Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
239
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 09:07:00 -
[841] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Kleen Enkook 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? I have to say, sir, that a CCP employee berating/trying to make fun of a player (ie customer) is not entirely professional behaviour. If I was your boss, I'd probably have a conversation with you about that. But I'm not, so carry on. If you "had a talk" with an employee over that then you would be a freaking terrible boss. -Liang have to agree here :( oh no an employee wrote back to a "customer" to adress his failure , 911 call the police |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
88
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 10:21:00 -
[842] - Quote
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. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4479
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 10:47:00 -
[843] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote:PAPULA wrote:Power Diagnostic has no negative effects. Oh, wait it needs to be nerfed right now.
You mean other than losing a low slot to accomidate for PG requirements? Really is it that hard to understand? or is this just your nature? So a module that adds capacitor, capacitor recharge, shield recharge, shield HP, and powergrid all at the same time at the expense of some CPU and a low-slot doesn't quality for "having no negative effects" but another module that uses slightly less CPU and gives a boost to tracking (less than the unscripted T1 tracking computer), optimal, and falloff (the same as the scripted T2 tracking computer) does?
I mean if your argument was that the TE is too good compared to the TC, you could say that, but I'd have to disagree with you there, mainly because of the tracking argument. An unscripted T2 TC gets a 15% tracking bonus, whereas the T2 TE gets a 9.5% tracking bonus. Of course this naturally means that the pilot using the TC gets a 30% tracking bonus because if he needs the tracking, he'll be using the script. The pilot using the TE doesn't have that option, he's stuck with a tracking bonus that's less than a third of what he could have had if he had used a TC.
Sure the TE pilot gets the same optimal and falloff benefit as would a pilot with a range scripted TC, but that's one of the upsides to compensate for it being a low-slot module that potentially displaces damage mods, DC2, or speed/agility mods, and for having a somewhat less stellar tracking bonus. The fact that the TE doesn't use cap isn't that significant of a hindrance considering the TC doesn't use much cap to begin with - a total draw of 0.7 GJ/s.
The really significant advantage of the TE, in my opinion, is nothing to do with its bonuses. I think the module simply uses too little CPU. If the CPU use were increased to maybe 20-25 Tf I think this module would be balanced. Malcanis for CSM 8 Module activation timers are buggy - CCP please fix |
PsyDrakoon
Orbit Backpackers P O L A R I S
7
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 11:08:00 -
[844] - Quote
ok, so you guys are nerfing TEs.. fine with me... But please dont Forget to pimp my Vargur, some extra Powergrid would be nice, so i can fit Artys. If u reall gona nerf our Falloff, then please make sure we can fit Artys, and Vargur has such a low powergrid...... |
Goldiiee
Superior Ratio High Sec Dropouts
316
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 11:29:00 -
[845] - Quote
Perhaps this will help make sense of it:#
falloff /Tracking speed/ Optimal TC 15% / 15% / 7.5% TC 30% / 15% / 0.0% (falloff script) TC 0.0% / 30% / 0.0% (Tracking Script) TE 30% / 10% / 15%
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.
I personally hate (Not emphatic enough; Abhor, Despise, Screaming with rage), the new proposed bonuses to the TE. But putting aside how I personally feel about the changes, and how they affect me, I am looking at why they needed changed in relation to the Balancing of ships and their respective abilities. I would hope that Fozzie reconsiders the 33% and goes for a 20% but I'm not holding my breath.
Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced (But I still try..) |
Dana Gilmour
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
15
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 11:37:00 -
[846] - Quote
In my opinion that's a very harsh nerf taking away most of the only advantage Minmatar has left these days.
And if Minnie were arguably overpowered in Frig, Cruiser and Battlecruiser departments a year ago, this is not the case now. After the rebalancing sweep for those classes, Minmatar are already nearing the bottom.
Nerfing TE without any compensation will probably push Minmatar rock bottom. And yes, I am aware TE are used by other weapon systems than projectiles too, but none rely on them as much.
And no, I don't rage on nerfing the only race I fly, I have Specialization at IV for every weapon system and all ship classes except Caldari Battleship (which I'm training now) at V. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
240
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 12:18:00 -
[847] - Quote
Dana Gilmour wrote:In my opinion that's a very harsh nerf taking away most of the only advantage Minmatar has left these days.
And if Minnie were arguably overpowered in Frig, Cruiser and Battlecruiser departments a year ago, this is not the case now. After the rebalancing sweep for those classes, Minmatar are already nearing the bottom.
Nerfing TE without any compensation will probably push Minmatar rock bottom. And yes, I am aware TE are used by other weapon systems than projectiles too, but none rely on them as much.
And no, I don't rage on nerfing the only race I fly, I have Specialization at IV for every weapon system and all ship classes except Caldari Battleship (which I'm training now) at V. rofl omg whinematard
minmatar are already nearing the bottom :D:D:D:D:D:D
having the skills and flying are 2 different things yes you are rageing
|
Dana Gilmour
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
15
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 12:28:00 -
[848] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:Dana Gilmour wrote:In my opinion that's a very harsh nerf taking away most of the only advantage Minmatar has left these days.
And if Minnie were arguably overpowered in Frig, Cruiser and Battlecruiser departments a year ago, this is not the case now. After the rebalancing sweep for those classes, Minmatar are already nearing the bottom.
Nerfing TE without any compensation will probably push Minmatar rock bottom. And yes, I am aware TE are used by other weapon systems than projectiles too, but none rely on them as much.
And no, I don't rage on nerfing the only race I fly, I have Specialization at IV for every weapon system and all ship classes except Caldari Battleship (which I'm training now) at V. rofl omg whinematard minmatar are already nearing the bottom :D:D:D:D:D:D having the skills and flying are 2 different things yes you are rageing
Hi Naomi,
I see you're still posting this 100 times a day. Keep it up man, if you reach 100.000 forum posts saying the same thing, you'll win EVE. And you're damn near.
On a different note, kinda sad to see those worms finally finished eating what was left of your brain. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
240
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 12:43:00 -
[849] - Quote
Dana Gilmour wrote:
Hi Naomi,
I see you're still posting this 100 times a day. Keep it up man, if you reach 100.000 forum posts saying the same thing, you'll win EVE. And you're damn near.
On a different note, kinda sad to see those worms finally finished eating what was left of your brain.
at least they had something to start with , no wonder why they didnt choose you :D |
Dana Gilmour
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
15
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 13:02:00 -
[850] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:Dana Gilmour wrote:
Hi Naomi,
I see you're still posting this 100 times a day. Keep it up man, if you reach 100.000 forum posts saying the same thing, you'll win EVE. And you're damn near.
On a different note, kinda sad to see those worms finally finished eating what was left of your brain.
at least they had something to start with , no wonder why they didnt choose you :D
Indeed, no wonder. They only pick on those who have so little to begin with that even defending against them is nearly impossible. |
|
Rynnik
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
75
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 14:28:00 -
[851] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote:Perhaps this will help make sense of it:#
falloff /Tracking speed/ Optimal TC 15% / 15% / 7.5% TC 30% / 15% / 0.0% (falloff script) TC 0.0% / 30% / 0.0% (Tracking Script) TE 30% / 10% / 15%
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.
I personally hate (Not emphatic enough; Abhor, Despise, Screaming with rage), the new proposed bonuses to the TE. But putting aside how I personally feel about the changes, and how they affect me, I am looking at why they needed changed in relation to the Balancing of ships and their respective abilities. I would hope that Fozzie reconsiders the 33% and goes for a 20% but I'm not holding my breath.
I am sorry, but the bolded and underlined bit is off:
Optimal scripted TC II is:
30% / 0% / 15%
While the TE II actually gives:
30% / 9.5% / 15%
But yes, that is exactly why I think the current T2 TE bonuses were too high and that this adjustment is a very very healthy thing. |
Lili Lu
721
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 14:37:00 -
[852] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote:Perhaps this will help make sense of it:#
falloff /Tracking speed/ Optimal TC 15% / 15% / 7.5% TC 30% / 15% / 0.0% (falloff script) TC 0.0% / 30% / 0.0% (Tracking Script) TE 30% / 10% / 15%
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.
I personally hate (Not emphatic enough; Abhor, Despise, Screaming with rage), the new proposed bonuses to the TE. But putting aside how I personally feel about the changes, and how they affect me, I am looking at why they needed changed in relation to the Balancing of ships and their respective abilities. I would hope that Fozzie reconsiders the 33% and goes for a 20% but I'm not holding my breath.
I think your grid is a little off. The one you have labeled TC with Falloff script should be 30/00/15. But still your point is well illustrated.
However, you could hold your breath. They did partially cave to the player response in the HM damage nerf. They did recognize some problems and sent back for internal testing the proposed TC/TE/TD changes affecting missiles. Notice these were adjustments and reevaluations of the extent of the change they have determined is in the game's best interest, not a total abandonment of their plans. So there was a HM damage nerf. The "tracking" mod changes for missiles are still coming. And here I could easily see a 30%, 25%, or even 20% change on the range nerfs to TE optimal and falloff instead of the initially presented 33% nerf to range effects.
On eve-kill Minmatar ships for March (and we are at the end of the month) currently occupy 11.5 of the top 20. Some of that is missile minny ships. And, some of those minny turret ships are often fit with arty for the alpha and not autos for the kiting. But even there the TE is sitting behind both providing a method of getting mobility and range.
Basically there need to be some buffs to range for ships that armor tank. If you are a brick you need a range option to combat mobility endowed ships. Thus Amarr appears to be urged through lack of midslots into brick armor tanking. Of course it is difficult to fit beams and an armor tank due to grid. This is partially why of all the short range guns pulse lasers have to longest optimal. This is also another reason why CCP needs to be very careful with the tracking mod changes for missiles. HAMs and Torps, and to a lesser extent rockets could end up with great range and with the typical shield tanks once again provide an obvious and excellent kiting platform that currently ac/minny ships provide.
So, yes to TE nerf. Maybe toned down from the current proposal.
Yes to tracking mod effects on missiles. But only if base range on short range missiles get a nerf, and if the effects on range are more moderate with missiles than they are with turrets. Also, base effects on turrets of TDs needs a simultaneous nerf, while the specialized ships need a slight buff. And to finish with tracking mods there needs to be an examination of whether these effects should all be contained in one module or a pair of modules. This is so especially in the case of TDs once they start to affect all turrets and launchers, lest they become a new multispec ecm of doom module.
Simultaneously, CCP needs to think about the turrets themselves. Beams need a slight optimal buff, maybe. They have the same optimals as arty, but nowhere near the falloff. One could even reduce the damage on them if Tachyons were to become the next fotm. And I still think the alpha on arty was slightly overdone. Imo they could gain a little cycle speed and dps in exchange for losing a little of their current volley damage.
edit - Dana v Naomi. Battle of the posting alts. |
Goldiiee
Superior Ratio High Sec Dropouts
317
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 14:39:00 -
[853] - Quote
Rynnik wrote:
I am sorry, but the bolded and underlined bit is off:
Optimal scripted TC II is:
30% / 0% / 15%
While the TE II actually gives:
30% / 9.5% / 15%
But yes, that is exactly why I think the current T2 TE bonuses were too high and that this adjustment is a very very healthy thing.
Fixed in post Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced (But I still try..) |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
227
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 14:40:00 -
[854] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote: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.
Problem is here that the effect from TEs overall is very varied - I don't really have time to find examples for a wide variety of cases and anyone can post specific examples to support their view on this and ignore that just as many examples exist that don't. So a straight forward compromise isn't as easy here as it is with say the HML damage/range.
For instance the shield moros fit I like to use at the range its mostly used (yes this is PVE use) - I can get away with using antimatter currently and hitting for ~9600dps with this change* it will go from hitting 9600dps at that range to 7160dps which is a pretty big change and require me to be constantly swapping between lead and antimatter ammo to keep my damage effective.
*Its at the edge of effective range for AM, lead gives 10K dps at the same range but requires constant swapping as stuff gets closer so not worth using it for the very small damge decrease. |
Goldiiee
Superior Ratio High Sec Dropouts
317
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 15:04:00 -
[855] - Quote
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.
I personally hate (Not emphatic enough; Abhor, Despise, Screaming with rage), the new proposed bonuses to the TE. But putting aside how I personally feel about the changes, and how they affect me, I am looking at why they needed changed in relation to the Balancing of ships and their respective abilities. I would hope that Fozzie reconsiders the 33% and goes for a 20% but I'm not holding my breath.
Edit: got the numbers right this time
Had a faction TE II caused a little error in my numbers, adding the proposed to iluminate the future Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced (But I still try..) |
Lord Eremet
The Seatbelts
5
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 15:11:00 -
[856] - Quote
This is probably a good nerf to TE, but there is one little thing buggering me with the TC: Why is there a graphical effect showing people if I use one?
Please, remove that stupid effect. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
227
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 16:26:00 -
[857] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote: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.
Don't see the problem myself - you can't get +30% tracking out of a TE, there maybe some minor issues in that the TC uses cap and TE doesn't and you lose all tracking bonus with range script which the TE doesn't. Infact if anything that goes to illustate that ships that can't use midslots for tracking due to needing them for tank regardless of whether they are skirmish or not are going to suffer from these changes. (Obviously going to be some armor ships that suffer as well, etc.). |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear Limitless Inc.
100
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 16:57:00 -
[858] - 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! |
HoleySheet1
Concentrated Evil The Marmite Collective
183
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 17:00:00 -
[859] - Quote
Stop changing stuff. Stop listening to socio-pathetic null bears. Give them a rorqual boost or some crap and be happy. The rest of us are happy. The game works fine. Make more nebulas and pretty stuff. Oh...and put moon minerals in wormholes (class dependent) |
Zircon Dasher
178
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 17:20:00 -
[860] - Quote
Change more stuff. Stop listening to comfortable people. Give them cheaper wardecs or some crap and be happy. The rest of us are happy. We will adapt. Make changes every 3mo just to keep things interesting. Oh...and make all holes the same as C6 (in size/mass allowance) Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
|
Claire Raynor
NovaGear Limitless Inc.
100
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 17:32:00 -
[861] - 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.
|
amurder Hakomairos
Fellowship Of Lost Souls Rebel Alliance of New Eden
44
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 19:04:00 -
[862] - Quote
Claire Raynor wrote: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.
Yeah I'd like to see some detailed examples from CCP about how this module is OP and how it's breaking the game. Not just "we think the stats are too good". That's an opinion, and not a reason to nerf something. How would you like it if you bought a car and then someone comes and says "we removed 2 cylinders from your engine because we can and we think your car is overpowered" |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
29
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 21:16:00 -
[863] - Quote
At this point, I'm just waiting to see what Fozzie's replies are, all the rest of the post are nothing but repeats of what's been getting posted all along. |
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
572
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 21:18:00 -
[864] - Quote
amurder Hakomairos wrote:
Yeah I'd like to see some detailed examples from CCP about how this module is OP and how it's breaking the game. Not just "we think the stats are too good". That's an opinion, and not a reason to nerf something. How would you like it if you bought a car and then someone comes and says "we removed 2 cylinders from your engine because we can and we think your car is overpowered"
That is a terrible analogy because this is a video game. It should be fairly obvious the reasons why rebalances happen. It is fully within CCP's power to make all ships go 10000 m/s without a mwd, in the real world a car company would love to do that, CCP would not because this is a game. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
0racle
Galactic Rangers R O G U E
17
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 00:12:00 -
[865] - Quote
I don't see this as a nerf to tracking enhancers as much as I see it as a buff to tracking disruptors. Hello Talos. Meet Pilgrim. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4480
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 00:55:00 -
[866] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote: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.
I personally hate (Not emphatic enough; Abhor, Despise, Screaming with rage), the new proposed bonuses to the TE. But putting aside how I personally feel about the changes, and how they affect me, I am looking at why they needed changed in relation to the Balancing of ships and their respective abilities. I would hope that Fozzie reconsiders the 33% and goes for a 20% but I'm not holding my breath.
Edit: got the numbers right this time
Had a faction TE II caused a little error in my numbers, adding the proposed to iluminate the future Except of course for the very subpar tracking speed bonus that you can't change. I don't suppose making an equivalent O/F bonus makes up for that at all. Malcanis for CSM 8 Module activation timers are buggy - CCP please fix |
El Geo
Pathfinders. The Marmite Collective
81
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 01:29:00 -
[867] - Quote
TD's everywhere already, nerfs to ranged ships/weapons that excel at guerilla warfare.....
I disapprove path-+find-+er (pthfndr, p+๑th-)n. 1. One that discovers a new course or way, especially through or into unexplored regions.
http://www.youtube.com/user/EvEPathfinders/videos?view=0 |
Unkind Omen
Stone circle W-Space
12
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 08:25:00 -
[868] - Quote
Sry guys for interfering you with my ideas but why do you really think that having TE and TC modules providing twice much falloff than optimal bonus is balanced? As for me the main problem with autocannon + TE combo is the actual fact that it allows to have a larger bonus from falloff than optimal. So Let's have a look at marvelous dps graphs each of close weapon has atm(hope my eft is not out of date too much so please check yourself)
First let's look at 0 skills no bonuses from ship one turret dps at sitting duck without TE. http://clip2net.com/s/4QhH5h
Gun / Optimal (km) + Falloff (km) Heavy Pulse Laser II / 6 + 4 = 10 Heavy Neutron Blaster II / 1.8 + 5 = 6.8 425mm Autocannon II / 1.2 + 9.6 = 10.8
Let's assume that this relatio is somehow balanced with other gun's propertires. Now let's add 1 TE/TC for each test subject. http://clip2net.com/s/4QhS1I
Gun / Optimal (km) + Falloff (km) Heavy Pulse Laser II / 6.9 + 5.2 = 12.1 (+21%) Heavy Neutron Blaster II / 2.1 + 6.5 = 8.6(+26%) 425mm Autocannon II / 1.4 + 12.5 = 13.9(+28.7%)
As you can see the the Autocannon's effective distance has grown by almost 29% while Lasors got only 21% growth because half of the bonus of TE was applied as 15% to optimal while autocannons got almost everything applied as 30% to falloff.
That's why I think that the maximal Falloff/optimal bonuses should be equalized on TC/TE to the value of 21% optimal bonus + 21% falloff bonus at first place. This will actually nerf projectiles to the place they belong and keep bonus different weapon groups get from these modules equal.
As the second step I think it is worth considering two half-measues: 1) Reduce TE falloff /optimal bonus by 15% in comparsion to TC to make it more balanced assuming bonus per slot ratio. 2) Increase CPU consumtion of TE module to make it more balanced from the perspective of bonus per fitting usage considering the fact that there are ships that are more ore less CPU tight in fitting while in general gun boats are PG limited in fitting as this part will only nerf those tight ships. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
53
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 10:09:00 -
[869] - Quote
Sometimes what I beleive is that we need new way to people fight outnumbered. Even simple things as changign the warp speed rig to affect the whoel acceleration and de-acceleration (that could help with some hit and run tactics).
We need more ideads of how to expand the ways you can fight outnumbered. That would diminish the rpessure on everyone havign to fly kiting boats. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Tribal Band
308
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 13:05:00 -
[870] - Quote
So, minmatar ships will now have to choose between short-range and long range? Rather than having everything all-in-one with auto-cannons?
+1 "How do you kill that which has no life?" |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |