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) |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
20
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:40:00 -
[91] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Got some more Odyssey updates for you all, this time in the form of some module rebalancing! We're going to have a number of module balance changes released with EVE Online: Odyssey on June 4th, and our first batch to announce are the Remote Sensor Boosters and Tracking Enhancers.
Let's start with Remote Sensor Boosters. They give pretty extreme bonuses to scan res at the moment, similar to officer sensor boosters. This has contributed to the growth of instalock camps that are in our opinion are a bit too easy nowadays. So we're gonna decrease the scan res bonuses so that they give a solid but more reasonable benefit over local boosters. We're leaving the lock range bonus of the T1 and T2 remote boosters the same since we don't see them as overpowered for that role, and actually buffing the lock range bonus from the meta remote boosters since they are currently all giving T1 meta 0 level bonuses for that stat right now.
Key stat for this change is that the best Remote Sensor Boosters will have their Scan Resolution bonus reduced from 40.5% to 33%.
Apologies for the terrible formatting (you can copypaste into a spreadsheet and it looks good)
typeNameOld ScanRes BonusNew ScanRes BonusOld LockRange BonusNew LockRange Bonus Remote Sensor Booster I33.82833.833.8 Coadjunct Linked Sensor Array I35.42933.835 Linked Sensor Network40.53033.836 Connected Scanning CPU Uplink37.13133.837 F-23 Reciprocal Sensor Cluster Link38.83233.838 Remote Sensor Booster II40.53340.540.5 'Boss' Remote Sensor Booster I40.53333.839 'Entrepreneur' Remote Sensor Booster I40.53340.540.5
Now for TEs. It's a fairly well accepted fact that the great optimal and falloff bonuses on TEs are over the top, especially considering they can get them while also simultaneously giving decent tracking boosts. The strength of TEs has been one of the reasons for Minmatar dominance in recent years, as well as contributing to the relative strength of shield tanking over armor tanking by inflating the value of non-tank low slots. What we're looking at is simply decreasing the falloff and optimal bonuses of all TEs by 1/3, and leaving their tracking bonus intact.
Key stat for this change is a reduction in the Optimal/Falloff bonus on a T2 Tracking Enhancer from 15%/30% to 10%/20%.
NameOldFalloffNewFalloffOldOptimalNewOptimal Azimuth Descalloping Tracking Enhancer117.45.53.7 Basic Tracking Enhancer106.653.3 Beam Parallax Tracking Program12864 Beta-Nought Tracking Mode10.575.253.5 F-AQ Delay-Line Scan Tracking Subroutines11.57.65.753.8 Tracking Enhancer I2013.4106.7 Sigma-Nought Tracking Mode I211410.57 Auto-Gain Control Tracking Enhancer I2214.6117.3 F-aQ Phase Code Tracking Subroutines2315.411.57.7 Fourier Transform Tracking Program2416128 Tracking Enhancer II30201510 Domination Tracking Enhancer30201510 Republic Fleet Tracking Enhancer30201510 Mizuro's Modified Tracking Enhancer31.52115.7510.5 Hakim's Modified Tracking Enhancer332216.511 Gotan's Modified Tracking Enhancer34.52317.2511.5 Tobias' Modified Tracking Enhancer36241812
This change will be somewhat painful for many ships that rely on TEs for range in their current fits, but we are confident that the change is necessary to establish balance between the different weapon upgrade modules.
Let me know what you think!
Could you consider makign soem of the faction oens a bit better than t2 so that they are... you know.. USEFUL?
For example the republic fleet one coudl very well be 12%/22% .
We need a bit of work on making a lot of the things in LP stores become somewhat remotely interesting.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
549
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:40:00 -
[92] - Quote
Old TE's, before the brain freeze was 10opt/10fall/15track, right?
Not sure the TE falloff nerf is enough .. and why penalize optimal users (read: Amarr) to an equal extent, not as if the golden hulls have mids to abuse them as seen with Gallente/Minmatar the past few years.
Or does it mean you accepted that lows are not as valuable as mids and you will now give all Amarr hulls +1 for free? |
Junko Sideswipe
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
123
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:40:00 -
[93] - Quote
I think everyone who's played since the TE buff been waiting 3+ years for this nerf, well done. Confederation of xXPIZZAXx CEO Watch PIZZA Videos http://www.youtube.com/user/LunchSquad |
2D34DLY4U
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:41:00 -
[94] - Quote
This tweet made me come here for the first time ever.
I'm not a fitting guru nor knowledgeable of the game as Fozzie and others around here so I may say some wrong stuff, but I know that almost all my Minnie fits have a mix of TE & Gyro on their lows, both the armor and shield fits. I also know that if you want to go fast you have to tank shield which is ok because you get worse sig radius, at the same time it makes sense that if you armor tank you are slower since you have heavier weight. Shield tanks use their lows for damage projection because they go faster and aim to fight at range, this is working as intended IMO and hardly broken. I get the feeling that if you nerf TE I will have serious damage projection issues and my speed&range advantages will be severely hampered without falloff, so please don't nerf TE's or consider carefully the way you do it.
I also feel these recent changes to ships, including armor honeycombing making the armor tanks go faster and the nerf to the TE forcing the shield tankers to fight at closer range all seem to be aimed at "normalizing" ships, in the sense that they are basically becoming more and more similar and less different, resulting in a poorer game IMO.
I can understand that from a top level perspective you may consider it a good idea that to put everyone flying kind of the same thing with small variations as this could be perceived as an incentive for more PVP, yet I believe you may in fact be making the game more boring by removing variety while at the same time not addressing the central issue which is most people in EVE are risk averse and they have no incentive to do GÇ£fairGÇ¥ or GÇ£balancedGÇ¥ PVP, be it in similar ships or in radically different ships. You have to address the easy mode risk aversion instead of killing the variety (making instant locking gate camps harder by nerfing RSB is good btw).
Further consider that one of the largest factors affecting small gang warfare engagements is the number of pilots on each side, fleet size is one of the major drivers of the outcome of engagements and as such ship balancing is not really that relevant (!), unless for the Alliance Tournament or controlled engagement scenarios (that EVE doesn't have a lot as itGÇÖs hardly aimed to foster that kind of competitive/balanced PVP). This means that you should aim to stimulate variety in ships and fittings instead of limiting them by "balancing", the game will balance itself out as it will allow players to dynamically adjust the pros and cons of each individual ship setup by permitting FC's to chose engagements based on number of people on their fleet vs. opposing fleet. Since in EVE the size of fleets varies so easily and the resulting fleet strength is so much dependant on this, ship balancing may not be the major issue as everyone can pick the fights they want / donGÇÖt want by choosing the numbers in their engagements.
Finally, I hope that when you redo the Vaga & Cyna you at least adjust their falloff bonuses in the same way you adjusted the Stabber as this nerf may destroy some of the more fun to fly ships in this game.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
20
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:44:00 -
[95] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Old TE's, before the brain freeze was 10opt/10fall/15track, right? Not sure the TE falloff nerf is enough .. and why penalize optimal users (read: Amarr) to an equal extent, not as if the golden hulls have mids to abuse them as seen with Gallente/Minmatar the past few years. Or does it mean you accepted that lows are not as valuable as mids and you will now give all Amarr hulls +1 for free?
You are NOT hurting them on same ammount. Because optimal over the range to the target is wasted optimal. Falloff is not. So For example if you amarr ship had 30 optimal and its reduced to 24. THis is a Much less severe hit than a falloff of 40 being reduced to 38. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
20
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:45:00 -
[96] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Old TE's, before the brain freeze was 10opt/10fall/15track, right? Not sure the TE falloff nerf is enough .. and why penalize optimal users (read: Amarr) to an equal extent, not as if the golden hulls have mids to abuse them as seen with Gallente/Minmatar the past few years. Or does it mean you accepted that lows are not as valuable as mids and you will now give all Amarr hulls +1 for free?
Also remember these changes in first place appeared exaclty because amarr were considered completely overpowered and minmatar were considered useless!!!
So simply removign the flaloff bonus would just bring back the old unbalanced meta game. |
Machiavelli's Nemesis
Angry Mustellid Iron Oxide.
208
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:51:00 -
[97] - Quote
Thank you CCP for two successive patches designed to render my beloved Hurricane completely useless.
Now I might actually have to armour tank it like all the horrid proles do. Cheers :( |
Hoarr
Asgard. Exodus.
107
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:08:00 -
[98] - Quote
Machiavelli's Nemesis wrote:Thank you CCP for two successive patches designed to render my beloved Hurricane completely useless.
Now I might actually have to armour tank it like all the horrid proles do. Cheers :(
Cane Fleet Issue getting the second utility high back, calling it right now.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
550
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:09:00 -
[99] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Also remember these changes in first place appeared exaclty because amarr were considered completely overpowered and minmatar were considered useless!!!
So simply removign the flaloff bonus would just bring back the old unbalanced meta game. Only partially true as projectile guns were changed as was ammo for them at the same time as the TE changes. Or do you buy into the idea that the TE overbuff was the sole reason for the past few years WInmatar fad?
As for value of optimal vs. falloff: Laser damage drops to zero rather abruptly once optimal is exceeded whereas falloff heavy weapons continue doing damage, albeit reduced .. Also need to remember that falloff weapons generally have tracking that is far superior to that of optimal ditto.
Current TE's allow all short range weapons to have roughly the same projection, but base damage/tracking is significantly different. Taking optimal down the same as falloff maintains the projection thus still allowing projectiles (tracking) and blasters (damage) to almost reach laser ranges and beyond (due to the way falloff works).
But I'll test the -33% versions all the same, just not sure it is wise to hit optimal by the same amount after auto and recent blaster changes with nothing done to lasers since Trinity?, I forget.
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1612
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:11:00 -
[100] - Quote
well, the "minmatar are to strong so we nerf TE" argument is not very convincing. Its not like this module would be restricted to projectile weapons. a eve-style bounty system (done)-á dust boarding parties You fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
|
Terraka WOLF
S.C.A.R
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:12:00 -
[101] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Got some more Odyssey updates for you all, this time in the form of some module rebalancing! We're going to have a number of module balance changes released with EVE Online: Odyssey on June 4th, and our first batch to announce are the Remote Sensor Boosters and Tracking Enhancers.
Let's start with Remote Sensor Boosters. They give pretty extreme bonuses to scan res at the moment, similar to officer sensor boosters. This has contributed to the growth of instalock camps that are in our opinion are a bit too easy nowadays. So we're gonna decrease the scan res bonuses so that they give a solid but more reasonable benefit over local boosters. We're leaving the lock range bonus of the T1 and T2 remote boosters the same since we don't see them as overpowered for that role, and actually buffing the lock range bonus from the meta remote boosters since they are currently all giving T1 meta 0 level bonuses for that stat right now.
Key stat for this change is that the best Remote Sensor Boosters will have their Scan Resolution bonus reduced from 40.5% to 33%.
Apologies for the terrible formatting (you can copypaste into a spreadsheet and it looks good)
typeNameOld ScanRes BonusNew ScanRes BonusOld LockRange BonusNew LockRange Bonus Remote Sensor Booster I33.82833.833.8 Coadjunct Linked Sensor Array I35.42933.835 Linked Sensor Network40.53033.836 Connected Scanning CPU Uplink37.13133.837 F-23 Reciprocal Sensor Cluster Link38.83233.838 Remote Sensor Booster II40.53340.540.5 'Boss' Remote Sensor Booster I40.53333.839 'Entrepreneur' Remote Sensor Booster I40.53340.540.5
Now for TEs. It's a fairly well accepted fact that the great optimal and falloff bonuses on TEs are over the top, especially considering they can get them while also simultaneously giving decent tracking boosts. The strength of TEs has been one of the reasons for Minmatar dominance in recent years, as well as contributing to the relative strength of shield tanking over armor tanking by inflating the value of non-tank low slots. What we're looking at is simply decreasing the falloff and optimal bonuses of all TEs by 1/3, and leaving their tracking bonus intact.
Key stat for this change is a reduction in the Optimal/Falloff bonus on a T2 Tracking Enhancer from 15%/30% to 10%/20%.
NameOldFalloffNewFalloffOldOptimalNewOptimal Azimuth Descalloping Tracking Enhancer117.45.53.7 Basic Tracking Enhancer106.653.3 Beam Parallax Tracking Program12864 Beta-Nought Tracking Mode10.575.253.5 F-AQ Delay-Line Scan Tracking Subroutines11.57.65.753.8 Tracking Enhancer I2013.4106.7 Sigma-Nought Tracking Mode I211410.57 Auto-Gain Control Tracking Enhancer I2214.6117.3 F-aQ Phase Code Tracking Subroutines2315.411.57.7 Fourier Transform Tracking Program2416128 Tracking Enhancer II30201510 Domination Tracking Enhancer30201510 Republic Fleet Tracking Enhancer30201510 Mizuro's Modified Tracking Enhancer31.52115.7510.5 Hakim's Modified Tracking Enhancer332216.511 Gotan's Modified Tracking Enhancer34.52317.2511.5 Tobias' Modified Tracking Enhancer36241812
This change will be somewhat painful for many ships that rely on TEs for range in their current fits, but we are confident that the change is necessary to establish balance between the different weapon upgrade modules.
Let me know what you think!
Ok so i have never post on here because i didnt realy see a need to before but i have read this entire thread and as some one stated before WHY THE HECK ARE FACTION THE SAME A T2!! if that is gona be the change can i have back the 2bil i spent buying faction ones for my incursion ships. which bring me to my next point of not in this entire blog have i seen metion of incursion fleets. which heavly use TE's on there ships. Especaily the Vindi. this change would both criple the vindi, hurt all the other fleet memmbers and make the billions we spent on faction TE's useless. Do you have any comments on this as this seems to be a problem to me at least. |
Nalha Saldana
Sickology
694
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:14:00 -
[102] - Quote
The biggest issue with TCs is the crazy cpu requirement and armor ships are usually quite low cpu, lower that and they will be way more popular |
Hoarr
Asgard. Exodus.
107
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:14:00 -
[103] - Quote
Terraka WOLF wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Got some more Odyssey updates for you all, this time in the form of some module rebalancing! We're going to have a number of module balance changes released with EVE Online: Odyssey on June 4th, and our first batch to announce are the Remote Sensor Boosters and Tracking Enhancers.
Let's start with Remote Sensor Boosters. They give pretty extreme bonuses to scan res at the moment, similar to officer sensor boosters. This has contributed to the growth of instalock camps that are in our opinion are a bit too easy nowadays. So we're gonna decrease the scan res bonuses so that they give a solid but more reasonable benefit over local boosters. We're leaving the lock range bonus of the T1 and T2 remote boosters the same since we don't see them as overpowered for that role, and actually buffing the lock range bonus from the meta remote boosters since they are currently all giving T1 meta 0 level bonuses for that stat right now.
Key stat for this change is that the best Remote Sensor Boosters will have their Scan Resolution bonus reduced from 40.5% to 33%.
Apologies for the terrible formatting (you can copypaste into a spreadsheet and it looks good)
typeNameOld ScanRes BonusNew ScanRes BonusOld LockRange BonusNew LockRange Bonus Remote Sensor Booster I33.82833.833.8 Coadjunct Linked Sensor Array I35.42933.835 Linked Sensor Network40.53033.836 Connected Scanning CPU Uplink37.13133.837 F-23 Reciprocal Sensor Cluster Link38.83233.838 Remote Sensor Booster II40.53340.540.5 'Boss' Remote Sensor Booster I40.53333.839 'Entrepreneur' Remote Sensor Booster I40.53340.540.5
Now for TEs. It's a fairly well accepted fact that the great optimal and falloff bonuses on TEs are over the top, especially considering they can get them while also simultaneously giving decent tracking boosts. The strength of TEs has been one of the reasons for Minmatar dominance in recent years, as well as contributing to the relative strength of shield tanking over armor tanking by inflating the value of non-tank low slots. What we're looking at is simply decreasing the falloff and optimal bonuses of all TEs by 1/3, and leaving their tracking bonus intact.
Key stat for this change is a reduction in the Optimal/Falloff bonus on a T2 Tracking Enhancer from 15%/30% to 10%/20%.
NameOldFalloffNewFalloffOldOptimalNewOptimal Azimuth Descalloping Tracking Enhancer117.45.53.7 Basic Tracking Enhancer106.653.3 Beam Parallax Tracking Program12864 Beta-Nought Tracking Mode10.575.253.5 F-AQ Delay-Line Scan Tracking Subroutines11.57.65.753.8 Tracking Enhancer I2013.4106.7 Sigma-Nought Tracking Mode I211410.57 Auto-Gain Control Tracking Enhancer I2214.6117.3 F-aQ Phase Code Tracking Subroutines2315.411.57.7 Fourier Transform Tracking Program2416128 Tracking Enhancer II30201510 Domination Tracking Enhancer30201510 Republic Fleet Tracking Enhancer30201510 Mizuro's Modified Tracking Enhancer31.52115.7510.5 Hakim's Modified Tracking Enhancer332216.511 Gotan's Modified Tracking Enhancer34.52317.2511.5 Tobias' Modified Tracking Enhancer36241812
This change will be somewhat painful for many ships that rely on TEs for range in their current fits, but we are confident that the change is necessary to establish balance between the different weapon upgrade modules.
Let me know what you think! Ok so i have never post on here because i didnt realy see a need to before but i have read this entire thread and as some one stated before WHY THE HECK ARE FACTION THE SAME A T2!! if that is gona be the change can i have back the 2bil i spent buying faction ones for my incursion ships. which bring me to my next point of not in this entire blog have i seen metion of incursion fleets. which heavly use TE's on there ships. Especaily the Vindi. this change would both criple the vindi, hurt all the other fleet memmbers and make the billions we spent on faction TE's useless. Do you have any comments on this as this seems to be a problem to me at least.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Quoting for posterity.
You idiot, the faction TEs were ALREADY the same as the T2s for optimal and falloff. You need to actually look at stuff before you buy it. The only difference was that they had smaller fitting requirements and .5% more tracking. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
347
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:16:00 -
[104] - Quote
Loving these changes - Eve pvp really need both these changes...
Static gate camps are worse for Eve pvp than anything it might help solve and making shield/gank setups less attractive while making tracking computers viable is a welcome change for me.
Pinky |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4600
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:16:00 -
[105] - Quote
Terraka WOLF wrote:Ok so i have never post on here because i didnt realy see a need to before but i have read this entire thread and as some one stated before WHY THE HECK ARE FACTION THE SAME A T2!! if that is gona be the change can i have back the 2bil i spent buying faction ones for my incursion ships. which bring me to my next point of not in this entire blog have i seen metion of incursion fleets. which heavly use TE's on there ships. Especaily the Vindi. this change would both criple the vindi, hurt all the other fleet memmbers and make the billions we spent on faction TE's useless. Do you have any comments on this as this seems to be a problem to me at least.
We're not changing the relative strength of faction TEs vs T2 at all. Faction retains its tracking and fittings advantage, and if the faction TEs were worth the price premium over T2 for your purposes before they will continue to be worth the price premium. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
138
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:17:00 -
[106] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote:Alticus C Bear wrote:Vilnius Zar wrote:When the Falloff range bonus on TE was introduced, and in that same patch projectile ammo got buffed, it was obvious that it would become silly. Per usual it takes a few years for CCP to catch on but I'm happy it's finally getting addressed. I like this armour buff a lot. It is not an armour buff; it is a short range weapon nerf, missile buff and the relatively low impact it will have on pulses with scorch will result in even heavier dominance of Amarr resistance based buffer ships in fleets. Yes it very much is an armour buff, armour tankers can still use TC if needed. More importantly it's a kiting nerf so tankier ships (generally armour tanked ones) will benefit.
Why is it a kiting nerf? Your range is lower their range is lower and they are probably using missiles anyway. |
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
423
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:17:00 -
[107] - Quote
RIP Medium Rail Guns. (turns off the life support machine) Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
DRGaius Baltar
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:17:00 -
[108] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Serenety Steel wrote:If it aint broke, DON'T fix it!
Way to nerf some more stuff, well done ccp.. These are broke, so we're fixing them.
Moon goo ETA??????? or will i be dead by then |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
85
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:19:00 -
[109] - Quote
As a former heavy missile user, I too would like to say 'feel my pain' to all of the minmater whiners out there. This is long overdue and I for one support these changes. |
Iris Bravemount
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
217
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:20:00 -
[110] - Quote
I'm suprised to see that you completely skipped something that has always bugged me.
TCs give the same percentage bonus to Optimal and Falloff, which seems ok, because the ratio between optimal and falloff isn't changed. Weapons with good optimal gain a lot of optimal and weapons with good falloff gain a lot of falloff.
Why do TEs give a higher percentage bonus to falloff than to optimal? And why do you intend to keep it that way?
By the way, I'm not sure if TEs give too much falloff or not enough optimal, that's your job to figure out. Why active tank bonuses are bad for you |
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon Drunk 'n' Disorderly
667
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:20:00 -
[111] - Quote
tbh fozzie, tundragon camps 23/7 and we never use remote sensor boosters simply because they are too much of a pain to get on the locker prior to someone jumping into a camp. If you are nerfing them solely to prevent instalock camps, it's kind of unnecessary as in my couple of years of being around people who camp a lot, we have never used remote sebos much. (because of the locking delay when everyone is landing on a gate.) |
Tsubutai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
172
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:22:00 -
[112] - Quote
Iris Bravemount wrote:TCs give the same percentage bonus to Optimal and Falloff, which seems ok, because the ratio between optimal and falloff isn't changed. Weapons with good optimal gain a lot of optimal and weapons with good falloff gain a lot of falloff. What are you talking about? A range-scripted TC gives +15% optimal and + 30% falloff; unscripted, it's +7.5% optimal and +15% falloff. The reason for the difference is that a kilometer of optimal is roughly twice as useful as a kilometer of falloff in terms of applied damage.
|
Hoarr
Asgard. Exodus.
107
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:23:00 -
[113] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:As a former heavy missile user, I too would like to say 'feel my pain' to all of the minmater whiners out there. This is long overdue and I for one support these changes.
This is literally not even the same issue, aside from all the sperg that is about to flow into this thread.
Small changes in range at short distances have huge impacts because of the range of points.
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon Drunk 'n' Disorderly
667
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:24:00 -
[114] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We're not changing the relative strength of faction TEs vs T2 at all. Faction retains its tracking and fittings advantage, and if the faction TEs were worth the price premium over T2 for your purposes before they will continue to be worth the price premium.
This I like.
brb, buying ALL the TEs. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4600
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:27:00 -
[115] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
We're not changing the relative strength of faction TEs vs T2 at all. Faction retains its tracking and fittings advantage, and if the faction TEs were worth the price premium over T2 for your purposes before they will continue to be worth the price premium.
This I like. brb, buying ALL the TEs.
I'm talking about faction strength relative to T2 strength. That means they're getting reduced by the same percentage, not that we're leaving faction as-is. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon Drunk 'n' Disorderly
667
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:29:00 -
[116] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
We're not changing the relative strength of faction TEs vs T2 at all. Faction retains its tracking and fittings advantage, and if the faction TEs were worth the price premium over T2 for your purposes before they will continue to be worth the price premium.
This I like. brb, buying ALL the TEs. I'm talking about faction strength relative to T2 strength. That means they're getting reduced by the same percentage, not that we're leaving faction as-is.
Yes, but it is still nice. |
ROSSLINDEN0
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
83
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:30:00 -
[117] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:tbh fozzie, tundragon camps 23/7 and we never use remote sensor boosters simply because they are too much of a pain to get on the locker prior to someone jumping into a camp. If you are nerfing them solely to prevent instalock camps, it's kind of unnecessary as in my couple of years of being around people who camp a lot, we have never used remote sebos much. (because of the locking delay when everyone is landing on a gate.)
also, please stop trying to nerf camps. They only achieve good things by purging idiocy. It's not hard to get into lowsec if you are smart. If you are dumb you jump into a camp system unscouted. If you are smart you either get a friend/alt to scout, or you jump into a system that hardly gets camped.
The nerf to RSB was just to stop that prick Cowwarrior! |
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
316
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:35:00 -
[118] - Quote
I want to reiterate that CCP really can't mention a TE change without talking about how terrible medium railguns are. You tell me, does anyone use them for anything except noobs in lvl3s? I'm aware this is titled a 'Part One' thread.
Also, that was an interesting point made that Drop has a different practical strength to the other gun drugs. And that blasters will notice the optimal loss & almost never be better with a TC than with a web, but perhaps could do with a little more tracking or dps still, as drones are kinda ******** at reliably applying damage depending on target speed, sig, etc.
That and faction TEs are pretty terrible vs T2 regardless of their price. |
Taoist Dragon
The Church of Awesome
315
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:37:00 -
[119] - Quote
All the people saying kiting is gonna be killed by this are crazy......
Kiting will still be possible and a brawler will still be easily kited to death.
What this does is reduce (very slightly) the range advantage for the kiter. nothing else.
Bring on the change it's gonna be fun
*Powering up my Auto's* That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything. |
WInter Borne
Cold Station 12 Surely You're Joking
53
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:39:00 -
[120] - Quote
So what are the benefits of shield tanking anything again? |
|
|
|
|
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 |