You still didn't answer if you're going to look at Tracking Link as part of this change. Bonuses from remote assistance module should be better than from Tracking Computer.

torp changes/explosion radius changes plox

The real problem isn't TE's are OP, the real problem is Projectiles uses a different set of math than other turrets.

I have tested this with friends in game, they can hit for perfect damage at max falloff, they can track faster than the game says they should. So much so that when you fly something else, like Amarr, you count falloff as part of your range only to find you do almost no damage past Optimal. While with autocannons falloff is counted just like optimal.

When 425's can track a scepter orbiting you at .78 Transversal, but your guns say they can only track at .15 something is not adding up..

I am almost a pure Minmatar Pilot, I love Autocannons, but even I say they don't follow the same rules as other turrets. Before you hurt EVERYONE, by nerfing a module (which Blasters use the Op/Fall range bonus more than Autos) How about going back and looking at the code that controls projectiles, and see what's broke in it.

Well we've already announced the large energy turrets and cruise missile changes. But we're working on part four (and probably five) now.

This is not how tracking (or the damage equation) works.





Fozzie, what about looking at TDs, since a nerf to turret tracking is an effective buff to the effectiveness of already this already too-effective module?

Has CCP ever addressed why TEs should give double the bonus to falloff that they do to optimal?

To me it seems just like more love for Minmatar, and I thought they didn't want them to be "Winmatar" anymore (while also not being a pathetic Minmatard loser race)

ChanceToHit = 0.5 ^ ((((Transversal speed/(Range to target * Turret Tracking))*(Turret Signature Resolution / Target Signature Radius))^2) + ((max(0, Range To Target - Turret Optimal Range))/Turret Falloff)^2)

AvgDPS = Base Damage * [ ( ChanceToHit^2 + ChanceToHit + 0.0499 ) / 2 ] Simplified form for average DPS for chance to hit at or BELOW 1%: AvgDPS = Base Damage * 3 * ChanceToHit

Actually that is exactly how the math works, and you should end up with a curve such as

http://wiki.eveonline.com/wikiEN/images/a/a4/Falloff.png

But what I'm saying and what I have seen and so has others that fly Minmatar, is that the curve for projectiles is much flatter than any other turret in the game.

This is the post I've been waiting for.
Grow a pair and get close you sissies

Cynabal nerf? check.
No more people trying to kite in Thorax hulls? check.
Significantly less reliable Tier3 BCs? Check.
Significant scan res nerf for RSBs? Check.

This is a good development.

They're also nerfing ReSebos.

So no more stupid ******* insta-locking infini-range Cynacamps.

You don't need RSebos for instalocking cynacamps.

On the price that the CUrve starts much earlier than other wepon systems, as Pulses for example. Its a tradeoff and peopel really forgot very fast how pwoerful the RANGE of pulses can be. They have less extreme range but they have a MUCH broader range where they deal full damage.

I think Tracking Enhancer nerf is not good idea. dislike. Maybe carebears want nerf minmatar pvp ships?

Maybe carebears rely on TEs as well?

I saw several people mention this, but saw no CCP response...

What effect will this have on TD's?

As it stands, a single non-bonused TD can counteract 2 TE's. And bonused TDs makes any module, or number of modules, fitted to your ship to enhance tracking nearly moot. Maybe it's not high on your list of priorities, but the enormous gap between beneficial mods and detrimental ones(ewar) just took a HUGE leap in the wrong direction. Turret ships already have a tough enough time sustaining equivalent dps(effective dps) at long point ranges(20km or so) as missile ships. And it just so happens that many of those fast kitey shield ships you are trying to "fix" are still missile boats, who already claim dominance over any kiting turret ship with the use of one of their ample mid slots for a TD. You stated that you felt the strength of the low slot modules was too much, when compared to the equivalent mid slot one. Where is the consideration for the strength of mid-slot ewar compared to low-slot beneficial mods?

CAN WE HAVE A POTION BOOSTER FOR IMMUNITY TO ECM JAMMERS? I HAVE PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO THIS BUT WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT. A POTION FOR STOPPING ECM WILL MAKE UP FOR LOSING TRACKING ENHANCING. THAT IS MY THOUGHTS ON THE SUBJECT AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME.

editted, saw this on pages 47:

"What about faction TEs? They don't seem to have an advantage.
The reason that my OP didn't clearly show the advantage of faction TEs is because the extra bonus from faction TEs has always been in tracking, not range. Since the tracking bonus is not being adjusted in this change I elected not to display it. Adding range bonused high metalevel TEs may be an option in the future, but for now the tracking benefits of faction TEs make them a sought after module so I do not see a desperate need to change them at this time."

going from 10.0% tracking speed bonus to 10.5 is a 5% bonus on 1 affected attribute
Optimal is unaffected
falloff is unaffected

giving equal weighting to all three attributes its 5% / 3 = 1.66% better having the faction TE

Compare that with current differences in pretty much all faction mods and its rather weak... so im not sure how these are so "sought after" tbh. Even incursion runners generally dont touch them.

Whats the overall difference a faction damage mod does? 23% with t2 and 25.8% with faction, between the two thats an increase of over 12% isnt it?

[quote=Beth Askold]editted, saw this on pages 47:

I only saw faction TEs in fits that are extremely tight and only their lower fitting requirements allow the whole ship to be running, with the skills all maxed.

YEs we did calculated that way back then we proposed and ccp listened to add falloff bonuses. FAlloff is effectively and mathematically shown as worth HALF of what range is wroth.


When you increase your optimal by 10 km you increase your FULL dps 10 km more. WHen you increase falloff by 10 km you increase HALF dps 10 km.


Just beleive in the peopel that did the math (I was one back then) Falloff bonuses must be larger than optimal bonuses or they become much weaker than optimal ones.

Is the intent of this change to shrink the range of all engagements and force people within scram range?
This change will reduce the damage that some ship fits apply from long range. However there is no shortage of options for dealing damage at multiple ranges and nobody is forcing everyone within scram/web range. It is intended that this change will make the choice between staying at range with reduced damage and moving close for higher dps at higher risk more stark for many ships. It is also intended that this change reduces the effectiveness of some short range weapons when used for kiting. EVE has many weapon systems with many strength and weaknesses, and tradeoffs include range. If all weapons can be easily used for kiting, the value of choosing longer range weapon systems is reduced.

This nerf hits the incursion shield community quite hard actually. Maelstrom, TFI, Mach, Vindi, Navy mega, Rohk, Mega, Loki and Nightmare (to a lesser extent) are all going to be hit by the TE nerf. Most PVP encounters don't require you to hit out at ranges past 100k but in incursions it is required for every HQ site. These changes will hit sniper boats the hardest and DPS boats to lesser extent.

The changes seem short sited and not well thought out. If you want ships that tank with there low slots to be more effective buff range scripts for TC. Better to buff a few than take a hammer to many.

Seeing changes like this makes me fear for pirate hull Battleships when it comes time for rebalancing.