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

Or maybe they just want maximum damage and there's only so many damage mods you can fit before it becomes pointless, the next best thing is tracking enhancers or speed mods.

maybe my look at things is too simply as i only know TEs in their current form, but i always thought the biggest issue with autocannons was the non-influence of the high dmg projectile ammo on their range.

high dmg crystals and hybrid charges cut the weapon range roughly in half. Fusion, EMP and Phased Plasma do this only when used with artillery. They only modify the optimal range which is non-existent for autocannons. When a malus on falloff would be introduced, kiting ships with autoannons would be either forced to come closer or rely on the ammo with no such malus. barrage is locked into explo/kin dmg and the dmg selection is reduced further, dealing with yet another thing everybody and his dog complains about.
of course introducing both ammo changes and the TE nerf would be brutal. so choose between an across the board nerfling or the autocannon specific tweak.

maybe then it could be a solution to rebalance optimal vs fallof on autocannon then?

cause actually, all autocannon will fight within the fallof range, not the optimal, 90% of the time, wich is already cutting part of their paper DPS

And that is part of the issue they are trying to tackle, They are trying to make armor tanking more prevalent by makign low slot offensive options less overhelming.


My opinion, they coudl achieve more of that if they moved the drone damage modules to mid slots.

That was intentionally made that way so that minamtar woudl have the so called damage selection.

The real price is in tracking. The trackign of AC was reduced back then and the mid range ammo got a tracking bonus. They simply made the things DIFFERENT. and that is intentional.

well then the projectile ammo experiment failed imho. there are few situations where you actually have to use the "midrange" or even "longrange" ammo. in a lot of cases this situations can be handled with T2 ammo. so fusion, emp and phased are the ones mostly used with depleted uranium on some occasions. would it not be more sensible to use falloff too for tuning the projectile range?

the extensive use of high dmg ammos might be a product of TEs giving so much range which would be somewhat adjusted with the proposed changes. but still, i have the feeling autocannons aren't that strong in midrange combat because of TEs. alot of people have pointed out and done the math that the proposed changes will not alter the dmg projection of autocannons in a tremendous fashion.

When a malus on falloff would be introduced, kiting ships with autoannons would be either forced to come closer or rely on the ammo with no such malus

there are few situations where you actually have to use the "midrange" or even "longrange" ammo. in a lot of cases this situations can be handled with T2 ammo.

I came here to say that the word you are looking for is penalty.

I'll add that above frigate/destroyer scales, people kiting with ACs do rely on barrage, and that inflicting a meaningful falloff penalty on short-ranged projectile ammo would cripple the weapon system (which is already overrated). Just consider how terrible hail is.



This is true of all short-ranged turrets. Your pulse boat isn't running around with 8 sets of laser crystals.

i still think ACs are great. you just need to know when to use them.
some form of ammo/crystall/charge revamp would be nice. makes me sad that there are so many ammunitions which are totally worthless.

This is true of all short-ranged turrets. Your pulse boat isn't running around with 8 sets of laser crystals.

I'm fine with the idea of weapon system specific "TEs".

So a Minmatar TE would be something like, (spitballing numbers here): 0% optimal, 45% falloff bonus
Gallente/Caldari TE: 15% optimal, 20% falloff
Amarr TE: 30% optimal, 0% falloff

Obviously could use number tweaking between optimal and falloff balance (depends on its value to the weapon system as seen above), but you get the idea.

I feel like you're missing the point.

The point is to reduce the advantage that shield tankers have over armor tankers IE, they have more low slots free so they can fit more damage mods and more TEs

your proposed change would make this problem WORSE not better

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.

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.

There should be a damage mid slot module that activates and uses cap and can be run with scripts.

Thanks for explaining your reasoning behind the balance Fozzie, I agree that these are good changes

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.

I like the theory about the warpdrive always being active creates a drag in space, and the larger the drive, the greater the drag, which explains why a large ship with the meanest engines you ever saw goes slow as a snail, and why you grind to a halt when not powering engines.