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.

I think this is going to hurt Gallente blaster boats more than it is Minmatar and it's not so long since they were finally made useable, please consider increasing the range of blasters if you're going to go ahead with this CCP.

Here are some EFT numbers for you for damage application at 28K.

All level 5 skills, no implants, no drugs, no heat.

Minni

Hurricane 2TE 2Gyro Barrage: 228 DPS
Cynabal 2TE 2Gyro Barrage: 270 DPS
Stabber 2TE 2Gyro Barrage: 166 DPS
Vaga 2TE 2Gyro Barrage: 277 DPS
Nado 2TE 2Gyro Barrage: 581 DPS

Amarr

Omen: 2TE 2Heat Sink Scorch: 330 DPS
Harb 2TE 2Heat Sink Scorch: 445 DPS
Zealot 2TE 2Heat Sink Scorch: 412 DPS
Omen Navy 2TE 2Heat Sink Scorch: 395 DPS
Oracle 2TE 2Heat Sink Scorch: 649 DPS

Gal (Only one ship reaches out this far with guns that are actually usable... ie blasters)
Talos 2TE 2Mag Stab Null: 678 DPS

Now for the lulzy part: Caldari

Caracal 2BCS with Fury rapid light missile: 236 DPS
Cerberus 2BCS with Scourge Fury rapid light missile: 296 DPS

I will not include any HML because on paper damage is not nearly close to applied damage.

If any one at ccp can understand simple tables, you will notice one thing- giving any of these ships a decrease in optimal or fall off will make everything turn into a brawl. 33% decrease on range for these numbers will make kiting nearly impossible unless you are flying an oracle or zealot. (missile ships excluded)

Why do you hate kiting? Unless you fly a pimped out nado or talos, your pick of cruisers is so limited already. With the proposed changes, you will make almost all turret based ships that are not large size obsoleate, and HMLs / RLMs will rule the sky. Hell even SB's using torps will be viable now. Nothing is going to be hitting them out at 24K anyway.

Please justify this CCP. You clearly have not looked at any of these numbers. Because if you have looked at the these numbers and did still come to the conclusion to nerf TE's asnwer me this-

Why are armor brawling ships becoming the only mode to play this game?

Shockingly not every one that goes out to pvp likes to hit F1 and brawl (or in the case of solo / small gang) get blobbed.

you have no idea what your talking about. If you are seriously trying to justify using rail / beam ships for kiting.... Then you don't understand kiting. A kiting ship would not be readily killed by either of those two weapon systems. You need to do some math... Then go play more eve PvP

Kiting t3's use TEs pluse short range guns. As for blaster boats, no other ship outside of the talos / adrestia can use blasters to kite.

[Proteus, example]
Damage Control II
Federation Navy Magnetic Field Stabilizer
Federation Navy Magnetic Field Stabilizer
Tracking Enhancer II
Tracking Enhancer II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II

Republic Fleet Large Shield Extender
Republic Fleet Large Shield Extender
Corelum C-Type 10MN Microwarpdrive
True Sansha Warp Scrambler

Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M

Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II
Medium Core Defense Field Extender II

Proteus Defensive - Augmented Plating
Proteus Electronics - Friction Extension Processor
Proteus Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix
Proteus Offensive - Hybrid Propulsion Armature
Proteus Propulsion - Localized Injectors


Warrior II x5
Warrior II x5
Hornet EC-300 x5

right,,,, your dps is abysmal.

20K 343 DPS
30K 175 DPS

Considering the amount of money you are pouring into this thing- the only useful part is the scram. Everything else (for the price) is very sub par. Explain to me how DPS like that is going to be effective? Especially for the cost? Why would you ever want to fly this on a regular basis?

You're right that by itself, this change isn't huge - it slightly reduces the effectiveness of all kitey shield tanking turret ships. The problem is that the general usefulness and power of those ships ranges hugely, from utterly non-existent (such as that stabber - a cruiser with less dps at its working range than you get out of a well-fit t1 frigate) to extremely high (talos, cynabal, machariel). I think a lot of people would happily agree that ships in the latter category could stand to be toned down a little, but many of the ships affected by the nerf are just mediocre and somewhat underwhelming like shield canes, OK but unspectacular like arty ruptures, or straight up bad (hi stabber). I can certainly get behind a reduction to the power of kiting tier 3s and the like - if anything, they probably need more adjustment - but I don't see why it's necessary to whack a whole bunch of lesser ships at the same time.

LOl Funny as ammar say they are the most nerfed, then minmatar say they are the most nerfed.. then come the gallente and say that blasters will be ruined.


Can you see people? That means its BALANCED!!!!!

I was also upset at first with these proposed changes, but unlike apparently the majority of forum readers here, I also read the other forum threads identifying the changes proposed for cruisers and frigs. As it is apparent in those threads the loss of falloff is being addressed in new bonuses to the hulls most in need of it.

It would follow that Fozzie is on the job and tweaking where needed to provide the necessary buff and nerf as appropriate, placing the apparent OP bonuses where they belong, in the Hull, not the modules. Eve is not the real world and progress in eve should not compare, if everything gets better and quicker it would lead to the eventual reduction of options to one ship one gun and no fun at all. (Imagine everyone with Nukes)

Sit back and enjoy the time you have left with the falloff you have now, all the while thinking up a new way to make your advantage work for you and against the other guy, you did it once before, or you copied the guy that did it once before, so be original and come up with a new plan.

One does not simply use TE's for 5 years unchanged and suddenly break them. They are broke because you say they are broke when they were never broke to begin with. Your changing the way people play the game. Its more then a nerf its a game changer. But oh well I was never a fan of kiting anyways. The closer the better. But the point is its not the mods that are overpowered, its the way people always invent new fits that are deemed overpowered when they are simply just so powerful. Dominance is all in the creativeness of the fitting. When Kil2 use to fly Talos's he could kill fleets with it. So anything that can do that should be nerfed according to CCP so nerf a major mod that effects everybody and force them to fight at closer ranges with medium ranged weapons. It may as well be close range because weapons for medium range now will only be effective at close range. Of course forcing us to use a mid slot for a TC just to get range also nerfs the tanks of a lot of ships players want to shield tank making them have even less EHP. These nerfs are tba getting out of hand because they are stealth nerfing shield tanks on common ships.

Every time winmatar were on topic, TE were accused of a fair amount of their OPness. There must some tracks of this in the hurricane nerf thread in fact.

Also, can I have you stuff ? :D

And BTW, LSE are coupled with Sig bloom, Armour Plates are coupled with mass bloom, Cloaks with lower reaction time, longer range weapons take more CPU and PG to prevent coupling them with huge tanks, everything has a downside; and TE? What is the downside to having increased range?

As someone who used to use heavy missiles and now don't I do have some sympathy with the people who don't want their TE's nerfed. Just to remind you though, when the Heavy Missile Thread was announced we ended up with 300+ pages of mostly whine telling ccp that it was a terrible idea, they went ahead and did it anyway.

However there was a small number of posts in that thread where people said 'this is not a good idea, 20% reduction in damage is too high, 10% is fairer for x,y,z reason etc. CCP listened and changed the proposed nerf from 20% to 10%.

That's what I am not seeing too much of in this thread. Before I get flamed, all I am saying is that if you don't like the nerf, instead of saying this is terribad propose something else, come up with another way of balancing the module. Only a few posts in this thread have done this (and I've read every post in the 40+ pages so far).

I don't approve of all of the nerfs and I don't like this obsession with balance/homogenisation, but I won't be so churlish as to say that CCP do what they like and don't listen to the player base, don't forget that the missile dps nerf was 10% in the end, and AAR now use nanite paste instead of cap as they were initially proposed. These changes are player suggestions taken up by the team, so they do listen. Make your case and you might get listened too as well.

Repost corrected# Perhaps this will help make sense of it:#

falloff /Tracking speed/ Optimal
TC............ 15% / 15% / 7.5%
TC............ 30% / 0.0% / 15% (falloff script)
TC............0.0% / 30% / 0.0% (Tracking Script)
TE ............30% / 9.5% / 15%
TE (Prop)..20% / 9.5% / 10%
I would think that the OP of this module is very evident when you add it take less than half as much CPU and no PG.

How about fighting at optimal instead of falloff? You're always going to lose damage in falloff anyway.

If we're talking PVE battleships then you need to be using the long range guns instead as well. (or missiles as the case may be..)

I don't like the range nerf either but at least there are options.