|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4555
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:10:00 -
[1] - Quote
Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Got some more Odyssey updates for you all, this time in the form of some module rebalancing! We're going to have a number of module balance changes release in Odyssey on June 4th, and our first batch to announce are the Remote Sensor Boosters and Tracking Enhancers.
Let's start with Remote Sensor Boosters. They give pretty extreme bonuses to scan res at the moment, similar to officer sensor boosters. This has contributed to the growth of instalock camps that are in our opinion a bit too easy nowadays. So we're gonna decrease the scan res bonuses so that they give a solid but more reasonable benefit over local boosters. We're leaving the lock range bonus of the T1 and T2 remote boosters the same since we don't see them as overpowered for that role, and actually buffing the lock range bonus from the meta remote boosters since they are currently all giving T1 meta 0 level bonuses for that stat right now.
Key stat for this change is that the best Remote Sensor Boosters will have their Scan Resolution bonus reduced from 40.5% to 33%.
Apologies for the terrible formatting (you can copypaste into a spreadsheet and it looks good)
typeNameOld ScanRes BonusNew ScanRes BonusOld LockRange BonusNew LockRange Bonus Remote Sensor Booster I33.82833.833.8 Coadjunct Linked Sensor Array I35.42933.835 Linked Sensor Network40.53033.836 Connected Scanning CPU Uplink37.13133.837 F-23 Reciprocal Sensor Cluster Link38.83233.838 Remote Sensor Booster II40.53340.540.5 'Boss' Remote Sensor Booster I40.53333.839 'Entrepreneur' Remote Sensor Booster I40.53340.540.5
Now for TEs. It's a fairly well accepted fact that the great optimal and falloff bonuses on TEs are over the top, especially considering they can get them while also giving decent tracking boosts. 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 by inflating the value of non-tank low slots. What we're looking at is simply decreasing the falloff and optimal bonuses of all TEs by 1/3, and leaving their tracking bonus intact.
Key stat for this change is a reduction in the Optimal/Falloff bonus on a T2 Tracking Enhancer from 15%/30% to 10%/20%.
NameOldFalloffNewFalloffOldOptimalNewOptimal Azimuth Descalloping Tracking Enhancer117.45.53.7 Basic Tracking Enhancer106.653.3 Beam Parallax Tracking Program12864 Beta-Nought Tracking Mode10.575.253.5 F-AQ Delay-Line Scan Tracking Subroutines11.57.65.753.8 Tracking Enhancer I2013.4106.7 Sigma-Nought Tracking Mode I211410.57 Auto-Gain Control Tracking Enhancer I2214.6117.3 F-aQ Phase Code Tracking Subroutines2315.411.57.7 Fourier Transform Tracking Program2416128 Tracking Enhancer II30201510 Domination Tracking Enhancer30201510 Republic Fleet Tracking Enhancer30201510 Mizuro's Modified Tracking Enhancer31.52115.7510.5 Hakim's Modified Tracking Enhancer332216.511 Gotan's Modified Tracking Enhancer34.52317.2511.5 Tobias' Modified Tracking Enhancer36241812
This change will be somewhat painful for many ships that rely on TEs for range in their current fits, but we are confident that the change is necessary to establish balance between the different weapon upgrade modules.
Let me know what you think! Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4562
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:20:00 -
[2] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote: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 by inflating the value of non-tank low slots. I'm curious as to why the low-slot, non-cap-using TEs are still better in this iteration than the mid-slot, cap-using TCs, especially considering this statement?
TCs give far superior tracking bonuses, this narrows the gap for range bonuses. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4562
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:23:00 -
[3] - Quote
Taoist Dragon wrote:TE's - ouch!
I agree they can be over powering (especially on hulls like the Talos) at times but this will pretty much kill the only advantage the minnies get with their weapon systems - nice falloff.
Now they will have the worst damage and not the best range. Any thoughts on uping their dps or base range to at least keep them competive?
This change affects falloff and optimal bonuses equally, so it doesn't decrease Minmatar falloff relative to any other ship that fits TEs. Minmatar feel the pain mainly because they have a lot of ships that shield tank and use extra lows for TEs. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4562
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:25:00 -
[4] - Quote
mynnna wrote:e: nevermind, read the chart wrong.
It's possible that I mistyped something but I can't find anywhere that it has optimal cut in half. This is probably a symptom of the terrible formatting making it hard to read.
It is intended to be a -33% adjustment to both stats. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4568
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:30:00 -
[5] - Quote
Kobea Thris wrote:Just to clarify, are you happy with the state of range scripted tracking computers?
I don't see a dire need to change them. After this change TEs will give more range than an unscripted TC but less than a scripted one. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4572
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:51:00 -
[6] - Quote
Dabigredboat wrote:If you would be so kind ccp fozzie. Explain to me why you would change the range of the TE and not the TC. This dirctly nerfs a fleet ship such as nagas and rokhs who rely on a TE due to shield tank being the dominate form of tank.
Why not change both equally as to adjust the change needed to effect Navy apocs as much as changing the Rokhs role. A Navy Apoc will use two tracking computers the same as a rokh uses two tracking enhances to balance the range ratio.
Any plans to fix the balance this will change in armor to shield fleets?
This change is specifically designed to change the balance between TEs and TCs. TEs still give very good range bonuses, decent tracking bonuses, and do it with less than half the fittings cost of a TC.
I know that this will affect 0.0 fleet doctrines, but shaking up doctrines a bit isn't something we consider a negative. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4600
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:16:00 -
[7] - Quote
Terraka WOLF wrote:Ok so i have never post on here because i didnt realy see a need to before but i have read this entire thread and as some one stated before WHY THE HECK ARE FACTION THE SAME A T2!! if that is gona be the change can i have back the 2bil i spent buying faction ones for my incursion ships. which bring me to my next point of not in this entire blog have i seen metion of incursion fleets. which heavly use TE's on there ships. Especaily the Vindi. this change would both criple the vindi, hurt all the other fleet memmbers and make the billions we spent on faction TE's useless. Do you have any comments on this as this seems to be a problem to me at least.
We're not changing the relative strength of faction TEs vs T2 at all. Faction retains its tracking and fittings advantage, and if the faction TEs were worth the price premium over T2 for your purposes before they will continue to be worth the price premium. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4600
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:27:00 -
[8] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
We're not changing the relative strength of faction TEs vs T2 at all. Faction retains its tracking and fittings advantage, and if the faction TEs were worth the price premium over T2 for your purposes before they will continue to be worth the price premium.
This I like. brb, buying ALL the TEs.
I'm talking about faction strength relative to T2 strength. That means they're getting reduced by the same percentage, not that we're leaving faction as-is. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4602
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:58:00 -
[9] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Also fozzie, on the PL AT teams, how many ships used even a single TE?
Obviously can't say for sure with ATX or the NEO. However for instance the AT8 Sleipnirs had 1x TE for the team used vs Dead Terrorists and in the final, and 2x TEs for the setup used against Darkside and the one used vs Monks of War and Paisti Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
72
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 13:53:00 -
[10] - Quote
I thought the stabber fit linked about would be an interesting point of reference for the TE changes so I was just fiddling with it a little bit and the results are at the bottom. I think its likely that you will feel this effect (usually between a 5% and 15% Im guessing) at typical engagement ranges for kiting ships like the stabber or the talos - but it seems unlikely that the role of the ship will be compromised to an extent that they would be abandoned. More likely, there will just be some extra room for ships like armor harb or armor brutix to have a role.
The fundamental ability to engage large groups with small ones won't change at all. It may take slightly more time to wear down ships that you isolate, depending on relative ranges, and there may be slightly more flexibility for tackling frigs to be on grid for longer, but overall this change shouldn't shift the meta much.
[Stabber, kiter] Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II
Medium Shield Extender II Medium Shield Extender II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 5W Infectious Power System Malfunction 50W Infectious Power System Malfunction
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
BARRAGE 6.5% dps drop at 20k 3.51+37.2 with the old TE 187dps@20km 3.23+32 with new TE 175dps@20km RF EMP - 18% dps drop at 20km 1.75+24.8 with old TE 170dps@20km 1.61+21.3 with new TE 140dps@20km
|
|
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
72
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 13:57:00 -
[11] - Quote
Small addition -
Obviously many of you seem frustrated that X Y or Z ship that used shields and TEs is getting nerfed, how many ships that don't use TEs are picking up that slack to punish you for this change? HAM caracals maybe? Not drakes right because they just got a big change as well...
I'm genuinely asking because the only space I see being created is for armor based ships that already needed the lows for their tanks - and I don't see those ships becoming stronger than skirmishers based on this change. Am I wrong? |
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
74
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:46:00 -
[12] - Quote
I understand the allure of hyperbole related to the death of the small gang versus the blob - but this change should definitely be considered in the context of a game where a gang with some standard cruisers and BCs with a couple skirmish links can engage at almost any ratio of friend to foe.
Its fun to engage outnumbered (I've heard), but expecting a few extremely strong mods to do a large portion of the work for you seems a bit over the top.
It also seems important to me that since speed isn't actually being effected here, fast moving skirmish engagements will likely look very similar except that during critical moments there will be a slightly higher tendency to commit. This could mean more vulnerability for the awesome small gang of nano pilots, or it could also mean that your prey now has to venture closer to actually apply dps.
I like writing posts but I'm not sure its doing any good |
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
74
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:52:00 -
[13] - Quote
Quote:I hope I was able to transmit my toughts and that they can be helpful.
I really like the idea of looking at the meta rather than only picking at some flat idea of balance based purely on numerical comparison.
However, I think Eve's meta (or specific eve combat environment metas) is extremely complex, and it many cases is the result of a sum of many small, number based powerlevels. For instance I imagine that there's some threshold related to damage projection that makes kiting the preferred method of balancing damage output and survivability. If we can push the player decisions back towards the threshold instead of leaving everything way past it, we hopefully create more meaningful decisions for players to make. Sometimes a small numerical tweak like this might be the easiest path to creating more of those decisions.
Make any sense?
|
|
|
ISD Flidais Asagiri
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
80
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 01:19:00 -
[14] - Quote
Greetings
This is an awesome discussion and want it to keep going, so this is the friendly reminder to keep it on topic and try and resist "quoting" everyone and there brother in one post as it does break the forum rules. Press on with the debate!
On On ISD Flidais Asagiri Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
|
ISD Flidais Asagiri
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
80
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 01:22:00 -
[15] - Quote
601 Posts and still going.
Great debate! Let us keep the cross talk going by refraining from the gratuitous use of the Quote button and keeping reply's on topic.
On On ISD Flidais Asagiri Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4767
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 21:37:00 -
[16] - Quote
Just posting to say that I'm keeping an eye on this thread over the holiday weekend, we're not ignoring it. I'll be making some more substantial replies once work starts up again.
Also Micheal Harari I love how you think the two threads on T1 logistics ships in Retribution now count as "every other new thread" I create. How's life in a world with support frigates going? Have they killed off all solo pvp in the game yet as you predicted? Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5138
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 13:28:00 -
[17] - Quote
Hey everyone, sorry for the delay, been a bit of a hectic week. I've got some time now so I'm going to write up responses to some of the questions and comments that have come up a lot in the thread so far. Thanks to everyone providing their feedback, every bit helps.
Why nerf things when you could buff things instead?This is a question that comes up often in any thread where we are discussing decreasing the power of an item or ship. I can completely understand where it's coming from. Buffing things makes people happy in much larger numbers, it simply feels good to see the effectiveness of your equipment increase. Many other games rely on constantly improving gear to drive engagement in their content and that method of development can work very well for those games.
I'm going to start by quoting my answer to this question from the Heavy Missile thread before Retribution, because what I said there still applies.
CCP Fozzie wrote:When we are balancing in a game like Eve we always need to be conscious of the danger presented by power creep. In some games where the progression is tied to ever advancing gear stats power creep isn't a big issue as it is built into the whole premise of the game. In a sandbox like Eve player advancement is tied to individual freeform goals and we need to make sure that the tools available are both interesting and balanced. Any time we buff something in Eve, we are nerfing every other item in the game slightly by extension. In a case like this we believe that the best course of action is to adjust the Heavy Missiles downwards to achieve balance. I would be lying if I said that we never allow power creep in EVE. It's quite simply much much easier to balance upwards and considering how powerful of a tool it is for creating short term customer satisfaction, some power creep is very hard to avoid. However we do need to be very mindful of how much we let ourselves indulge. There are cases where for the long term health of the game ecosystem we simply have to reduce the power of certain items and ships. We believe this is one of those times. I can promise you that we're committed to eating our vegetables and making adjustments either up or down based on our best estimation of what the game needs. We won't decrease the power of items and ships unless we deem it necessary but we also won't forget that our job is to manage the health of the game over the long term. This will not be the last set of "nerfs" you see us make for Odyssey.
No real life company or military would ever limit themselves for balance, so why does it make sense here?This is one of those areas where a game simply cannot follow real life examples. Whenever possible we try to ease the suspension of disbelief by bending game systems into metaphors that have some parallel with the real world, but when it comes down to it the demands of a game mean that balance is more important than realism. We'd rather have a fun game that has some unrealistic elements :cough:fluid dynamics:cough: than one that matches reality more closely at the cost of gameplay value.
Why are TEs overpowered? What about them is broken?TEs have been in their current form for so long that it's easy to forget exactly how much they provide for so few drawbacks. In their current form they give the same range bonuses as a range scripted Tracking Computer, while also giving a significant tracking bonus for free and requiring less CPU and no cap. Since falloff was added to tracking modules TEs have been dominant alongside short range weapons. The value of low slot TEs has been part of the reason for the dominance of shield tanks over armor tanks in small gang pvp over recent years. After these changes I'm confident that TEs will still be very useful and powerful modules.
What about faction TEs? They don't seem to have an advantage.The reason that my OP didn't clearly show the advantage of faction TEs is because the extra bonus from faction TEs has always been in tracking, not range. Since the tracking bonus is not being adjusted in this change I elected not to display it. Adding range bonused high metalevel TEs may be an option in the future, but for now the tracking benefits of faction TEs make them a sought after module so I do not see a desperate need to change them at this time.
Is it intentional that this change hurts the Cynabal and Machariel?Many people are expressing surprise that we are making this change without somehow compensating the larger Angel ships. I can tell you that the effect this change has on the Cynabal and especially the Mach is intended. The Machariel has absolutely exceptional projection using high tracking autocannons and after this change it will still be very powerful and viable. The slight decrease in its ability to project using short range weapons is both intended and necessary to keep it in balance.
A 33% decrease in range seems like a lot. Isn't that too drastic?This has been pointed out by several people in the thread already but I want to quickly touch on it again. It is important to note that a 33% decrease in the bonus provided by one module is very different than a 33% decrease in the overall range of the ships that fit that module. In most cases the actual range difference is very small. For example a dual TE Talos with Null would go from 16.4+28.7 before the change to 15.1+24.7. Significant to be sure, but not the catastrophe that losing 1/3 of its optimal and falloff would be. You can easily test the affect of this change on your favorite setups right now in EFT or PYFA, by swapping T2 TEs to T1. Give it a try!
Is the intent of this change to shrink the range of all engagements and force people within scram range?This change will reduce the damage that some ship fits apply from long range. However there is no shortage of options for dealing damage at multiple ranges and nobody is forcing everyone within scram/web range. It is intended that this change will make the choice between staying at range with reduced damage and moving close for higher dps at higher risk more stark for many ships. It is also intended that this change reduces the effectiveness of some short range weapons when used for kiting. EVE has many weapon systems with many strength and weaknesses, and tradeoffs include range. If all weapons can be easily used for kiting, the value of choosing longer range weapon systems is reduced.
This change makes Tracking Disruptors even more powerful!In practice the difference between the old and new TEs when under the influence of multiple range scripted TDs will be insignificant. TDs are a very powerful weapon system, but can ... Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5143
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 14:13:00 -
[18] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Why are TEs overpowered? What about them is broken?TEs have been in their current form for so long that it's easy to forget exactly how much they provide for so few drawbacks. In their current form they give the same range bonuses as a range scripted Tracking Computer, while also giving a significant tracking bonus for free and requiring less CPU and no cap. Since falloff was added to tracking modules TEs have been dominant alongside short range weapons. The value of low slot TEs has been part of the reason for the dominance of shield tanks over armor tanks in small gang pvp over recent years. After these changes I'm confident that TEs will still be very useful and powerful modules. How do you know you're nerfing them enough? Falloff bonused ACs are till going to trash smaller ships at all ranges with their 'short range tracking but at long range' thing. Same with shield talos. I imagined the TE nerf to be much more than what you're doing. I was thinking they become the 'power diagnostic system' of weapon upgrades, since they affect all stats on turrets, are easy to fit, use no cap and use low-value slots.
If we need to go farther, we can very easily do so in later iterations. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5814
|
Posted - 2013.05.12 13:38:00 -
[19] - Quote
Hey everyone, I'm all caught up on this thread now. Wanted to remind you guys that the TE and RSB changes in their current iteration are on SISI for testing now. Please give your favorite fits a try on SISI with the new module stats and let us know how it feels. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5815
|
Posted - 2013.05.12 14:09:00 -
[20] - Quote
Pattern Clarc wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone, I'm all caught up on this thread now. Wanted to remind you guys that the TE and RSB changes in their current iteration are on SISI for testing now. Please give your favorite fits a try on SISI with the new module stats and let us know how it feels. I don't think the TE changes very good. In fact, I don't think the situation with TE's vs TC's have been good since the introduction of scripts. Scripts should have been a fix for sensor boosters and RSD's. Instead, they broke the balance between TC's and TE's whilst becoming a user experience nightmare. Ever since, TE's have been steadily nefered into the ground because of it, steadily increasing imbalances over the value of mids vs lows that haven't really fixed anything. Worse, the weapon systems that it nerfs really didn't need it. Also, could you give Rise a poke to send some love to the BS threads please?
I completely agree that scripts as a mechanic have pretty terrible user experience. Someday I'd really like to replace them with multi-mode modules that don't require the item. However I disagree that the balance between midlots and lowslots is currently in favour of midlosts (except at the frigate level).
Rise has definitely been watching the battleship threads, just hasn't been posting as much recently. But I expect he'll have more time after he makes his next announcement. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5815
|
Posted - 2013.05.12 16:36:00 -
[21] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Will there be module rebalancing part two?
Well we've already announced the large energy turrets and cruise missile changes. But we're working on part four (and probably five) now. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5815
|
Posted - 2013.05.12 16:47:00 -
[22] - Quote
Alexander the Great wrote:You still didn't answer if you're going to look at Tracking Link as part of this change. Bonuses from remote assistance module should be better than from Tracking Computer.
Not as a part of this change, although I definitely won't rule out future changes. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
359
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 22:02:00 -
[23] - Quote
A question has reached us if this thread got stickied again by mistake. The answer is no. It was re-stickied by CCP Falcon upon request.
Please do not ask why, because I honestly don't know. Time will tell.
ISD Ezwal Lt. Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
|
|
|