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 So Let's have a look at marvelous dps graphs each of close weapon has atm(hope my eft is not out of date too much so please check yourself)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.

you have to consider that falloff is worth roughly half as much as optimal range

So basically getting +20% of falloff is worse than +20% of optimal when my guns have 2km of optimal and 50km of falloff?!
Really?!

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.

I think it's a really bad idea nerfing in 1/3 the effectiveness of TE (especially for Amarr ships), instead of adjusting the bonuses of the ships that gets bonuses to falloff range. In other ships TEs works as intended, and you're breaking at all a module just because a couple of ships get advantage of the actual combination and bonus overlap.

And what about the Tracking Disruptor boosting/missile disruption? EVE has 10 years and still no EWAR for missiles.

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%

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

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

This tailors the game towards the masses. Just like every other MMO the devs will tailor to the masses to simplify the game for the tards up until the point where the good players start to give up because its boring.

That's why all good players will quit eve and play something else.
I already see only 20k people online atm so that's a huge step down.
Normally i would see 35k or more on the server but now i see only 20k which is indicating that those changes are breaking the game.
Do more nerfs and people will start playing some other games that are more fun and better.
EVE will die slowly.

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.

So basically getting +20% of falloff is worse than +20% of optimal when my guns have 2km of optimal and 50km of falloff?!
Really?!

Great Job CCP!!!

First you nerf Heavy missiles because they where to OP at range, and made them equally with Guns.

Now you nerf range of guns and make Missiles OP again.....

Goodbey long range guns, welcome back Missile boats

Also this will ruin A LOT of solo kiting frigs except ofcourse for the condor that can still kite with his light missiles. (AND actually hit)

no more nice range on the kting slicer, no more nice range on the kiting retribution, in other words: let solo pvp die.

only way to pvp after this is close range brawl and this means you get blobbed to hell. No way to get out solo anymore.

Nope. The autocannosn are intended to have superior falloff than blasters. Significantly Superior. The problem is the module itself! A module that increases so massively any ship capability with almost no cost up to the point that it becomes a serius reason why not even think on armor tanking is something in need of a nerf!

Its is so clearly the TE problem that you see amarr ships shield tankign so they can use TE!

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?

You do realise you've just suggested that ACs should have the same falloff - less optimal - 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.

That's why all good players will quit eve and play something else.
I already see only 20k people online atm so that's a huge step down.
Normally i would see 35k or more on the server but now i see only 20k which is indicating that those changes are breaking the game.
Do more nerfs and people will start playing some other games that are more fun and better.
EVE will die slowly.

They are no problem with that. In Amarr in shield you don't have tanking because you have only 3 or 4 medium slot. Increase your range without tanking and without speed. It's no a problem.

In this case the autocannon keep a better falloff then Gallente but you decrease massively the range of the optimal + 2*falloff.

The problem is simply in this equation optimal + 2* falloff (the falloff for the medium autocannon it's too high ). it's also for this reason than minmatar use only the short range ammo.

Now if you spit the ammo in two short range ammo and long range ammo (autocannon and artillery don't use same ammo).

You can make some very interesting modification (this value is only for exemple).

First range :
Autocannon EMP same damage optimal 0 (before -50 %)
Second range :
Autocannon Titanium sabot same damage, tracking + 20 % and falloff + 30 %
third range :
Autocannon nuclear same damage, tracking + 5 % + 50 optimal + 50 % falloff

Its is so clearly the TE problem that you see amarr ships shield tankign so they can use TE!

Oh oh oh, I know this one, mememememe!

Wait wait.. it's... YES

"EVE is dying!"