|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
Limitless Inc.
98
   |
Posted - 2013.03.29 09:44:00 -
[1] - Quote
chris elliot wrote:Fozzie, do you have any plans to tweak tracking disruptors now that you have tweaked the tracking enhancers?
We know that the TD's were quite powerful before but with this change to TE's do you feel the TD's have been allowed to become a bit too strong?
Yeah - I was gravitating towards Missiles - almost exclusivly after the TDs. Now that this has happened - I'll want to move more towards missiles. I wish Minmatar had faction missiles in their LP stores. Also will the Stabber be revisited now - as this will bury the Stabber. |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
Limitless Inc.
98
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 11:04:00 -
[2] - Quote
Connall Tara wrote:Claire Raynor wrote:chris elliot wrote:Fozzie, do you have any plans to tweak tracking disruptors now that you have tweaked the tracking enhancers?
We know that the TD's were quite powerful before but with this change to TE's do you feel the TD's have been allowed to become a bit too strong? Yeah - I was gravitating towards Missiles - almost exclusivly after the TDs. Now that this has happened - I'll want to move more towards missiles. I wish Minmatar had faction missiles in their LP stores. Also will the Stabber be revisited now - as this will bury the Stabber. you mean in that other thread a few stickies down where the stabber is receiving a 25M3 dronebay and an improved fall off bonus from 7.5% to 10% per level? why yes... yes it has :>
Awesome! Thanks for the update - this has cheered me up! |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
Limitless Inc.
98
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 12:42:00 -
[3] - Quote
One thing that will happen - is people using EFT and not using TEs because Gyros make the numbers bigger - are now probably doing it right. |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
Limitless Inc.
98
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 22:41:00 -
[4] - Quote
This ^^ |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
Limitless Inc.
98
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 22:56:00 -
[5] - Quote
So - Armour and Shield fits are being made to be the same in terms of what the end result of the ships will be. Same Speed - damage - range - etc. Or at least CCP are engineering them to move to converge and to be more similar. I never saw the issue with variation. But everything seems to now need to be the same - I don't think making everything the same is balance at its best. I thought CCP had already done something to make Armour tanking better? I thought Armour tanking let you have more tackle and EWar? I thought it gave you more tank than Shield - so you could perhaps mitigate Shield tanking's bigger DPS?
I guess we will all just start using Gyros instead of TEs and forget flying and tactics - we can just charge at one another and turn our guns on - because we'll all be in scram and web range now - (or doing no damage is the other option). So - Fit a TE1 - because that is what the TE2 now will be - or a Gyro2. Hmmm. Yeah - So my TEs are going in the same bucket as the Drone Link Augmentors I used to like went into. Refine.
We could simplify EvE even more. . . . I'm wondering if, going forward, we even need modules. . . . |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
Limitless Inc.
98
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 12:51:00 -
[6] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:the TE nerf is going through at the same time alot of ships are getting range buffs to their hulls if you were paying attention to the appropriate threads, this won't be making OP ships downgraded, it will be to keep a mod from making hulls that are getting the buffs from becoming OP.
Err. Not that I saw.
1 ship got their falloff upgraded. The stabber.
1 ship got their optimal uprated. Some Amarr thing.
I'm sorry - what other hulls are getting their falloff / optimal enhanced to coincide with this nerf? |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
Limitless Inc.
98
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 13:25:00 -
[7] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote:Claire Raynor wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:the TE nerf is going through at the same time alot of ships are getting range buffs to their hulls if you were paying attention to the appropriate threads, this won't be making OP ships downgraded, it will be to keep a mod from making hulls that are getting the buffs from becoming OP. Err. Not that I saw. 1 ship got their falloff upgraded. The stabber. 1 ship got their optimal uprated. Some Amarr thing. I'm sorry - what other hulls are getting their falloff / optimal enhanced to coincide with this nerf? The point of balance means some get a buff in one area, and others do not, the TE II was giving all ships a buff, and in the spirit of balance you need to move the buffs to the hull not the module,,,, feel like I am repeating myself a lot,,, Anyways all ships need to start from a basline and be buffed acording to thier role, after all why would you give optimal range to a Scimi or for that matter a missle boat? You wouldn't, so if you have one ship that does this well then why would you need more.
What??? Ohh - OK - So we really don't need modules than - because it's the hull that should determine what the ship does - because "in the spirit of balance we need to move buffs from the modules onto the hulls" ? Then just have done with it and get rid of modules.
TE wasn't "giving all ships a buff" - It was only buffing the ships it was fitted to. You wouldn't ever have given a missile boat a TE2 that would be a fail fit. Obviously. Just because you could put a TE on a missile ship doesn't make them OP. |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
Limitless Inc.
98
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 13:59:00 -
[8] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:Claire Raynor wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:the TE nerf is going through at the same time alot of ships are getting range buffs to their hulls if you were paying attention to the appropriate threads, this won't be making OP ships downgraded, it will be to keep a mod from making hulls that are getting the buffs from becoming OP. Err. Not that I saw. Range buff on hulls - show me more. Because from what I can see. . .. 1 ship got their falloff upgraded. The stabber. 1 ship got their optimal uprated. Some Amarr thing. I'm sorry - what other hulls are getting their falloff / optimal enhanced to coincide with this nerf? Check out the threads for the upcoming Navy cruisers and Navy frig mods, check out the already existing changed hulls we have available in the game, the range buffs are there.
Please help me - I've read / re-read - all these posts and threads. Where are the other ships who are getting their tracking-weapon's weapon ranges increased?
You pointed me at the Faction cruisers thread - Only the IN Omen gets and upgrade - The normal Stabber gets an upgrade - You pointed me at the faction frigates thread the Imperial navy Slicer shows a range bonus that it has AWLASYs had - and nah - other than the INOmen and the Stabber - nothing. . . |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
Limitless Inc.
98
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 14:06:00 -
[9] - Quote
Well it's done now. And this thread's finished.
I just wish they'd say why - What was the design intent ? They've reduced the range at which fights happen and pulled everything within Scram and web range. To what end?
I'm sorry Minmatar were OP - I didn't want them to be when I chose them. I didn't realise they were so OP that it'd take 6 months of solid development effort to nerf them back to "balanced" and that it would wipe out so many play styles en-route.
I wish I'd chosen Caldari instead.
I miss my Hurricane. |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
Limitless Inc.
100
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 16:57:00 -
[10] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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?
Hi Fozie!! Wow - I though this thread was dead already. Please can you expand! I know you've already said that TEs are Broken - Can you tell me what the symptoms are? What are we looking to see changed - or what are we wanting this to address. Are we looking to make the long range weapons more predominant - are we looking to reduce combat ranges (which is what I think will happen) - Are we looking to stimulate the economy as more ships will dies because they are in point range - Or is this actually the last part of balancing the Minmatar down?
Please dude - let me know what the thinking is. I already hurt after the drones and the 'Caine - I understood the Caine nerf but the drones have me confused and resentful. It's easier to swallow when you know why. But the TE issue. That really does come right out of the blue for me! |
|
|
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
Limitless Inc.
100
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 17:32:00 -
[11] - Quote
Claire Raynor wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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? Hi Fozie!! Wow - I though this thread was dead already. Please can you expand! I know you've already said that TEs are Broken - Can you tell me what the symptoms are? What are we looking to see changed - or what are we wanting this to address. Are we looking to make the long range weapons more predominant - are we looking to reduce combat ranges (which is what I think will happen) - Are we looking to stimulate the economy as more ships will dies because they are in point range - Or is this actually the last part of balancing the Minmatar down? Please dude - let me know what the thinking is. I already hurt after the drones and the 'Caine - I understood the Caine nerf but the drones have me confused and resentful. It's easier to swallow when you know why. But the TE issue. That really does come right out of the blue for me!
Yeah - I suppose what I'm saying is that Enthusiasm is contagious. I don't think you are doing change for change's sake. I don't think CCP has enough resources to do absolutely everything they want to do right now to be able to have people just altering things because they are bored. I hope you don't ever start doing changes just because you feel like it and meh to everyone else. The one thing I love about EvE is it's stability and it's carefully balanced mechanics. I know it's a sandbox. But let us know what your hopes are about this change - what it is that's not quite right - that you feel will be better - and that way I can go, "Ohhh yeah!" and feel like I know what's going on.
|
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
Limitless Inc.
100
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 10:57:00 -
[12] - Quote
ACs - 425 used as example. Lasor was Heavy Pulse Laser II.
I've been running with these numbers - on a 425 with a TE - it moves the DPS back by about 1km after 11KM which is at 62% damage due to falloff - this contines to ultimatly reduces max range of 2km. But at the final 2km you were only doing 2% and 6% respectivly. Previously at 23km you would be doing 10% - now you only do 10% at 22km - and previously at 22km you were doing 17%.
At 14km you lose 4%. At 11km it is 3%.
This affects proportionally all tracking based weapons I've looked at. Lasors suffer exactly the same in terms of proportions looking at a range/effectivness falloff. Before and after the Lasors do more percentage than the AC to 10km - at which point the AC is stronger - after the changes the AC actually gets stronger quicker.
With 1 TE the AC does percentage-wise double the Lasor at 14km.
With the old TE - this didn't happen till 15km. The differential between 14 and 15 km is still 4% - and the difference at those ranges between the old TE and the new is also 4%.
I need my excel sheet to show. But in all honesty. . .
It's a 4% hit to ACs - and also all the other systems. ACs lose 2km - lasors 1km. (but at these extreme ranges the ACs do nothing - it's like 1 to 5 % - because the range is squashed up the percentage loss to the bulk of the range is less diminished)
Also - proportinally - Lasors become less good than ACs slightly quicker by 1% per km initially with the gap then growing like it did before.
With two TEs - (with stacking penalty 0.87) - Things look a bit worse. From 19km the difference is 10% - with 25km giving 11% whereas we would have gotten 12% at 28km. This is a loss of 3km. At 24km you are doing 14% whereas you used to do 25%.
At 14km you are doing 6% less but proportionally still more than lasors used to at that range by 20% of the percentage reduction, (ACs do 52% and lasors do 37% - it used to be 58% and 49% respectivly).
With 1 TE - a 4%@14km hit and 2km reduction at extremities
With 2 TE - a 6%-8%@14km hit and a 3km reduction at extremities
Once target sig, traversal and tracking are taken into consideration - And I needed to model scenarios in EFT for this - using a 'Caine against frigates cruisers and other battlecruisers. I didn't notice much indicated difference. Where I used two TEs before I may actually still do this - it still gives a 19% increase at 14KM and a 5km range increase. It used to give 25% and 7km increase (at a 14km equiv). Although 19% is less than the DPS increase of a Gyro - factoring in tracking - it still works. (I'm not good enough to model this).
In my humble opinion - and I'm doing a U-Turn from my previous bitching - I will still consider TEs to be a great module esspecially for their fitting cost.
Now I know that I'm not very good at EvE - and that people will have specialised fits to take advantage of mechanics. But in the general case - all the proportions seem to be respected by the changes - this seems to affect all the tracking weapons I've looked at equally. Minnies don't seem to suffer more. And Minnies can still perform outside Scram range - but not so good outside long point range. For mediums.
All my efforts have focused on medium wepaonry as that's what I'm personnaly interested in.
I now give Fozzie a +1 for this and conceed it was imba b |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
Limitless Inc.
100
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 11:14:00 -
[13] - Quote
AspiB'elt wrote:I believe to nerf the TE is a mistake.
Where is the problem ?
The problem is more with the medium autocanon.
425 mm T2 (optimal 2400, falloff 9600)
220 mm T2 (optimal 2160, falloff 8800)
If you change this data, you don't need to adjust the TE.
I propose
425 mm T2 (optimal 2400, falloff 5000)
220 mm T2 (optimal 2160, falloff 4400)
The main problem is more than the gun than the module.
Also perhaps that will be a great idea to split the ammo.
Ammo for weapon short range and ammo for weapon long range. That will be more easy to make some good balancing after that.
You do realise you've just suggested that ACs should have the same falloff - less opptimal - and significantly less DPS than blasters - and that would be balanced how? |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
Limitless Inc.
100
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 11:25:00 -
[14] - Quote
AspiB'elt wrote:Claire Raynor wrote:AspiB'elt wrote:I believe to nerf the TE is a mistake.
Where is the problem ?
The problem is more with the medium autocanon.
425 mm T2 (optimal 2400, falloff 9600)
220 mm T2 (optimal 2160, falloff 8800)
If you change this data, you don't need to adjust the TE.
I propose
425 mm T2 (optimal 2400, falloff 5000)
220 mm T2 (optimal 2160, falloff 4400)
The main problem is more than the gun than the module.
Also perhaps that will be a great idea to split the ammo.
Ammo for weapon short range and ammo for weapon long range. That will be more easy to make some good balancing after that. You do realise you've just suggested that ACs should have the same falloff - less opptimal - and significantly less DPS than blasters - and that would be balanced how? They have more range then gallente but less than laser. They make less dps than gallente but more then amarr. The minmatar have also the smallest signature. And about tanking it's about the same then gallente. But minmatar have more speed and more agility.
I appologize - I was looking at the Weapon not the ships. You suggest the 425 gets 2400 Optimal - 1.2km less than the bigg medium blaster and the same falloff as the blaster. The Blaster does more DPS than the 425. That wouldn't be balanced. From an applied DPS point of veiw falloff is worth numerically half of Optimal - but raw DPS can adjust this up and down. So with 1.2 KM more optimal a blaster doing the same raw DPS as an autocannon would need to give the autocannon 2.4 km more falloff so - 7.4km - and then you factor in the increased DPS and the two get closer - and then reload speed. . .. And finally you are left with the tactics - but the weapons themselves are balanced at the moment. |
|
|
| |
|