HML even more abundantly clear: Do not touch them:
A 10% reduction in TP values reduces the damage application of a missile by 5% when overheating it increases the damage application for 4% vs current values. If the TP doesn't get any base reduction, the overheat damage application increases to 8%
For full effect against a target of similar size, you need 2 target painters now to get full effect of sig radius, with the nerf you still need 2 target painters for full effect. With the overheated value, you still need 2 target painters.
So what you are essentially saying, is: We are not changeing in any way shape or form the amount of target painters you need to use in pvp to get your sig radius up in similar sized categories, but we are drasticly reduceing your ability to fight off smaller targets, and were reducing the effectiveness of any missile based shield ship in pve situations.
Currently Rubicon has done this for missile players:
-Remove all practical use of RLML in pve Situations, Makeing the transition from Frigate / Destroyer sized to Cruiser / Battlecruiser size a lot harder. -Increase frustration levels of RLML users in pvp, cause a decline in use of all medium missile launcher ships, while simultaneously making frigate and Destroyer pilots that still encounter a RLML ship, even more pissed, since this change hasn't benefitted them, but made their lives even more miserable. -Made PvE Caldari missile users happy that the Golem Finally is on par or better then a Tengu in PvE -Made PvE Caldari Missile users mad cause they now have to switch from tengu to Golem -Have done absolutly nothing that implies that the missile situations are beeing looked at
And now with the proposed changes your doing the following: -Reduce the damage application for missile users in most situations by 5% -Increase the damage application for gun and drone users in some situations by 15%
|
Yankunytjatjara
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
89
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:21:00 -
[68] - Quote
With the change as it is now frigates will be basically forced to have one a TD: their fights are already like "overheat all the things" by default and TDs compete already with the web on an almost even level. With this move frigs with many mids get a buff, and frigs with few mids a nerf, something that really isn't needed...
Please differentiate between the mods. I don't see the same problem happening for TPs. TDs should get a generic nerf/specialized buff (buffing the bonus of specialized ships perhaps), TPs could actually live with a straight buff. My solo pvp video: Yankunytjude... That attitude! Solo/small gang proposal: Ship Velocity Vectors |
Oxide Ammar
Equilibrium Tech Labs
37
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:36:00 -
[69] - Quote
Even the lower cycle for TP they promised to introduce with rubicon never saw the light till date, and now this ? |
Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci
Umbrarum Paradisi
261
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:44:00 -
[70] - Quote
I like this proposal, but the TP does will not appreciate this nerf- who in PVE overheats? This is a huge hit to Missile users in general, and especially the Golem, if you ask me- leave it be but do the rest of the modules. "A City made of Wood is built in the forest; A City made of Stone is built in the mountains; But a City made of Dreams....is built in heaven."
-Jovian Proverb-á |
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8545
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:04:00 -
[71] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:Even the lower cycle for TP they promised to introduce with rubicon never saw the light till date, and now this ? I don't support the changes either, but you should at least do some extremely basic fact checking so you don't look like an idiot. My EVE Videos |
Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci
Umbrarum Paradisi
262
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:05:00 -
[72] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:Even the lower cycle for TP they promised to introduce with rubicon never saw the light till date, and now this ? They did do it- how do you not notice that? "A City made of Wood is built in the forest; A City made of Stone is built in the mountains; But a City made of Dreams....is built in heaven."
-Jovian Proverb-á |
Landrik Blake
MUSE Rapid Action Team Metaphysical Utopian Society Enterprises
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:14:00 -
[73] - Quote
This is going to cause problems.
TPs are mostly used in PvE over extended periods, so this change is just a nerf to an already underpowered module.
As for the rest... heat on mid racks is already tricky to balance, with prop mods burning out as quick as they do. Forcing a ship to keep their TD or RSD overheated (which is basically what this change means) is just asking for trouble. They're already situational modules that are often better replaced with another web. Why keep them if they're just going to add heat to my mid rack? |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
1773
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:15:00 -
[74] - Quote
The numbers on remote sensor dampeners, redone properly (not just 'in my head' calculations):
4 non-bonused meta 4 sensor dampeners, scripted for range reduction (not really used unbonused but included anyway): - Now: 62.5% decrease in lock range (Decreased by a factor of 2.66) - Post changes: 58% decrease in lock range (Decreased by a factor of 2.38) - Overheated: 66% decrease in lock range (Decreased by a factor of 2.94)
More practical: Celestis with Gallente Cruiser 5, or Arazu, or Lachesis: - Now: 76.8% decrease (Decreased by a factor of 4.31) - Post changes: 72.1% decrease (Decreased by a factor of 3.58) - Overheated: 80.2% decrease (Decreased by a factor of 5.05)
Once more, I am glad that I've not been actively trading these hulls and their relevant modules during this war. As it is, these changes will dramatically cause these modules to fall in effectiveness. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. EVE's golden rule: Never trust anyone in-game unless you are sleeping with them in real life. Even then, they may only be screwing you to screw you. |
I am disposable
Republic University Minmatar Republic
63
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:16:00 -
[75] - Quote
I'm losing all hope in you people. A nerf to TPs? Do you even play your own game? |
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Ace of Spades.
68
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:45:00 -
[76] - Quote
Posted in the Rapid Missile V2 treat, but i think its equally, or perhaps more relevant here as well:
Kesthely wrote:The TP "Buff" in reality is a nerf, since its base value is dropped by 10%.
In any regards, against similar sized (eg medium sized ship with medium sized missile) you still need 2 target painters, and then it doesn't matter if its with the reduced -10%, its current value or its +8% increased value. Overheating in this case has little or no effect.
The difference starts when your trying to shoot smaller stuff (Eg frigates with Heavy missiles) Because of the ratio of Required Sig radius to actual sig radius the +8% of overheated, does little or no effect vs the -10%. In overall use there both aproximatly 1% of current values. So yes, for the duration you can overheat you do 1% more damage application, for all the time that you can't you do 1% less.
Target Painters have a 5 second cycle time. That means that they will have a verry high Heat to duration time, wich fixes the overheat time to a verry limited time.
10 seconds of overheating probably already causes damage to it, 1 minute or more, probably made one or more midslot modules burn out. And thats not even considering overheating with a Mwd, or Point, scram or web next to your target painter.
In effect theres really a verry small margin in PvP where you truelly benefit from overheating it.
So, with that explained, you have the -10% reduced stats while not overheating, combine that with the fact that tracking computers (a gun only module) gets a +15% (Yes double in effect that the actuall targetpainter) bonus while overheating, with no reduction of its base statistics. You get a better value, allowing for more range, or better tracking, outscaleing the gun even more in comparison to missiles, with no drawback.
A last thing to remember is that Tracking Computers in comparison to Target painters have a really long cycle time. This means that they generate relatively low amounts of heat for the duration that there overheating. |
stoicfaux
3836
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 01:53:00 -
[77] - Quote
TPs? Really?
-1
Also, I am beginning to think that the influx of consumables, i.e. deployables, fixing damaged modules, etc., is to drain isk from the economy.
WASABI: -áWarp Speed Module
|
Topher Basquette Dusch-shur
Montana Freedom Fighters
5
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 01:57:00 -
[78] - Quote
I spent about a year working towards the Golem, I am very happy with it right now, please don't make me burn out my shield booster by overheating TPs just so that I can kill frigates with precision ammo.
What if you made the overheating changes to Meta and T2 and excluded faction? That way the cheaper models can me made "better", but people who mission can but faction and be left in piece. |
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
94
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 02:19:00 -
[79] - Quote
Maybe this is the time to consider the weakness of unbonused TPs relative to missiles when compared to webs relative to missiles. TPs are already pretty weak as a form of ewar, they don't need to be nerfed anymore.
Also, please, please CCP take a second look at the golem, its powergrid is far too low and it's the only marauder which still carries an ewar bonus. Don't make us wait years on this. Keeping the ewar bonus on the golem was a mistake that shouldn't take you years to fix. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
291
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 02:24:00 -
[80] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Jack Miton wrote:Really dont like this. In particular, TPs are used heavily in PVE when youre never going to heat them so this is a flat nerf to them. I do PVE (mostly to rebuild sec status) and I most certainly put overheating to use there. It's not uncommon for me to finish a mission with my local repair module 25% heat damaged, my MWD damaged, and my webs damaged or (rarely) burnt out. Only takes 5 seconds to interact with the station repair interface to repair the damage, so if overheating aggressively can save me more than five seconds (and double-webbing a frigate rat at 12km rather than 10 makes a very big difference to medium blaster damage application) then I will definitely do so. Really the only reason not to overheat in PVE content is if you want to keep your heat racks at 0 in case of unexpected PVP.
Overheating your tank makes sense. Overheating your prop mod makes sense. Overheating webs makes sense. Overheating a target painter is pants on head stupid. |
|
I am disposable
Republic University Minmatar Republic
65
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 02:29:00 -
[81] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Jack Miton wrote:Really dont like this. In particular, TPs are used heavily in PVE when youre never going to heat them so this is a flat nerf to them. I do PVE (mostly to rebuild sec status) and I most certainly put overheating to use there. It's not uncommon for me to finish a mission with my local repair module 25% heat damaged, my MWD damaged, and my webs damaged or (rarely) burnt out. Only takes 5 seconds to interact with the station repair interface to repair the damage, so if overheating aggressively can save me more than five seconds (and double-webbing a frigate rat at 12km rather than 10 makes a very big difference to medium blaster damage application) then I will definitely do so. Really the only reason not to overheat in PVE content is if you want to keep your heat racks at 0 in case of unexpected PVP. Overheating your tank makes sense. Overheating your prop mod makes sense. Overheating webs makes sense. Overheating a target painter is pants on head stupid.
QFT |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
1775
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 02:37:00 -
[82] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Jack Miton wrote:Really dont like this. In particular, TPs are used heavily in PVE when youre never going to heat them so this is a flat nerf to them. I do PVE (mostly to rebuild sec status) and I most certainly put overheating to use there. It's not uncommon for me to finish a mission with my local repair module 25% heat damaged, my MWD damaged, and my webs damaged or (rarely) burnt out. Only takes 5 seconds to interact with the station repair interface to repair the damage, so if overheating aggressively can save me more than five seconds (and double-webbing a frigate rat at 12km rather than 10 makes a very big difference to medium blaster damage application) then I will definitely do so. Really the only reason not to overheat in PVE content is if you want to keep your heat racks at 0 in case of unexpected PVP. Overheating your tank makes sense. Overheating your prop mod makes sense. Overheating webs makes sense. Overheating a target painter is pants on head stupid.
If I have a ten second window to apply damage effectively to a target before it's under my guns and I have to use unbonused drones on it, you can bet your bottom dollar I'd overheat the EWAR mod that makes the target (indirectly) take more damage.
That's not pants on head stupid, it's common sense. Just because most PVEers have hardwired into their brains "Overheat only in an emergency" does not mean that is optimal play. For example I overheat armor active hardeners to take pressure of my capacitor when I'm not even close to danger.
Of course you won't OH TPs all the time, but if you have an elite cruiser burning toward you, and you know it will be hard to hit once it gets close, of course you'd OH it for that short window.
Unless CCP go with my suggestion and change the statistic modified by heat on a TP from %sigrad increase to range, then all of this strategy discussion is a moot point. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. EVE's golden rule: Never trust anyone in-game unless you are sleeping with them in real life. Even then, they may only be screwing you to screw you. |
I am disposable
Republic University Minmatar Republic
65
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 03:38:00 -
[83] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Jack Miton wrote:Really dont like this. In particular, TPs are used heavily in PVE when youre never going to heat them so this is a flat nerf to them. I do PVE (mostly to rebuild sec status) and I most certainly put overheating to use there. It's not uncommon for me to finish a mission with my local repair module 25% heat damaged, my MWD damaged, and my webs damaged or (rarely) burnt out. Only takes 5 seconds to interact with the station repair interface to repair the damage, so if overheating aggressively can save me more than five seconds (and double-webbing a frigate rat at 12km rather than 10 makes a very big difference to medium blaster damage application) then I will definitely do so. Really the only reason not to overheat in PVE content is if you want to keep your heat racks at 0 in case of unexpected PVP. Overheating your tank makes sense. Overheating your prop mod makes sense. Overheating webs makes sense. Overheating a target painter is pants on head stupid. If I have a ten second window to apply damage effectively to a target before it's under my guns and I have to use unbonused drones on it, you can bet your bottom dollar I'd overheat the EWAR mod that makes the target (indirectly) take more damage. That's not pants on head stupid, it's common sense. Just because most PVEers have hardwired into their brains "Overheat only in an emergency" does not mean that is optimal play. For example I overheat armor active hardeners to take pressure of my capacitor when I'm not even close to danger. Of course you won't OH TPs all the time, but if you have an elite cruiser burning toward you, and you know it will be hard to hit once it gets close, of course you'd OH it for that short window. Unless CCP go with my suggestion and change the statistic modified by heat on a TP from %sigrad increase to range, then all of this strategy discussion is a moot point.
You use a TP on a turret ship for PVE? Okay...
|
Aglais
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
454
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 03:51:00 -
[84] - Quote
I keep hearing about how missiles are already massively disadvantaged by how weak the target painter is compared to the webifier (and how the webifier completely nullifies most of the advantages missiles have if one chooses to use it).
Why was this necessary? By default, they're now 10% worse than they currently are on TQ? You need to risk breaking them, for a mere 8% improvement over their TQ performance?
Why don't we just turn the Caldari missile lineup into railgun-bonused hybrid turret ships and clip all missile turrets, ammunition and upgrades from the item database. |
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Ace of Spades.
70
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 05:06:00 -
[85] - Quote
In eve, there are a lot of people, each, unique and with opinions and ideas of there own. Often i've read ideas and opinions on the fora that litterly wanted me to pull my hair out.
In this forumtopic, i actually get to smile, that we Eve Online Players for once all have the same opinion, and idea.
So CCP please, confirm that what you claim is still true, that this indeed is a game where the players have input, that you truelly are a games designer that still listens to its backbone of players, wich in unison say:
The base reduction of TP stats is not something thats wanted
|
Meyr
SiN Corp Black Core Alliance
245
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 05:09:00 -
[86] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:TD and SD nerf is fine, TP nerf doesn't really make any sense. If you really think overheated TP would be overpowered with this change then just reduce the overheat gain. People will still use it from time to time even if it's only a 10% gain.
Fozzie, when I'm in complete agreement with James, you have got to admit that you got this one wrong from the start. Reducing the effectiveness of a module that is RARELY used in PVP, which, by itself, should have told you that this was a bad idea, was simply you being too lazy to differentiate Target Painters from other forms of E-War, and painting all of them with the same brush.
Go back and examine loss mails for Minmatar Recons.
How many do you see fitted with a Target Painter, as a percentage? How about the humble Bellicose?
ECM, ECCM, RSD's, SB's, TD's, TC's, yes, the changes to these can be lived with. There's an obvious correlation to all of these. However, if you look at Target Painters, the only E-War module WITHOUT A COUNTER, and see that it's STILL not being used, that right there should tell you that you need to re-examine the strength and effects of this specific type of module. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
297
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 05:20:00 -
[87] - Quote
If target painters stayed at the current effectiveness, but overheating increased the range, that could be at least useful some of the time. I am convinced that CCP is trying to reignite interest in the game by irritating as many people as possible. These collective changes are designed to recreate the stunning success of Incarna and end the stagnation in Eve. Well played, CCP. Well played. |
CW Itovuo
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
13
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 05:23:00 -
[88] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:
So CCP please, confirm that what you claim is still true, that this indeed is a game where the players have input, that you truelly are a games designer that still listens to its backbone of players, wich in unison say:
Check back later... everyone's on vacation (again).
|
Natassia Krasnoo
R3D SHIFT DRACONIAN COVENANT
105
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 05:59:00 -
[89] - Quote
So you want us to try and micro manage more BS than we already have to if we want to get the same result or marginally better than we used to with a TP? I'm not sure what you all are smoking there at CCP but your game already requires oodles of micromanagement, now you want to add more? Not smart...not smart at all.
|
Caljiav Ocanon
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 06:03:00 -
[90] - Quote
I'd really love to be able to overheat my target painter - said no one, ever
Can we just not nerf TPs and say we did?...
The only thing that I would like to see is the cap use between the Meta 4 and Tech II reversed. Then the M4 will be just as effective as the T2 but will use more cap while the advantage for training T2 will be the reduced cap usage. Otherwise they are fine or could even use a slight buff...
Though I fly through the valley of death, I shall fear no evil, for I am aligned to a safespot and warping out. - Me 2013
An engineering flowchart for the fledgling Minmatar pilot. http://i.imgur.com/Ws0m3a6.jpg |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |