|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
138
   |
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:04:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:The strength of TEs has been one of the reasons for Minmatar dominance in recent years, as well as contributing to the relative strength of shield tanking over armor tanking
This regarding Minmatar I do not believe is true any longer especially in the rebalanced ship classes and the armour tanking changes have already made armour tanking much more viable.
Seems like a big nerf to Projectiles and Hybrid weapons, not so much for lasers that perhaps will suffer less as they only really benefitted from the optimal and tracking part.
Tracking disruption is still common and when combined with range control has no real module counter even with itGÇÖs recent marginal nerf does this change just not reset the balance? If the issue is between TEGÇÖs and TCGÇÖs (it isnGÇÖt as they do not compete for slots) and the ship has a spare mid then that mid is almost certainly better filled with a tracking Disrupter rather than a Tracking Computer (this is where the real balance issue is) Could a resistance to tracking disruption be factored into TE or TC.
I can understand TE seem overpowered when looking at the fall off in km provided with multiple instances in medium and large turrets but this sort of nerf will hit small turrets very hard and in a class size that does not have room for Tracking Comps in itGÇÖs mids.
Small Neutron Blaster with TE II 3.6+5.7 which when looking at scram range seems balanced. It is important to note that it only provides more DPS projection past 5.7km over fitting a magstab and by changing the stats pretty much as per a T1 TE it will result in around 17% loss in DPS at 9km
Have you considered scaling the bonus with turret sizes i.e leaving the stats alone for small turrets but having a separate set of stats for medium and large turrets (it is at this level that I accept that a ship has the midslots spare for TCGÇÖs), this may better enable you to scale with different weapons combat ranges and the point range they operate in.
Perhaps this is a change to push ships towards long range weapons but these suffer badly with tracking which is only marginally improved by the bonuses in TEGÇÖs and TCGÇÖs.
For me the Problem with TE is not the amounts they provide as single module but: -
The combination of the power level of a few ships i.e. Cynbal and Mach that already have the falloff bonus combined with Barrage. (Perhaps it is this ship bonus that should change)
The stacking penalty on these modules is perhaps not high enough
Skirmish links provide too high a bonus.
CCP Fozzie wrote:Some of you will notice that there are certain imbalances that these changes do not fully rectify (for instance the current strength of light missile speed fits, the slight relative weakness of the Rifter, Breacher and the solo Punisher). We're hoping to smooth out a few of the rough edges via stat changes to the ships themselves, while some others will be addressed via changes to other parts of the metagame.
Do you think this closes or increase the gap in strength of light missile fits and increases the strength dramatically of rocket fits kiting within scram range? |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
138
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:16:00 -
[2] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote:When the Falloff range bonus on TE was introduced, and in that same patch projectile ammo got buffed, it was obvious that it would become silly. Per usual it takes a few years for CCP to catch on but I'm happy it's finally getting addressed. I like this armour buff a lot.
It is not an armour buff; it is a short range weapon nerf, missile buff and the relatively low impact it will have on pulses with scorch will result in even heavier dominance of Amarr resistance based buffer ships in fleets. |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
138
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:17:00 -
[3] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote:Alticus C Bear wrote:Vilnius Zar wrote:When the Falloff range bonus on TE was introduced, and in that same patch projectile ammo got buffed, it was obvious that it would become silly. Per usual it takes a few years for CCP to catch on but I'm happy it's finally getting addressed. I like this armour buff a lot. It is not an armour buff; it is a short range weapon nerf, missile buff and the relatively low impact it will have on pulses with scorch will result in even heavier dominance of Amarr resistance based buffer ships in fleets. Yes it very much is an armour buff, armour tankers can still use TC if needed. More importantly it's a kiting nerf so tankier ships (generally armour tanked ones) will benefit.
Why is it a kiting nerf? Your range is lower their range is lower and they are probably using missiles anyway. |
|
|
| |
|