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) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4555
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:10:00 -
[1] - Quote
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 release in 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 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 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! Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
895
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:18:00 -
[2] - Quote
I like what I read... Im not too sure te needed that much of a nerf large blasters really benefit from te... See talos...
Anychance we could see an ammo boost alla minmatar got to compensate? As its autocannons you are trying to nerf... Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
1416
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:18:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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. I'm curious as to why the low-slot, non-cap-using TEs are still better in this iteration than the mid-slot, cap-using TCs, especially considering this statement? I support Malcanis and Psychotic Monk for CSM8. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4562
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:20:00 -
[4] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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. I'm curious as to why the low-slot, non-cap-using TEs are still better in this iteration than the mid-slot, cap-using TCs, especially considering this statement?
TCs give far superior tracking bonuses, this narrows the gap for range bonuses. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Taoist Dragon
The Church of Awesome
312
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:21:00 -
[5] - Quote
TE's - ouch!
I agree they can be over powering (especially on hulls like the Talos) at times but this will pretty much kill the only advantage the minnies get with their weapon systems - nice falloff.
Now they will have the worst damage and not the best range. Any thoughts on uping their dps or base range to at least keep them competive? That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
735
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:21:00 -
[6] - Quote
Quote: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.
You say "a third" but it looks like you chopped optimal by half and falloff by a third. Mynnna for CSM 8 |
Serenety Steel
27
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:21:00 -
[7] - Quote
If it aint broke, DON'T fix it!
Way to nerf some more stuff, well done ccp.. |
BadAssMcKill
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
193
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:22:00 -
[8] - Quote
TE changes look good Starships were meant to fly~ |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4562
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:23:00 -
[9] - Quote
Taoist Dragon wrote:TE's - ouch!
I agree they can be over powering (especially on hulls like the Talos) at times but this will pretty much kill the only advantage the minnies get with their weapon systems - nice falloff.
Now they will have the worst damage and not the best range. Any thoughts on uping their dps or base range to at least keep them competive?
This change affects falloff and optimal bonuses equally, so it doesn't decrease Minmatar falloff relative to any other ship that fits TEs. Minmatar feel the pain mainly because they have a lot of ships that shield tank and use extra lows for TEs. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4562
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:25:00 -
[10] - Quote
mynnna wrote:e: nevermind, read the chart wrong.
It's possible that I mistyped something but I can't find anywhere that it has optimal cut in half. This is probably a symptom of the terrible formatting making it hard to read.
It is intended to be a -33% adjustment to both stats. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
Klarion Sythis
Quantum Cats Syndicate Samurai Pizza Cats
166
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:26:00 -
[11] - Quote
Ouch on the TE's. I hadn't ever considered them a problem before, but if the idea is giving more advantage to armor ships, this will definitely help. |
Escobar Slim III
YOLOSWAGHASHTAGDOLLARBILLZSWIMMINGPOOLICECREAMS
13
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:26:00 -
[12] - Quote
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. |
Theon Severasse
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:27:00 -
[13] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:mynnna wrote:e: nevermind, read the chart wrong. It's possible that I mistyped something but I can't find anywhere that it has optimal cut in half. This is probably a symptom of the terrible formatting making it hard to read. It is intended to be a -33% adjustment to both stats.
Looks like 1/3 everywhere to me
Is this going to be a precursor towards Ewar changes, as this will further the void between beneficial mods (TEs etc) compared to Ewar? |
Prometheus Exenthal
mnemonic.
476
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:27:00 -
[14] - Quote
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. -áwww.promsrage.com |
Kobea Thris
Inquisition FiS Division Surely You're Joking
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:28:00 -
[15] - Quote
Just to clarify, are you happy with the state of range scripted tracking computers? |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
501
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:30:00 -
[16] - Quote
If TEs are so good why do fits pressed for low slots never give up a damage mod for them? You dont see armor ships with 1x damage mod/1x TE, its all double damage mod. You often see people flying with 3x damage mod 1x TE on shield fits - you never ever see 3x TE/1x damage mod.
Not only that, but tracking disruptors are still at -48% optimal and -48% falloff.
A single TD is 48%. No number of tracking enhancers on your ship will let you counter this TD. You can take a cane, and fill every low slot with a tracking enhancer, then TD it and your range is still less than when you started. The situation is even worse on laser ships where TDs have full effectiveness but TEs are only half as effective.
A cane with 6 TEs being tracking disrupted from an unbonused hull still has only 80% of the range of a cane with 0 TEs and no TD on it. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4568
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:30:00 -
[17] - Quote
Kobea Thris wrote:Just to clarify, are you happy with the state of range scripted tracking computers?
I don't see a dire need to change them. After this change TEs will give more range than an unscripted TC but less than a scripted one. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Taoist Dragon
The Church of Awesome
312
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:30:00 -
[18] - Quote
I can live with these changes as long as you've stopped the silly notion of TE/TD and othe tracking type of modules affecting missiles!
Edit- are you going to make the TD bonus' the same number so they cancel each other out? That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything. |
Sentient Blade
Walk It Off
862
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:31:00 -
[19] - Quote
The TE nerf is going to hurt projectiles badly. With optimal ranges of medium weapons at under 3km then the falloff is all you really have to apply that damage to best effect, especially considering that other weapons systems have ways of changing their range / damage ratio with much more fine tuning than projectiles, which except for Barrage all do the same thing. The alternative is to switch to arty which are rubbish for many engagements. |
Elektrea
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
21
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:31:00 -
[20] - Quote
:swoon: |
|
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
1416
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:33:00 -
[21] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:TCs give far superior tracking bonuses, this narrows the gap for range bonuses. Ah, thank you, that makes sense. I support Malcanis and Psychotic Monk for CSM8. |
KwarK uK
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
67
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:35:00 -
[22] - Quote
At the moment the drugs/implants all give an arbitrary X%, regardless of the thing they're for. This is pretty bad game design because not all stats have equal value, drop will enhance a ship lacking tracking far more than soothsayer will a ship lacking falloff (10% is a negligible amount to falloff but a very considerable boost to tracking). Please rationalise the system so the drug increases are proportional to the modules they're augmenting (maybe add as much to the attribute as a single TE for tracking/optimal/falloff). You should vote for KwarK for a lowsec presence on CSM8. It's a good idea. I'd do it! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=213851 |
Roderick Grey
Broski North Black Legion.
280
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:38:00 -
[23] - Quote
With Blasters hurting for range as it is are CCP sure it's a good idea to further damage Gallente ships, which already suffer drawbacks just to nerf Minmatar superiority?
Perhaps with weapon damage upgrades being Race specific, we could have race-specific Tracking Enhancers each with their own varying buffs aswell? GÇ£We could learn a lot from crayons; some are sharp, some are pretty, some are dull, while others bright, some have weird names, but they all have learned to live together in the same box.GÇ¥- Special needs division of Fcon. |
Onnen Mentar
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
40
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:39:00 -
[24] - Quote
As a very heavily minmatar specced pilot, I welcome this change. It's been way overdue. Looking forward to more bold iteration. |
Lex Arson
Adversity. Rote Kapelle
336
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:42:00 -
[25] - Quote
Yes please nerf TE's, having **** DPS at acceptable ranges in all kiting ships is more of what we the userbase want There's no use crying after every mistake, you just keep on trying 'til you run out of cake. |
PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
296
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:43:00 -
[26] - Quote
This hurts Minmatar more than Gallente because Gal almost always have the free mids to run a Tracking Computer, thus your Talos and Megathron will be fine assuming you aren't shield tanking them.
It's a nerf to shield ships with free lows, I.e. Canes, and it is ENTIRELY needed. Oh no Projectiles won't dominate in every single possible way anymore, they only get to still pick damage type, use no cap, and have the highest alpha of any turret. Yes, poor Projectiles.
The Blaster boats won't suffer, and the Minmatar's ability to kite at any distance and still be able to hit fully will be nerfed. It is about time. Thank you Fozzie. |
Dabigredboat
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
38
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:47:00 -
[27] - Quote
If you would be so kind ccp fozzie. Explain to me why you would change the range of the TE and not the TC. This dirctly nerfs a fleet ship such as nagas and rokhs who rely on a TE due to shield tank being the dominate form of tank.
Why not change both equally as to adjust the change needed to effect Navy apocs as much as changing the Rokhs role. A Navy Apoc will use two tracking computers the same as a rokh uses two tracking enhances to balance the range ratio.
Any plans to fix the balance this will change in armor to shield fleets? |
Roderick Grey
Broski North Black Legion.
282
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:47:00 -
[28] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:This hurts Minmatar more than Gallente because Gal almost always have the free mids to run a Tracking Computer, thus your Talos and Megathron will be fine assuming you aren't shield tanking them.
It's a nerf to shield ships with free lows, I.e. Canes, and it is ENTIRELY needed. Oh no Projectiles won't dominate in every single possible way anymore, they only get to still pick damage type, use no cap, and have the highest alpha of any turret. Yes, poor Projectiles.
The Blaster boats won't suffer, and the Minmatar's ability to kite at any distance and still be able to hit fully will be nerfed. It is about time. Thank you Fozzie.
Armor Taloses are far more inferior compared to Shield and Megathrons are hardly seen in combat, but that's more of a battleship issue.
Blasters boats will suffer, a shield Brutix can hit out to 20km with Null, which is lesser range less speed, less tank, less tracking and only slightly more dps than a cane, Gallente will be affected. GÇ£We could learn a lot from crayons; some are sharp, some are pretty, some are dull, while others bright, some have weird names, but they all have learned to live together in the same box.GÇ¥- Special needs division of Fcon. |
Davion Falcon
Those Once Loyal
37
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:48:00 -
[29] - Quote
I suppose I'll have to welcome our new missile spewing overlords. Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise. Never forgotten, never forgiven. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
736
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:49:00 -
[30] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:mynnna wrote:e: nevermind, read the chart wrong. It's possible that I mistyped something but I can't find anywhere that it has optimal cut in half. This is probably a symptom of the terrible formatting making it hard to read. It is intended to be a -33% adjustment to both stats.
Yeah, I just read old/old/new/new when it's actually old/new/old/new.
I've gotta say that the effect this will have on projectiles, autocannons especially, concerns me as well. But I'm having trouble deciding if that's actual concern or just me being sad about my imminent Cynabal nerf...
Need to play around with some numbers before I can form a solid opinion. Mynnna for CSM 8 |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4572
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:51:00 -
[31] - Quote
Dabigredboat wrote:If you would be so kind ccp fozzie. Explain to me why you would change the range of the TE and not the TC. This dirctly nerfs a fleet ship such as nagas and rokhs who rely on a TE due to shield tank being the dominate form of tank.
Why not change both equally as to adjust the change needed to effect Navy apocs as much as changing the Rokhs role. A Navy Apoc will use two tracking computers the same as a rokh uses two tracking enhances to balance the range ratio.
Any plans to fix the balance this will change in armor to shield fleets?
This change is specifically designed to change the balance between TEs and TCs. TEs still give very good range bonuses, decent tracking bonuses, and do it with less than half the fittings cost of a TC.
I know that this will affect 0.0 fleet doctrines, but shaking up doctrines a bit isn't something we consider a negative. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
501
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:53:00 -
[32] - Quote
Out of curiosity, in what class does minmatar currently dominate?
Ill give that the sleipnir is the best CS, the vaga is the best shield hac. and maybe artynados are the best tr3 for blobbing (although nagas are probably better).
This is a very small number of classes |
Prometheus Exenthal
mnemonic.
478
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:55:00 -
[33] - Quote
Roderick Grey wrote:With Blasters hurting for range as it is are CCP sure it's a good idea to further damage Gallente ships, which already suffer drawbacks just to nerf Minmatar superiority?
Perhaps with weapon damage upgrades being Race specific, we could have race-specific Tracking Enhancers each with their own varying buffs aswell?
Lol wat? Stop trying to kite in a Thorax hull then.
As someone who predominately flies Gallente, I can only think of Talos & Thorax hulls as the ships that routinely fit TEs. Gallente is the best it's been in a long time, and this nerf to TEs just means people are going to be closer to blaster range -áwww.promsrage.com |
Roderick Grey
Broski North Black Legion.
283
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:58:00 -
[34] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Out of curiosity, in what class does minmatar currently dominate?
Ill give that the sleipnir is the best CS, the vaga is the best shield hac. and maybe artynados are the best tr3 for blobbing (although nagas are probably better).
This is a very small number of classes
Hurricanes -Were- the king of battlecruisers Tempests are still the best battleship against Supers/carriers in the game, phoons are arguably the best battleship firewall, Cynabal (Yes it's Min/Gallente but it uses projectiles) and the SFI are the most deadly cruisers for small gang and skirmish warfare, the Arty wolf is a solo pvp ship many players swear by as one of, if not the most viable ship for frigate 1v1s, Talwars are an up-and-coming doctrine for 20-50 man fleets, thrashers have always been a popular first choice for newby pvpers and FW veterans alike.
And let's not forget the macherial. GÇ£We could learn a lot from crayons; some are sharp, some are pretty, some are dull, while others bright, some have weird names, but they all have learned to live together in the same box.GÇ¥- Special needs division of Fcon. |
Beaver Retriever
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:00:00 -
[35] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:This hurts Minmatar more than Gallente because Gal almost always have the free mids to run a Tracking Computer, thus your Talos and Megathron will be fine assuming you aren't shield tanking them.
It's a nerf to shield ships with free lows, I.e. Canes, and it is ENTIRELY needed. Oh no Projectiles won't dominate in every single possible way anymore, they only get to still pick damage type, use no cap, and have the highest alpha of any turret. Yes, poor Projectiles.
The Blaster boats won't suffer, and the Minmatar's ability to kite at any distance and still be able to hit fully will be nerfed. It is about time. Thank you Fozzie.
The userbase can deal with flying ships with risk. Currently the same userbase flies almost exclusive caldari/minmatar because you can kite out, apply all your dps, and risk nothing in the engagement. See Drake, See Hurricane for further examples. Literally no one armor tanks their Talos. |
Roderick Grey
Broski North Black Legion.
283
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:01:00 -
[36] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:Roderick Grey wrote:With Blasters hurting for range as it is are CCP sure it's a good idea to further damage Gallente ships, which already suffer drawbacks just to nerf Minmatar superiority?
Perhaps with weapon damage upgrades being Race specific, we could have race-specific Tracking Enhancers each with their own varying buffs aswell? Lol wat? Stop trying to kite in a Thorax hull then. As someone who predominately flies Gallente, I can only think of Talos & terrible kiting Thorax hulls as the ships that routinely fit TEs. Gallente is the best it's been in a long time, and this nerf to TEs just means people are going to be closer to blaster range
If you're fighting outnumbered being in scram-range isn't always a good thing. GÇ£We could learn a lot from crayons; some are sharp, some are pretty, some are dull, while others bright, some have weird names, but they all have learned to live together in the same box.GÇ¥- Special needs division of Fcon. |
KwarK uK
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
67
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:02:00 -
[37] - Quote
Roderick Grey wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Out of curiosity, in what class does minmatar currently dominate?
Ill give that the sleipnir is the best CS, the vaga is the best shield hac. and maybe artynados are the best tr3 for blobbing (although nagas are probably better).
This is a very small number of classes Hurricanes -Were- the king of battlecruisers Tempests are still the best battleship against Supers/carriers in the game, phoons are arguably the best battleship firewall, Cynabal (Yes it's Min/Gallente but it uses projectiles) and the SFI are the most deadly cruisers for small gang and skirmish warfare, the Arty wolf is a solo pvp ship many players swear by as one of, if not the most viable ship for frigate 1v1s, Talwars are an up-and-coming doctrine for 20-50 man fleets, thrashers have always been a popular first choice for newby pvpers and FW veterans alike. And let's not forget the macherial. Caracals beat SFIs pretty handily these days, were is the correct word regarding canes which are now obsolete, nobody anywhere is using pest doctrines vs carriers because slowcat blobs are just better, the artywolf is comparable to the slicer and also uses arties which TEs aren't so relevant to (because of the longer optimal), the talwar doesn't even use projectiles, thrashers aren't fit with TEs generally. The cynabal is good largely because of its insane fitting, speed, agility and drone bay, it doesn't especially rely on TEs.
The winmatar complaints are a year out of date now. You should vote for KwarK for a lowsec presence on CSM8. It's a good idea. I'd do it! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=213851 |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
1094
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:03:00 -
[38] - Quote
Armor tanking is looking better and better. |
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
289
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:05:00 -
[39] - Quote
Celestises are atm a bit OP. RSB were the only thing to counter them and it needs lot of coordination in a fleet fight to use them effectively.. I really dont see a reason for it to get nerfed.
If people want to not get pointed, it is really easy. Fit the ship properly and u wont get caught. People that want to catch the pray fit their ships properly and damp their fits for RSBs to put. LF CSM8 candidate. Are you what lowsec needs? --->-átinyurl.com/afaawrb
|
PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
297
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:06:00 -
[40] - Quote
Beaver Retriever wrote:PinkKnife wrote:This hurts Minmatar more than Gallente because Gal almost always have the free mids to run a Tracking Computer, thus your Talos and Megathron will be fine assuming you aren't shield tanking them.
It's a nerf to shield ships with free lows, I.e. Canes, and it is ENTIRELY needed. Oh no Projectiles won't dominate in every single possible way anymore, they only get to still pick damage type, use no cap, and have the highest alpha of any turret. Yes, poor Projectiles.
The Blaster boats won't suffer, and the Minmatar's ability to kite at any distance and still be able to hit fully will be nerfed. It is about time. Thank you Fozzie.
The userbase can deal with flying ships with risk. Currently the same userbase flies almost exclusive caldari/minmatar because you can kite out, apply all your dps, and risk nothing in the engagement. See Drake, See Hurricane for further examples. Literally no one armor tanks their Talos.
Which exactly proves my point, the reason being you HAVE to shield tank everything these days, and the current TE exacerbate this problem. You shouldn't not get to have all of your tank, plus all of your gank. Trade offs and decisions, considerations, and drawbacks.
The problem that you HAVE to shield tank a Talos, proves the issue, in that you have to be able to keep up/kite otherwise you lose, as Canes and other ships can apply their dps well within/outside scram range and there isn't **** you can do about it if you are slower than they are.
It is a side buff to armor ships, and it is fantastic.
If you're shield tanking your armor ships, you're gonna have a bad time. Well you should anyway. |
|
Prometheus Exenthal
mnemonic.
480
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:07:00 -
[41] - Quote
Roderick Grey wrote:Prometheus Exenthal wrote:Roderick Grey wrote:With Blasters hurting for range as it is are CCP sure it's a good idea to further damage Gallente ships, which already suffer drawbacks just to nerf Minmatar superiority?
Perhaps with weapon damage upgrades being Race specific, we could have race-specific Tracking Enhancers each with their own varying buffs aswell? Lol wat? Stop trying to kite in a Thorax hull then. As someone who predominately flies Gallente, I can only think of Talos & terrible kiting Thorax hulls as the ships that routinely fit TEs. Gallente is the best it's been in a long time, and this nerf to TEs just means people are going to be closer to blaster range If you're fighting outnumbered being in scram-range isn't always a good thing.
Perhaps you should start looking into Caldari blaster boats then. Ferox has outperformed the Brutix when it comes to range since the beginning of time, and even moreso since the rebalance. The only reason the Brutix is still used so much for ganking is because the drones inflate the damage numbers so much. Heck, even the Moa outperforms the Thorax in most arenas. -áwww.promsrage.com |
Lelob
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
98
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:07:00 -
[42] - Quote
rsb nerf is nice
nerfing te's though is not a good change. This will make almost any gang shield ship severely nerfed, given that almost all of them rely on te's to have any hope to work properly. This is not a change that I would look forward to or would offer a particularly good fix to anything really. The reason that it has always traditionally been acceptale that shield ships have greater range via te's is because they have less tank and less ewar. This just makes it so that when you role in armor you will not be out-kited by faster, less tankier ships and those ships will have to come and fight within your optimals. It just does not make sense why anyone would willingly want to fly shield ships after the heavy bonuses/nerfs that they have been getting.
They recently got t2 plates Then armour honeycombing made them far less slow Now they will be able to operate in the same general range as shield ships, but with the bonus of having more tank, stronger force multipliers, (loki/proteus vs huggin/lachesis), and more midslots potentially for ewar such as td's and damps
This will also be a pretty siable buff for td's given the greatly shortened range this will give shield ships.
This really is a bad, bad idea. |
Roderick Grey
Broski North Black Legion.
283
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:08:00 -
[43] - Quote
KwarK uK wrote:Roderick Grey wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Out of curiosity, in what class does minmatar currently dominate?
Ill give that the sleipnir is the best CS, the vaga is the best shield hac. and maybe artynados are the best tr3 for blobbing (although nagas are probably better).
This is a very small number of classes Hurricanes -Were- the king of battlecruisers Tempests are still the best battleship against Supers/carriers in the game, phoons are arguably the best battleship firewall, Cynabal (Yes it's Min/Gallente but it uses projectiles) and the SFI are the most deadly cruisers for small gang and skirmish warfare, the Arty wolf is a solo pvp ship many players swear by as one of, if not the most viable ship for frigate 1v1s, Talwars are an up-and-coming doctrine for 20-50 man fleets, thrashers have always been a popular first choice for newby pvpers and FW veterans alike. And let's not forget the macherial. Caracals beat SFIs pretty handily these days, were is the correct word regarding canes which are now obsolete, nobody anywhere is using pest doctrines vs carriers because slowcat blobs are just better, the artywolf is comparable to the slicer and also uses arties which TEs aren't so relevant to (because of the longer optimal), the talwar doesn't even use projectiles, thrashers aren't fit with TEs generally. The cynabal is good largely because of its insane fitting, speed, agility and drone bay, it doesn't especially rely on TEs. The winmatar complaints are a year out of date now.
I'd really like to see your Caracal fit that can either out brawl or kite an SFI pilot, I'm not talking about pests vs slowcats, there are other kinds of carrier fits which the Tempest counters very well (Triage). The question was what did Minmatar dominate at class-wise, not what went well with TEs, not I'm not sure why you're arguing that with me. GÇ£We could learn a lot from crayons; some are sharp, some are pretty, some are dull, while others bright, some have weird names, but they all have learned to live together in the same box.GÇ¥- Special needs division of Fcon. |
Zoe Alarhun
The Proactive Reappropriation Corporation
105
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:09:00 -
[44] - Quote
I like the proposed changes.
HAVE MY BABIES CCP _ ALL OF YOU! |
Lelob
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
98
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:10:00 -
[45] - Quote
Roderick Grey wrote:KwarK uK wrote:Roderick Grey wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Out of curiosity, in what class does minmatar currently dominate?
Ill give that the sleipnir is the best CS, the vaga is the best shield hac. and maybe artynados are the best tr3 for blobbing (although nagas are probably better).
This is a very small number of classes Hurricanes -Were- the king of battlecruisers Tempests are still the best battleship against Supers/carriers in the game, phoons are arguably the best battleship firewall, Cynabal (Yes it's Min/Gallente but it uses projectiles) and the SFI are the most deadly cruisers for small gang and skirmish warfare, the Arty wolf is a solo pvp ship many players swear by as one of, if not the most viable ship for frigate 1v1s, Talwars are an up-and-coming doctrine for 20-50 man fleets, thrashers have always been a popular first choice for newby pvpers and FW veterans alike. And let's not forget the macherial. Caracals beat SFIs pretty handily these days, were is the correct word regarding canes which are now obsolete, nobody anywhere is using pest doctrines vs carriers because slowcat blobs are just better, the artywolf is comparable to the slicer and also uses arties which TEs aren't so relevant to (because of the longer optimal), the talwar doesn't even use projectiles, thrashers aren't fit with TEs generally. The cynabal is good largely because of its insane fitting, speed, agility and drone bay, it doesn't especially rely on TEs. The winmatar complaints are a year out of date now. I'd really like to see your Caracal fit that can either out brawl or kite an SFI pilot, I'm not talking about pests vs slowcats, there are other kinds of carrier fits which the Tempest counters very well (Triage). The question was what did Minmatar dominate at class-wise, not what went well with TEs, not I'm not sure why you're arguing that with me.
Tempests do not counter triage very well, because they will all die against the either rokhs/hellcats/napocs that the triage is supporting by the time they kill the triage. |
Roderick Grey
Broski North Black Legion.
283
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:12:00 -
[46] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:Beaver Retriever wrote: Literally no one armor tanks their Talos.
Which exactly proves my point, the reason being you HAVE to shield tank everything these days, and the current TE exacerbate this problem. You shouldn't not get to have all of your tank, plus all of your gank. Trade offs and decisions, considerations, and drawbacks. The problem that you HAVE to shield tank a Talos, proves the issue, in that you have to be able to keep up/kite otherwise you lose, as Canes and other ships can apply their dps well within/outside scram range and there isn't **** you can do about it if you are slower than they are. It is a side buff to armor ships, and it is fantastic.
Making a ship bad at something doesn't make it better at something else, it's not a "side buff" it's a nerf. GÇ£We could learn a lot from crayons; some are sharp, some are pretty, some are dull, while others bright, some have weird names, but they all have learned to live together in the same box.GÇ¥- Special needs division of Fcon. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
487
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:12:00 -
[47] - Quote
Lelob wrote:rsb nerf is nice
nerfing te's though is not a good change. This will make almost any gang shield ship severely nerfed, given that almost all of them rely on te's to have any hope to work properly. This is not a change that I would look forward to or would offer a particularly good fix to anything really. The reason that it has always traditionally been acceptale that shield ships have greater range via te's is because they have less tank and less ewar. This just makes it so that when you role in armor you will not be out-kited by faster, less tankier ships and those ships will have to come and fight within your optimals. It just does not make sense why anyone would willingly want to fly shield ships after the heavy bonuses/nerfs that they have been getting.
They recently got t2 plates Then armour honeycombing made them far less slow Now they will be able to operate in the same general range as shield ships, but with the bonus of having more tank, stronger force multipliers, (loki/proteus vs huggin/lachesis), and more midslots potentially for ewar such as td's and damps
This will also be a pretty siable buff for td's given the greatly shortened range this will give shield ships.
This really is a bad, bad idea. Yeah, like 10 m/s faster with a 1600mm plate at lvl 5. |
Roderick Grey
Broski North Black Legion.
283
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:15:00 -
[48] - Quote
Lelob wrote:Roderick Grey wrote: I'm not talking about pests vs slowcats, there are other kinds of carrier fits which the Tempest counters very well (Triage).
Tempests do not counter triage very well, because they will all die against the either rokhs/hellcats/napocs that the triage is supporting by the time they kill the triage.
You have a point there, I suppose I'll have to withdraw my previous claim and settle on their use as "Gank" battleships vs carriers/supers. GÇ£We could learn a lot from crayons; some are sharp, some are pretty, some are dull, while others bright, some have weird names, but they all have learned to live together in the same box.GÇ¥- Special needs division of Fcon. |
Dato Koppla
Rage of Inferno Malefic Motives
131
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:18:00 -
[49] - Quote
Posting in the downfall of Minmatar thread, many of their ships were defined by the shield tank + neuts + TEs in low kiting approach. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
883
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:19:00 -
[50] - Quote
a 33% nerf seems a little harsh to me. i don't have any numbers but my feeling is that 25% would have achieved what you want, the other 8% are just to upset mach pilots.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
|
Lelob
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
99
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:21:00 -
[51] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:a 33% nerf seems a little harsh to me. i don't have any numbers but my feeling is that 25% would have achieved what you want, the other 8% are just to upset mach pilots.
TBH this just makes it easier for armor machs. (Yes, they're pretty good) |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box
33
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:22:00 -
[52] - Quote
Lelob wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:a 33% nerf seems a little harsh to me. i don't have any numbers but my feeling is that 25% would have achieved what you want, the other 8% are just to upset mach pilots. TBH this just makes it easier for armor machs. (Yes, they're pretty good)
cough |
Gnoshia
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:22:00 -
[53] - Quote
As a heavy missile user I can say on thing to the minnie pilots whining: Feel my pain. FEEL MY PAIN. TAKE IT |
June Ting
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
20
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:22:00 -
[54] - Quote
While you're looking, can you look into making remote tracking links provide a greater bonus than local links rather than the same exact bonus? >.< Proud independent player. I support Ali Aras and Psychotic Monk for CSM 8! Ali's thread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=213048 Monk's thread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=212105 |
Zircon Dasher
171
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:27:00 -
[55] - Quote
Its nice to see CCP willing to shake things up. Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War Out of Sight.
1012
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:31:00 -
[56] - Quote
AWESOME!
I'm really suprised it took you that long, though My campaign for CSM 8 |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box
33
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:37:00 -
[57] - Quote
While I agree with the remote sensor booster nerf, are there any plans for nerfing the cloak warp trick so often abused in lowsec? I'm getting kinda tired of missing out on all those solo navy battleships that are practically invincible, even without any support. |
Janeway84
Masters Of Destiny Pride Before Fall
6
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:37:00 -
[58] - Quote
Yo Fozzie when you going to make some magnetic field stabilizers and gyrostabs and heat sinks got little different graphics on the icons for the modules? Would be nice to be able to tell them apart on a quick glance when you fitting a new ship in a rush
maybe have the three arrows on the icon have a different color for each weapon type? Could be subtle like that or color code them n crap. I dunno. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4422
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:41:00 -
[59] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:While I agree with the remote sensor booster nerf, are there any plans for nerfing the cloak warp trick so often abused in lowsec? I'm getting kinda tired of missing out on all those solo navy battleships that are practically invincible, even without any support. Learn to decloak. Malcanis for CSM 8 Module activation timers are buggy - CCP please fix |
Lelob
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
103
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:41:00 -
[60] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:Beaver Retriever wrote:PinkKnife wrote:This hurts Minmatar more than Gallente because Gal almost always have the free mids to run a Tracking Computer, thus your Talos and Megathron will be fine assuming you aren't shield tanking them.
It's a nerf to shield ships with free lows, I.e. Canes, and it is ENTIRELY needed. Oh no Projectiles won't dominate in every single possible way anymore, they only get to still pick damage type, use no cap, and have the highest alpha of any turret. Yes, poor Projectiles.
The Blaster boats won't suffer, and the Minmatar's ability to kite at any distance and still be able to hit fully will be nerfed. It is about time. Thank you Fozzie.
The userbase can deal with flying ships with risk. Currently the same userbase flies almost exclusive caldari/minmatar because you can kite out, apply all your dps, and risk nothing in the engagement. See Drake, See Hurricane for further examples. Literally no one armor tanks their Talos. Which exactly proves my point, the reason being you HAVE to shield tank everything these days, and the current TE exacerbate this problem. You shouldn't get to have all of your tank, plus all of your gank. Trade offs and decisions, considerations, and drawbacks. The problem that you HAVE to shield tank a Talos, proves the issue. You have to be able to keep up/kite otherwise you lose, as Canes and other ships can apply their dps well within/outside scram range and there isn't **** you can do about it if you are slower than they are. It is a side buff to armor ships, and it is fantastic. If you're shield tanking your armor ships, you're gonna have a bad time. Well you should anyway.
You are an idiot. Here's why:
tc'd armor talos: 15+26 te's shield talos: 16+29
This is with a 2 te shield talos vs an armor talos with 1 tc optimal range and 1 unscripted. The tracking is .0794 vs .07703 in favor of the shield talos. So virtually identical in tracking.
This range difference doesn't make much of a practical difference. You still need to point people around 20km, and in either ship you want to stay at the 20km mark. It is also only a 4km range difference. The difference comes from these:
it's faster and more agile to fly a shield talos shields regenerate (a big deal in a solo/small gang boat without logi) pgu is better on a shield talos - an armor one needs a armor rig, but the shield one doesn't which means: the tank is not considerably better (although it is 7k ehp better on the armor)
The problems you have all alluded to are problems in HULL design. T3 bc's were poorly designed HULLS. It is not the fault of the te.
This nerf will make the armor talos have more range, which just does not make sense when it is already fairly well balanced in terms of armor vs shield docrtines in eve atm. |
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War Out of Sight.
1012
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:46:00 -
[61] - Quote
Btw, Fozzie, any plans to reconsider current range-affecting rigs? For me it has always been a mistery why both optimal and falloff rigs provide 15(20)% bonuses when the ratio for mods is entirely different.
What would you say on buffing falloff rigs a bit? Say, by 5%. My campaign for CSM 8 |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
228
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:46:00 -
[62] - Quote
And people thought the heavy missile nerf thread was going to be long...
I'd say "/popcorn"...but that's so short term for something like this.
This is a really bold move. One of the boldest to date, a lot of current kings are going to hurt over this one. Let's see what makes it past test. |
Mith'riin
0 Tax bunnies
3
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:49:00 -
[63] - Quote
I welcome this changes for PvP and i understand it's the main focus of the game. But please rearrange ships spawning range in missions at least. They are already a chore and a boring thing to do, it's only going to get worse if i have to slowboat to every single spawn that goes 60km+ . I'm already crying a little bit in my tengu, now you are nerfing almost all the range in the game.... |
Ltazza
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:50:00 -
[64] - Quote
Not 100% on topic but I'm wondering what's CCP's opinion on unbonused damps (and in small parts TDs) being so good especially on Lokis and similar low sig ships in big fleet fights. Nerfing the only viable counter to damps is worrying to me. Two damps will completely destroy a BS fleets ability to lock sig tanking armor cruisers (40+ seconds lock times), 3 will damp a Huginn's target range to 20km for example. You can't counter damps at all in a shield fleet and countering them in an armor fleet requires a lot of coordination.
It seems that we are heading to a situation where Loki fleets can only be fought with another Loki fleet or maybe, just maybe, an armor BS fleet like Tempests because it's one of the few ships that has enough mids to counter damps/TDs and has the right damage types. Missile fleets' DPS gets destroyed by firewall. Amarr BS can just go kill themselves to be done with it instead of shooting at 97% EM resists. Bombers are useless against low sig targets. Shield fleets have absolutely no chance to fight against mass damps. Kiting T3 BC fleets have absolutely no chance to hit.
I think we are on a dangerous path towards damp wars in 0.0 fleet pvp...
|
Mister Vee
Magellanic Itg Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:50:00 -
[65] - Quote
Lelob wrote:rsb nerf is nice
nerfing te's though is not a good change. This will make almost any gang shield ship severely nerfed, given that almost all of them rely on te's to have any hope to work properly. This is not a change that I would look forward to or would offer a particularly good fix to anything really. The reason that it has always traditionally been acceptale that shield ships have greater range via te's is because they have less tank and less ewar. This just makes it so that when you role in armor you will not be out-kited by faster, less tankier ships and those ships will have to come and fight within your optimals. It just does not make sense why anyone would willingly want to fly shield ships after the heavy bonuses/nerfs that they have been getting.
They recently got t2 plates Then armour honeycombing made them far less slow Now they will be able to operate in the same general range as shield ships, but with the bonus of having more tank, stronger force multipliers, (loki/proteus vs huggin/lachesis), and more midslots potentially for ewar such as td's and damps
This will also be a pretty siable buff for td's given the greatly shortened range this will give shield ships.
This really is a bad, bad idea.
I pretty much agree with all of this - except the honeycombing skill being a big difference. TE's are good, but a 33% nerf seems a bit too much. |
Longdrinks
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
7
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:55:00 -
[66] - Quote
good changes |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box
33
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:59:00 -
[67] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:While I agree with the remote sensor booster nerf, are there any plans for nerfing the cloak warp trick so often abused in lowsec? I'm getting kinda tired of missing out on all those solo navy battleships that are practically invincible, even without any support. Learn to decloak.
Your solution involves bringing a unique person to a camp who can't do anything but mill about hoping for one of these idiots to jump in. Why not fix the issue at the core here? You want to move your (expensive) ship, get an escort or a courier, or face death. There's no reason a lumbering battleship should escape certain death in the face of overwhelming odds. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
236
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:59:00 -
[68] - Quote
not bad , now maybe can we get a medium rail balance too?:D |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4424
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:00:00 -
[69] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:While I agree with the remote sensor booster nerf, are there any plans for nerfing the cloak warp trick so often abused in lowsec? I'm getting kinda tired of missing out on all those solo navy battleships that are practically invincible, even without any support. Learn to decloak. Your solution involves bringing a unique person to a camp who can't do anything but mill about hoping for one of these idiots to jump in. Why not fix the issue at the core here? You want to move your (expensive) ship, get an escort or a courier, or face death. There's no reason a lumbering battleship should escape certain death in the face of overwhelming odds. Seeing as it's a successful tactic, they're not idiots for using it. You're the idiot for being unprepared and instead choosing to complain about it. Malcanis for CSM 8 Module activation timers are buggy - CCP please fix |
PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
299
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:01:00 -
[70] - Quote
Lelob wrote:PinkKnife wrote:Beaver Retriever wrote:PinkKnife wrote:This hurts Minmatar more than Gallente because Gal almost always have the free mids to run a Tracking Computer, thus your Talos and Megathron will be fine assuming you aren't shield tanking them.
It's a nerf to shield ships with free lows, I.e. Canes, and it is ENTIRELY needed. Oh no Projectiles won't dominate in every single possible way anymore, they only get to still pick damage type, use no cap, and have the highest alpha of any turret. Yes, poor Projectiles.
The Blaster boats won't suffer, and the Minmatar's ability to kite at any distance and still be able to hit fully will be nerfed. It is about time. Thank you Fozzie.
The userbase can deal with flying ships with risk. Currently the same userbase flies almost exclusive caldari/minmatar because you can kite out, apply all your dps, and risk nothing in the engagement. See Drake, See Hurricane for further examples. Literally no one armor tanks their Talos. Which exactly proves my point, the reason being you HAVE to shield tank everything these days, and the current TE exacerbate this problem. You shouldn't get to have all of your tank, plus all of your gank. Trade offs and decisions, considerations, and drawbacks. The problem that you HAVE to shield tank a Talos, proves the issue. You have to be able to keep up/kite otherwise you lose, as Canes and other ships can apply their dps well within/outside scram range and there isn't **** you can do about it if you are slower than they are. It is a side buff to armor ships, and it is fantastic. If you're shield tanking your armor ships, you're gonna have a bad time. Well you should anyway. You are an idiot. Here's why: tc'd armor talos: 15+26 te's shield talos: 16+29 This is with a 2 te shield talos vs an armor talos with 1 tc optimal range and 1 unscripted. The tracking is .0794 vs .07703 in favor of the shield talos. So virtually identical in tracking. This range difference doesn't make much of a practical difference. You still need to point people around 20km, and in either ship you want to stay at the 20km mark. It is also only a 4km range difference. The difference comes from these: it's faster and more agile to fly a shield talos shields regenerate (a big deal in a solo/small gang boat without logi) pgu is better on a shield talos - an armor one needs a armor rig, but the shield one doesn't which means: the tank is not considerably better (although it is 7k ehp better on the armor) The problems you have all alluded to are problems in HULL design. T3 bc's were poorly designed HULLS. It is not the fault of the te. This nerf will make the armor talos have more range, which just does not make sense when it is already fairly well balanced in terms of armor vs shield docrtines in eve atm.
Well CCP and most players disagree in the hulls being poorly designed, they've often said that the attack BCs probably need the least amount of balancing as they like where they are. Your post just screams of shield tank tears. Oh no, you won't be able to have all the things and do them all at once. Get over it.
|
|
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box
33
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:02:00 -
[71] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:While I agree with the remote sensor booster nerf, are there any plans for nerfing the cloak warp trick so often abused in lowsec? I'm getting kinda tired of missing out on all those solo navy battleships that are practically invincible, even without any support. Learn to decloak. Your solution involves bringing a unique person to a camp who can't do anything but mill about hoping for one of these idiots to jump in. Why not fix the issue at the core here? You want to move your (expensive) ship, get an escort or a courier, or face death. There's no reason a lumbering battleship should escape certain death in the face of overwhelming odds. Seeing as it's a successful tactic, they're not idiots for using it. You're the idiot for being unprepared and instead choosing to complain about it.
Silly me, trying to argue with ex-northern coalition members. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
222
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:03:00 -
[72] - Quote
Really not liking the TE changes (my actual opinion on it can't be reproduced here) while I can see some perfectly valid and probably much needed changes to them in relation to large weapons its going to hit some small and medium weapon platforms including a few somewhat out of the box fits quite hard. |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
138
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:04:00 -
[73] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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 This regarding Minmatar I do not believe is true any longer especially in the rebalanced ship classes and the armour tanking changes have already made armour tanking much more viable.
Seems like a big nerf to Projectiles and Hybrid weapons, not so much for lasers that perhaps will suffer less as they only really benefitted from the optimal and tracking part.
Tracking disruption is still common and when combined with range control has no real module counter even with itGÇÖs recent marginal nerf does this change just not reset the balance? If the issue is between TEGÇÖs and TCGÇÖs (it isnGÇÖt as they do not compete for slots) and the ship has a spare mid then that mid is almost certainly better filled with a tracking Disrupter rather than a Tracking Computer (this is where the real balance issue is) Could a resistance to tracking disruption be factored into TE or TC.
I can understand TE seem overpowered when looking at the fall off in km provided with multiple instances in medium and large turrets but this sort of nerf will hit small turrets very hard and in a class size that does not have room for Tracking Comps in itGÇÖs mids.
Small Neutron Blaster with TE II 3.6+5.7 which when looking at scram range seems balanced. It is important to note that it only provides more DPS projection past 5.7km over fitting a magstab and by changing the stats pretty much as per a T1 TE it will result in around 17% loss in DPS at 9km
Have you considered scaling the bonus with turret sizes i.e leaving the stats alone for small turrets but having a separate set of stats for medium and large turrets (it is at this level that I accept that a ship has the midslots spare for TCGÇÖs), this may better enable you to scale with different weapons combat ranges and the point range they operate in.
Perhaps this is a change to push ships towards long range weapons but these suffer badly with tracking which is only marginally improved by the bonuses in TEGÇÖs and TCGÇÖs.
For me the Problem with TE is not the amounts they provide as single module but: -
The combination of the power level of a few ships i.e. Cynbal and Mach that already have the falloff bonus combined with Barrage. (Perhaps it is this ship bonus that should change)
The stacking penalty on these modules is perhaps not high enough
Skirmish links provide too high a bonus.
CCP Fozzie wrote:Some of you will notice that there are certain imbalances that these changes do not fully rectify (for instance the current strength of light missile speed fits, the slight relative weakness of the Rifter, Breacher and the solo Punisher). We're hoping to smooth out a few of the rough edges via stat changes to the ships themselves, while some others will be addressed via changes to other parts of the metagame. Do you think this closes or increase the gap in strength of light missile fits and increases the strength dramatically of rocket fits kiting within scram range? |
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
799
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:06:00 -
[74] - Quote
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. Amat victoria curam. Excellence in everything.
Some guides that may be useful to you: http://www.youtube.com/user/OrdoArdish |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
222
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:07:00 -
[75] - Quote
Alticus C Bear wrote: Have you considered scaling the bonus with turret sizes i.e leaving the stats alone for small turrets but having a separate set of stats for medium and large turrets (it is at this level that I accept that a ship has the midslots spare for TCGÇÖs), this may better enable you to scale with different weapons combat ranges and the point range they operate in.
It would be an ugly hack but given the way this would affect different weapon platforms somewhat disproportionately to others its kind of needed IMO if they are going to make this change.
|
Sarmatiko
984
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:10:00 -
[76] - Quote
Gnoshia wrote:As a heavy missile user I can say one thing to the minnie pilots whining: Feel my pain. FEEL MY PAIN. TAKE IT Protesting against TE nerf I tried to shoot Jita monument with my big projectile gun but it missed.
|
13 Degree
Fenrir's Dogs of War Union 0f Revolution
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:11:00 -
[77] - Quote
Fozzie, are you considering any changes to stabber? It is meh atm and will be utter c**p after TE changes imho. |
Gorski Car
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
54
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:12:00 -
[78] - Quote
This is a bad change. Since when are Minmatar dominating pvp, do we even play the same game Fozzie? |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
138
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:16:00 -
[79] - Quote
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. |
Vayn Baxtor
Community for Justice R O G U E
42
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:16:00 -
[80] - Quote
I agree to those RSB/TE changes.
Can we see an improvement of (Remote) Tracking Links - while we're at it? After all, this is about remote buffing.
Would be cool if we could have a decent REAL SUPPORT cruiser or whatever hull that has a bonus to it (like how the Scythe was before; it was just crap back then because of the 3 medslots). Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
|
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
558
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:19:00 -
[81] - Quote
Excellent |
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
799
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:20:00 -
[82] - Quote
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. Amat victoria curam. Excellence in everything.
Some guides that may be useful to you: http://www.youtube.com/user/OrdoArdish |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
558
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:21:00 -
[83] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote: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.
This, really excellent changes. |
Hoarr
Asgard. Exodus.
107
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:23:00 -
[84] - Quote
So instead of just throwing sh** at the wall and howling derision at each other, let's actually discuss numbers, shall we?
*assume all skills lvl 5* *format: current | proposed
Standard Talos (2TEs, shield tank) Null: 16+29 | 15+25 CN Antimatter: 5.8+20 | 5.4+18
Standard Cane (425s, 2TEs, shield tank) (although why anyone flies a shield AC cane anymore is beyond me) Barrage: 3.9+30 | 3.6+25 RF Emp: 1.9+20 | 1.8+17
Pulse Oracle (1 TE) Scorch: 58+13 | 56+12 Multifreq: 19+13 | 19+12
all in all, definitely a noticeable change but not the end of the world.
FYI if you want to see what it does to your favorite ship, just load up EFT and use T1 TEs instead of T2.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
693
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:26:00 -
[85] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Key stat for this change is a reduction in the Optimal/Falloff bonus on a T2 Tracking Enhancer from 15%/30% to 10%/20%.
HAVE ALL MY LIKES
HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW
Now go fix t2 ammo. BYDI (Shadow cartel) Recruitment open!
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
20
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:31:00 -
[86] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Kobea Thris wrote:Just to clarify, are you happy with the state of range scripted tracking computers? I don't see a dire need to change them. After this change TEs will give more range than an unscripted TC but less than a scripted one.
My fear is that some ships that are not the main target of this will suffer horribly (mainly long range battleships) But sicen you guys gonna rebalance battleships soon, then if something probelatic shows up you have time to adjust somehow. |
Sharliar Mori
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:35:00 -
[87] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Apologies for the terrible formatting (you can copypaste into a spreadsheet and it looks good)
Table BB Code for the Win ;-)
(http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=107985)
|
Tsubutai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
172
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:36:00 -
[88] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:Btw, Fozzie, any plans to reconsider current range-affecting rigs? For me it has always been a mistery why both optimal and falloff rigs provide 15(20)% bonuses when the ratio for mods is entirely different.
What would you say on buffing falloff rigs a bit? Say, by 5%. This is actually a very good point - T1 locus rigs provide the same optimal increase as current TEs and range-scripted TCs, but T1 ambit rigs provide a far lesser increase than even the post-nerf TEs would. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
20
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:37:00 -
[89] - Quote
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.
In fact at the thread that all the projectile boost was discussed and spawned these changes, we were proposing 15%/20% bonus and CCP surprised us with a 30% bonus.
|
Lelob
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
105
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 23:38:00 -
[90] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:Lelob wrote:PinkKnife wrote:Beaver Retriever wrote:PinkKnife wrote:This hurts Minmatar more than Gallente because Gal almost always have the free mids to run a Tracking Computer, thus your Talos and Megathron will be fine assuming you aren't shield tanking them.
It's a nerf to shield ships with free lows, I.e. Canes, and it is ENTIRELY needed. Oh no Projectiles won't dominate in every single possible way anymore, they only get to still pick damage type, use no cap, and have the highest alpha of any turret. Yes, poor Projectiles.
The Blaster boats won't suffer, and the Minmatar's ability to kite at any distance and still be able to hit fully will be nerfed. It is about time. Thank you Fozzie.
The userbase can deal with flying ships with risk. Currently the same userbase flies almost exclusive caldari/minmatar because you can kite out, apply all your dps, and risk nothing in the engagement. See Drake, See Hurricane for further examples. Literally no one armor tanks their Talos. Which exactly proves my point, the reason being you HAVE to shield tank everything these days, and the current TE exacerbate this problem. You shouldn't get to have all of your tank, plus all of your gank. Trade offs and decisions, considerations, and drawbacks. The problem that you HAVE to shield tank a Talos, proves the issue. You have to be able to keep up/kite otherwise you lose, as Canes and other ships can apply their dps well within/outside scram range and there isn't **** you can do about it if you are slower than they are. It is a side buff to armor ships, and it is fantastic. If you're shield tanking your armor ships, you're gonna have a bad time. Well you should anyway. You are an idiot. Here's why: tc'd armor talos: 15+26 te's shield talos: 16+29 This is with a 2 te shield talos vs an armor talos with 1 tc optimal range and 1 unscripted. The tracking is .0794 vs .07703 in favor of the shield talos. So virtually identical in tracking. This range difference doesn't make much of a practical difference. You still need to point people around 20km, and in either ship you want to stay at the 20km mark. It is also only a 4km range difference. The difference comes from these: it's faster and more agile to fly a shield talos shields regenerate (a big deal in a solo/small gang boat without logi) pgu is better on a shield talos - an armor one needs a armor rig, but the shield one doesn't which means: the tank is not considerably better (although it is 7k ehp better on the armor) The problems you have all alluded to are problems in HULL design. T3 bc's were poorly designed HULLS. It is not the fault of the te. This nerf will make the armor talos have more range, which just does not make sense when it is already fairly well balanced in terms of armor vs shield docrtines in eve atm. Well CCP and most players disagree in the hulls being poorly designed, they've often said that the attack BCs probably need the least amount of balancing as they like where they are. Your post just screams of shield tank tears. Oh no, you won't be able to have all the things and do them all at once. Get over it and stop trying to shield fit every ship in the game.
I like how you did not address any of my points except to slightly agree that T3 bc's are broken. Instead it's "tears." |
|
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? |
|
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
316
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:45:00 -
[121] - Quote
P.S. I'm quite sure the game devs are aware that kiting will still be much stronger for outnumbered encounters, in that you'd still get most success from causing your opponents to mis-position out of support range, or you can just leave as you aren't committed to (unlinked) hard tackle range, and this is independant of TE changes.
I really wouldn't mind a direct Machariel and Cynabal bonus nerf/tweak though, along with the obvious needed tier3 BCs mobility/tracking nerf. These are the real ships that push TEs from understandable to broken. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
502
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:45:00 -
[122] - Quote
Are there any plans to adjust the tracking disruptor numbers in step with tracking enhancers? |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
502
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:50:00 -
[123] - Quote
Also fozzie, on the PL AT teams, how many ships used even a single TE? |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
86
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:52:00 -
[124] - Quote
Hoarr wrote: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.
|
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
86
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:57:00 -
[125] - Quote
Hoarr wrote: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.
It is the same, small changes that radically affect gameplay, except in the case of heavy missiles the changes were not so small. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4602
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:58:00 -
[126] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Also fozzie, on the PL AT teams, how many ships used even a single TE?
Obviously can't say for sure with ATX or the NEO. However for instance the AT8 Sleipnirs had 1x TE for the team used vs Dead Terrorists and in the final, and 2x TEs for the setup used against Darkside and the one used vs Monks of War and Paisti Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
265
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:59:00 -
[127] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:I want to reiterate that CCP really can't mention a TE change without talking about how terrible medium railguns are & that they should be buffed, in damage applied as well as fitting. You tell me, does anyone use them for anything except noobs in lvl3s? I'm aware this is titled a 'Part One' thread. In fact, this may be a buff to railguns, because they have the best base range and lack a lot more tracking than range. Railguns are a lot less sensible to TE nerf than other weapons. |
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
316
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 01:01:00 -
[128] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Daneel Trevize wrote:I want to reiterate that CCP really can't mention a TE change without talking about how terrible medium railguns are & that they should be buffed, in damage applied as well as fitting. You tell me, does anyone use them for anything except noobs in lvl3s? I'm aware this is titled a 'Part One' thread. In fact, this may be a buff to railguns, because they have the best base range and lack a lot more tracking than range. Railguns are a lot less sensible to TE nerf than other weapons. But having terrible tracking shouldn't be a good reason why they aren't sensitive to Tracking Enhancer changes. |
Venustas Blue
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 01:05:00 -
[129] - Quote
If your fighting at 0, theres no way to disengage say if your off gate. Unless your ****** fit with stabs or possibly AB the more powerful ship or better counter fit ship will always win. You will not have the ability granted to kiting ships to disengagde by either burning away, or causing the hostile to lose point by pulsing MWD on cross axis so he burns out of range, allowing you to warp out. There's little skill in fighting at 0, nerfing TEs kiting ability, wich is an art and skill its self would be yet another mistake by CCP, and a great loss as far as skill goes for the game. There is counters to kiting ships, minnie ships have already been nerfed enough, dont ruin it by overstepping a reasonable current mark & success. This proposed change to TEs needs to be scrapped. All it would do is subject eve to yet a other nerf of making the game ever easier, this does not inspire anybody to become better within tactics and situational awareness, it only acts to dumb it down. Sometimes it becomes very apparent CCP are out of touch with the game and its tactics, this is as good as any example. A resounding NO to TE nerf from me. |
Joe D'Trader
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
167
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 01:13:00 -
[130] - Quote
I always wanted to use some of these Gallente mid slots for TCs, guess now I'll have to try. |
|
M1k3y Koontz
Anominous
126
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 01:14:00 -
[131] - Quote
Is nerfing TEs going to close the gap between shield and armor? No.
Armor will become more popular when the first worry of any PVPer is no longer "How many guys are waiting on the other side of the gate" and they no longer have to worry about running on a moment's notice. The reason shield tanks are so popular on ALL the ships (Im looking at you shield Oracle, Talos) is because shield tanks have the ability to GTFO should an engagement turn against a pilot and armor tanks are greatly lacking.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
265
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 01:15:00 -
[132] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:But having terrible tracking shouldn't be a good reason why they aren't sensitive to Tracking Enhancer changes. You fool ! Railguns don't care about TE nerf because it affect *all* turrets equally, but the farther from closest range you get, the better they become, because there base range being very long, ammo spread a lot farther than for any other weapon. Hence, this TE nerf mean that if beam or arties need to use a longer range ammo, railgun won't necessary need it, or they will lose less than the others anyway.
This change is a buff to railguns and a buff to armor tanking. |
Lee Vanden
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
4
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 01:16:00 -
[133] - Quote
I think this is going to hurt Gallente blaster boats more than it is Minmatar and it's not so long since they were finally made useable, please consider increasing the range of blasters if you're going to go ahead with this CCP. |
Goldiiee
Superior Ratio High Sec Dropouts
312
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 01:19:00 -
[134] - 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. I have always wondered at the reasoning behind the equivalent values of meta-5 to meta-8, it would seem that 3 meta levels would result in a more noticeable difference than 7 saved CPU.
After this proposed change (Who am I kidding? When has it ever changed back after 'proposed' regardless of argument) the effective value of meta-8 TE's will be even less apparent and devalue the current (As of today) stock to 'worthless waste of ISK'. I assume you already knew this but felt it warranted saying anyways.
Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced (But I still try..) |
McBorsk
Multispace Technologies Inc Yulai Federation
7
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 01:22:00 -
[135] - Quote
Not a big fan of the TE change. |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
37
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 01:25:00 -
[136] - Quote
Roderick Grey wrote:With Blasters hurting for range as it is are CCP sure it's a good idea to further damage Gallente ships, which already suffer drawbacks just to nerf Minmatar superiority?
Perhaps with weapon damage upgrades being Race specific, we could have race-specific Tracking Enhancers each with their own varying buffs aswell? How about using tracking computers, if you "hurting for range"?... |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
884
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 01:27:00 -
[137] - Quote
i just ran some plots on a pve mach and wanted to share the results. (the TCs are scripted for range.) it seems like the typical shield mission mach will lose about 100dps @40k and around 150dps @60-80k. it's somewhat annoying but I can live with it. on a side note, notice how currently, three tracking enhancers are exactly as effective as four tracking computers, three scripted for range, one for tracking.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Goldiiee
Superior Ratio High Sec Dropouts
312
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 01:31:00 -
[138] - Quote
One more thing; I find the coincidence of NPC tracking disruption being OP, combined with even less effective TE modules, to be the death knell to turreted mission runners that have been struggling to cope with Sansha rats.
The buckets of tears in the forums have been overwhelming since the NPC change, after this, the tears will become a tidal wave.
Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced (But I still try..) |
Lin Fatale
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 01:34:00 -
[139] - Quote
I understand your intention to nerf TE
but I have the feeling that kiting and roaming shield setups which almost fight outmunered already vs the local blop and rely on range and tracking will suffer most of this nerf
|
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
884
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 01:42:00 -
[140] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote:One more thing; I find the coincidence of NPC tracking disruption being OP, combined with even less effective TE modules, to be the death knell to turreted mission runners that have been struggling to cope with Sansha rats.
The buckets of tears in the forums have been overwhelming since the NPC change, after this, the tears will become a tidal wave.
if you fly against sanshas, you are most likely armor tanked or in a nightmare i.e. you either have 0 or 1 tracking enhancer. so basically, the TE change hardly affects you. also, didn't i read somewhere that NPC TD is getting nerfed again?
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
|
IrJosy
Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation
22
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 01:51:00 -
[141] - Quote
Cowwarrior is not impressed. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
731
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 01:55:00 -
[142] - 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. Are you concerned about how this might drive the already high faction variations up even higher? Or do you have a plan for faction LP stores in store for Odyssey. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
222
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 01:57:00 -
[143] - Quote
Lee Vanden wrote:I think this is going to hurt Gallente blaster boats more than it is Minmatar and it's not so long since they were finally made useable, please consider increasing the range of blasters if you're going to go ahead with this CCP.
I've got a few blaster based setups this is gonna hit pretty hard :S much more so than other setups, hence my response when I first heard about this is pretty much un-reproduceable here. Not a fan of these "closing the gap by nerfing towards the middle" type tweaks that seem to be being introduced alongside otherwise great changes of late.
|
Hellakhanasos
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 02:00:00 -
[144] - Quote
Venustas Blue wrote:If your fighting at 0, say in scram & Webb range to be doing affective damage, theres no way to disengage say if your off gate. Unless your ****** fit with stabs or possibly AB fit and able to burn out. The more powerful ship or better counter fit ship will always win. You will not have the ability granted to kiting ships to disengagde by either burning away, or causing the hostile to lose point by pulsing MWD on cross axis so they burn out of range & lose point, allowing you to warp out. There's little skill in fighting at 0 (scram/Webb) range, nerfing TEs kiting ability, wich is an art and skill its self would be yet another mistake by CCP, and a great loss as far as skill goes for the game. There is counters to kiting ships, & as far as minnie ships go, they have already been nerfed enough, dont ruin it by overstepping a reasonable current mark & success. This proposed change to TEs needs to be scrapped. All it would do is subject eve to yet a other nerf of making the game ever easier, this does not inspire anybody to become better within tactics and situational awareness, it only acts to dumb it down, even giving more reason to blob, and there should be no further reason given to blobbing WHAT SO EVER. Should be promoting skill and fun gfs instead. Sometimes it becomes very apparent CCP are out of touch with the game and its tactics, this is as good as any example. A resounding NO to TE nerf from me.
After sifting through the turd of many prior posts over the last couple of pages. This is more of less spot on.
|
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
492
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 02:01:00 -
[145] - Quote
My Gallente cruiser fits are not looking forward to this patch. Shield / blaster setups were already really borderline, they'll now be depressingly ineffective.
Why do we want to skew the game towards "TOTAL COMMITMENT" type fits? Whats wrong with skirmishing? |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
492
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 02:03:00 -
[146] - Quote
Hellakhanasos wrote:Venustas Blue wrote:If your fighting at 0, say in scram & Webb range to be doing affective damage, theres no way to disengage say if your off gate. Unless your ****** fit with stabs or possibly AB fit and able to burn out. The more powerful ship or better counter fit ship will always win. You will not have the ability granted to kiting ships to disengagde by either burning away, or causing the hostile to lose point by pulsing MWD on cross axis so they burn out of range & lose point, allowing you to warp out. There's little skill in fighting at 0 (scram/Webb) range, nerfing TEs kiting ability, wich is an art and skill its self would be yet another mistake by CCP, and a great loss as far as skill goes for the game. There is counters to kiting ships, & as far as minnie ships go, they have already been nerfed enough, dont ruin it by overstepping a reasonable current mark & success. This proposed change to TEs needs to be scrapped. All it would do is subject eve to yet a other nerf of making the game ever easier, this does not inspire anybody to become better within tactics and situational awareness, it only acts to dumb it down, even giving more reason to blob, and there should be no further reason given to blobbing WHAT SO EVER. Should be promoting skill and fun gfs instead. Sometimes it becomes very apparent CCP are out of touch with the game and its tactics, this is as good as any example. A resounding NO to TE nerf from me. After sifting through the turd of many prior posts over the last couple of pages. This is more of less spot on.
Yeah basically this. |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
37
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 02:06:00 -
[147] - Quote
If the best post you can pick from a whole thread is a pile of words that noone is able to comprehend... May be you should consider your sanity? |
IrJosy
Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation
22
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 02:08:00 -
[148] - Quote
The problem with nerfing RSB's is that it is too hard to get fights without them in many situations. Many players simply want to run away or cloak and warp. An interceptor crashing the gate simply can't be caught without an instalocking 90% web ship on the gate. Often that instalocking 90% web ship is assisted to instalocking status by RSB's. Even with an instalocking 90% web ship the chances to kill a good pilot in a fast ship are NOT 100%. Again, it is too easy to run away or avoid pvp in this game. The introduction of cloaky nulified t3 cruisers has exacerbated this problem. We need to stop nerfing pvp and start giving players more tools to force players into pvp. If players are going into low/hi-sec there need to be risks like that little pop up message suggests. It is far too easy to run around completely safe from any form of uncosensual pvp in null/low sec and it is seemingly getting easier with every change. At what point is enough, enough? We are already fairly far down the slippery slope of turning this game into carebear freindly themepark and less of a sandbox. Changes like cloaky haulers, buffing mining barges, adding cloaking delay to HIC bubbles, nullified t3 cruisers, and most recently reducing the scan res from RSBs are steps in the wrong direction. I suggest you step back for a moment and give some equally impressive tools to those of us looking for pvp as you have provided those seeking to avoid it. |
Dominick Owusu
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
4
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 02:11:00 -
[149] - Quote
You know things are silly when you have arty thrashers with 4791mm Scan res on grid. I'll miss that, but local sebos will still get me to 4461mm. No big deal. :) |
Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
808
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 02:13:00 -
[150] - Quote
TE changes are ********.
Optimal is the issue not tracking - tracking is bad as it is nerfing TE bonus by half is just..... well stupid
if long range is a problem NERF LONG RANGE GUNS, not a stupid blanket TE nerf.
as many have said, blasters are hard enough to use as it is.
Remote sebos and stuff, didnt think there was a problem before but hey, a bit of a nerf isnt going to mean a whole lot since everyone stacks the shite out of them any way.
Canes will be in pain to use after this change, brutix and talos (lol).......
Go ferox? http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4375/mynewsig2.jpg |
|
2manno Asp
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
168
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 02:14:00 -
[151] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Karl Hobb wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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. I'm curious as to why the low-slot, non-cap-using TEs are still better in this iteration than the mid-slot, cap-using TCs, especially considering this statement? TCs give far superior tracking bonuses, this narrows the gap for range bonuses.
But TC's are mid slots Fozzie and there are a half dozen more reasons this is a terrible idea. If anything, ships need increased ranges, from blasters on up.
Decreasing ranges is like shrinking the size of a basketball court. It's already crowded under the hoop, making it more so is bad for the game.
I hate this idea. I think it's sophmoric as I listen to the rhetoric about minmatar dominance, TC's, and amor vs shield. Makes me think you guys don't understand the issues at all.
I hope you scrap this terrible idea. |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
37
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 02:17:00 -
[152] - Quote
IrJosy wrote:The problem with nerfing RSB's is that it is too hard to get fights without them in many situations. Many players simply want to run away or cloak and warp. An interceptor crashing the gate simply can't be caught without an instalocking 90% web ship on the gate. Accept the fact that there's ships that you won't be able to kill. Life is harsh, you have to live with it. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4429
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 02:20:00 -
[153] - Quote
I agree, I think the nerf to TEs is far too harsh, especially considering the ships that generally use them are very deficient in optimal range and require boosts to falloff in order to have decent damage projection.
You're nerfing the skirmish playstyle essentially. I don't like it. Malcanis for CSM 8 Module activation timers are buggy - CCP please fix |
2manno Asp
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
169
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 02:23:00 -
[154] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:Roderick Grey wrote:With Blasters hurting for range as it is are CCP sure it's a good idea to further damage Gallente ships, which already suffer drawbacks just to nerf Minmatar superiority?
Perhaps with weapon damage upgrades being Race specific, we could have race-specific Tracking Enhancers each with their own varying buffs aswell? Lol wat? Stop trying to kite in a Thorax hull then. As someone who predominately flies Gallente, I can only think of Talos & terrible kiting Thorax hulls as the ships that routinely fit TEs. Gallente is the best it's been in a long time, and this nerf to TEs just means people are going to be closer to blaster range
and your obvious bias is why your opinion should be disregarded. |
Maggeridon Thoraz
Reconfiguration Nation Existential Anxiety
53
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 02:28:00 -
[155] - Quote
seem like the title of the next expansion was choosen right.
Odyssey: cpp is on an Odyssey and dont know where the really going with the nerfs |
Mina Sebiestar
Mactabilis Simplex Cursus
295
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 02:28:00 -
[156] - Quote
I don't like it,affect minmatar the most and both weapon systems for that matter.
But real massacre will be in autocanons so i have q for CCP Fozzie
Hail ammo to my knowledge it remained nerfed while others ammo got buffed for the same reasons you are nerfing TE now....
Will you change Hail ammo stats? http://i.imgur.com/1N37t.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/KTjFEt6.jpg I dont always fly stabber but when i do...
|
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
493
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 02:31:00 -
[157] - Quote
Tonto Auri wrote:If the best post you can pick from a whole thread is a pile of words that noone is able to comprehend... May be you should consider your sanity?
I you can't be bothered to read, we'd all prefer if you couldn't be bothered to post either. |
Ak'athra J'ador
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
17
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 02:35:00 -
[158] - Quote
Soo.... TE nerf. Yea just what the game needs. Let's cram EVERYONE into a 10km bubble.
Totally going in the wrong direction. The game needs to be opened up, not closed down. |
Ap01110n
Creative Ventures
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 02:35:00 -
[159] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Dabigredboat wrote:If you would be so kind ccp fozzie. Explain to me why you would change the range of the TE and not the TC. This dirctly nerfs a fleet ship such as nagas and rokhs who rely on a TE due to shield tank being the dominate form of tank.
Why not change both equally as to adjust the change needed to effect Navy apocs as much as changing the Rokhs role. A Navy Apoc will use two tracking computers the same as a rokh uses two tracking enhances to balance the range ratio.
Any plans to fix the balance this will change in armor to shield fleets? This change is specifically designed to change the balance between TEs and TCs. TEs still give very good range bonuses, decent tracking bonuses, and do it with less than half the fittings cost of a TC. I know that this will affect 0.0 fleet doctrines, but shaking up doctrines a bit isn't something we consider a negative.
It wont shake up doctrines, only serve to solidify them.
TC fit pulse NaPocs are currently solidly dominant in nullsec, only (ocassionally) challenged by Rokhs (which for the past 4 years havent been used at all until recently).
If you want to shake up doctrines make torp Ravens useable and leave rokhs alone. T3 BCs probably need a range nerf, but not at the expense of every other skirmish style ship.
Shields have never been dominant in anything but small scale hit and run tactics (except for Tengus which is a separate issue altogether). For the past 2+ years its been all amarr armor (or maels just to counter abaddons incredible buffer).
Shield caps and supers are regarded as "unuseable" in major conflicts because there are no solid shield subcap doctrines. God forbid you buy a Hel, theyre pathetic compared to anything else. |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
495
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 02:38:00 -
[160] - Quote
I don't really get the RSB nerf either. Guy guys we need a way to make burning back to gates easier. Because this game really needs to be more forgiving of pilot error. |
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4431
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 02:40:00 -
[161] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:I don't really get the RSB nerf either. Guy guys we need a way to make burning back to gates easier. Because this game really needs to be more forgiving of pilot error. Agreed. Malcanis for CSM 8 Module activation timers are buggy - CCP please fix |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
495
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 02:41:00 -
[162] - Quote
Basically you should probably go back to 2007 game balance, where webs were death, on-grid probing took long enough to allow sniping ships to work, and both kiting ships AND immobile, close-range death ships both worked.
...and people couldn't burn back to gates. |
Alexandra Vyvourant
State War Academy Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 02:42:00 -
[163] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:I don't really get the RSB nerf either. Guy guys we need a way to make burning back to gates easier. Because this game really needs to be more forgiving of pilot error.
yea, and let's be sure that you can't shoot anyone from too far either. we want everyone to pile on top of each other.
we want all kiting ships to fight in scram range...
wait. what..?
|
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
495
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 02:44:00 -
[164] - Quote
Alexandra Vyvourant wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:I don't really get the RSB nerf either. Guy guys we need a way to make burning back to gates easier. Because this game really needs to be more forgiving of pilot error. yea, and let's be sure that you can't shoot anyone from too far either. we want everyone to pile on top of each other. we want all kiting ships to fight in scram range... wait. what..?
Its imperative that they either fight inside scram/web range or don't do any damage outside it. Otherwise they could conceivably kill my armor-tanked gimmick Myrmidon if I engage like a moron without baiting them in first. That's no fun! |
Suyer
Explorer Corps Polarized.
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 02:54:00 -
[165] - Quote
>greentext story time as a tl;dr >playing eve, not in a huge napfest like bluedoo >want to fight >mfw I get blobbed anywhere I go >learn to adapt, fly fast long range ships to allow for my escape >mfw raivi and kil2 become CCP devs >hope they make the game harder for lamer pubbies who blue up at the first sign of trouble >mfw TE's going to be nerfed >mfw force multipliers like links are getting nerfed >mfw they nerf HMLs >mfw they nerf the hurricane and the drake in kiting setups >mfw they think I should be flying the prophecy and myrm (lol no way CCP, im not going into scram range ever) >mfw they're going to nerf T3's >mfw there are still no viable armor kite setups where I don't have to triple box my ship and skirm/legion links to make it work >mfw there is still SP loss when you use T3's (seriously this is a joke i've lost probably like 5mil sp, it's max dumb) >Why is CCP making it harder for me to kite nerds >mfw they think me winning 1v20 is unfair >don't realize that pubbies suck and I'm abusing my superior knowledge and experience to own them >don't realize 99.999999999999% of players are max risk averse and don't want to fit to win, but would rather fit a 10bil isk ratting carrier and then die to pizza >now I have to fight with my talos at 20km >mfw CCP doesn't realize that 20km isn't far enough to kite a 20 man gang at >what am i supposed to do now >mfw maybe I should actually focus on real life instead of this infuriating game
CCP pls stop making any sort of solo pvp in ships above frigate or cruiser size non-viable, tia, I don't like flying frigates except the arty wolf BUT TOO BAD IT RELIES ON 2 TE's .
This is a dumb change.
What should have happened is a significant buff to tracking computers to make them worth fitting over webs. There is no autocannon dominance, the only dominance in pvp I see right now is large blasters. It would be cool if you actually changed modules so that turret based ships that were armor tanked could actually increase their effective range on their weapons. Right now you can fit TC's, but that's literally dumb as balls because TC's suck and webs are way better.
Guess its cool that fozzie wants all small scale pvp to be brawl style pvp.... At this rate, loki links won't even need a nerf because the extra point range and speed won't even be able to be utilized because no ship will be able to shoot that far.
Now I'm going to have to actually fly for hours to find a fight where I won't get instantly blobbed when I go into scram range, instead of just going into a large alliances home system and sitting near the station till they undock and I can start kiting.
Maybe I'll have to fly the 100mn AB tengu again with the nerfed HML's. Too bad that last time I tried that I got volleyed by 4O1k when they undocked literally 50 muninns on me and volleyed my tengu.
|
raging star
BLOOM. Verge of Collapse
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 03:02:00 -
[166] - Quote
A TE nerf of any kind is not really needed, If you guys think some ships are over power in this area then target them specifically instead of all of them. MIN ships and gallente ships will be hurt really badly by TE nerf and tier 3 are find as they are. from my point of view the game is fine as it is let it be! |
Beekeeper Bob
Beekeepers Anonymous
557
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 03:03:00 -
[167] - Quote
As usual, CCP decides unilaterally that they need to nerf something, and then they go way over the top....
I wonder if they ever consider the big picture when doing this, or it's simply:
"Lets screw with this, and see what happens, we can always nerf everything else to match."
The single biggest danger to EVE is the proliferation of ALTS! Kill an alt today!
Petition for a Minimum bounty of 10 mil. Prevent useless bounties!
|
UR13L
THORN Syndicate THORN Alliance
15
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 03:07:00 -
[168] - Quote
Ap01110n wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Dabigredboat wrote:If you would be so kind ccp fozzie. Explain to me why you would change the range of the TE and not the TC. This dirctly nerfs a fleet ship such as nagas and rokhs who rely on a TE due to shield tank being the dominate form of tank.
Why not change both equally as to adjust the change needed to effect Navy apocs as much as changing the Rokhs role. A Navy Apoc will use two tracking computers the same as a rokh uses two tracking enhances to balance the range ratio.
Any plans to fix the balance this will change in armor to shield fleets? This change is specifically designed to change the balance between TEs and TCs. TEs still give very good range bonuses, decent tracking bonuses, and do it with less than half the fittings cost of a TC. I know that this will affect 0.0 fleet doctrines, but shaking up doctrines a bit isn't something we consider a negative. It wont shake up doctrines, only serve to solidify them. TC fit pulse NaPocs are currently solidly dominant in nullsec, only (ocassionally) challenged by Rokhs (which for the past 4 years havent been used at all until recently). If you want to shake up doctrines make torp Ravens useable and leave rokhs alone. T3 BCs probably need a range nerf, but not at the expense of every other skirmish style ship. Shields have never been dominant in anything but small scale hit and run tactics (except for Tengus which is a separate issue altogether). For the past 2+ years its been all amarr armor (or maels just to counter abaddons incredible buffer). Shield caps and supers are regarded as "unuseable" in major conflicts because there are no solid shield subcap doctrines. God forbid you buy a Hel, theyre pathetic compared to anything else.
Not to mention (especially sniper) HACs being completely outmoded by tier 3 battlecruisers - and now even moreso |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
498
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 03:19:00 -
[169] - Quote
Yeah everyone can agree that armor tanked ships were kind of stupid, and I think CCP were on the right track with the armor buffs (but didn't go far enough). The way to improve PvP / make formerly useless ships viable is to buff armor tanking, not run skirmish fits into the ground across the board.
I'd rather see a buff to tracking computers (allowing immobile ships to project damage better) than a range nerf to kiting ships.
Basically kiting is the EVE-equivalent of oversteer while driving cars (think drifting if you don't know what this means)-- tricky to get right, super rewarding when you do, and never gets old. |
Apoctasy
the united Negative Ten.
12
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 03:29:00 -
[170] - Quote
The 1/3rd reduction to tracking enhancer range is very extreme. I never met any pvper in game who thought current tracking enhancers are OP, and haven't heard much complaint ever in my years of playing. If you absolutely HAVE to nerf them, I would make it 12.5% and 25%
Your proposals nerf skirmish/kiting ships pretty hard, and they were already hurt hard enough by the Great Nano Nerf Also, non-tier 3 bc snipers are going to suffer and slip even further into non-use. Who the **** will fly a Huginn or Eagle in the future? |
|
Malakai Asamov
Van Diemen's Demise Scrap Iron Flotilla.
14
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 03:30:00 -
[171] - Quote
CCP Fozzie, I think nerfing anything by 33% is quite heavy handed in an iterative approach.
|
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
42
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 03:30:00 -
[172] - Quote
This is hilarious. Now the RLM cerb / caracal are basically unstoppable. In-fact with these changes, HMLs may again become king. If my drake / caracal / cerb / cyclone can now sit at 28K and have nothing but heavy fall off from guns, then dropping tank mods for TP's will be very viable- thus making up for HML short comings.
You know i was concerned with the missile changes at first (i didn't have any gun skills) but now I am glad I didn't waste much time traning into turrets.
CCP why is it your desire to destroy nano / kiting ships? You had relegated it down to a select few ships, but now you have basically booted most of those ships away. Turret based cruisers that are not the zealot are now unplayable.
As for all of the winmatards need dat nerf- have you ever looked at EFT? Do you realize that even with out the nerf most cruiser based minni ships (minus sleip) have horrible damage application at 24/28 k? Hurricane was never that good, and it certainly wasn't during the time of the drake.
CCP do you even play this game? |
Frocke
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
17
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 03:33:00 -
[173] - Quote
Interesting changes.
Praise be to Jesus. |
Apoctasy
the united Negative Ten.
12
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 03:34:00 -
[174] - Quote
Chessur wrote:This is hilarious. Now the RLM cerb / caracal are basically unstoppable. In-fact with these changes, HMLs may again become king. If my drake / caracal / cerb / cyclone can now sit at 28K and have nothing but heavy fall off from guns, then dropping tank mods for TP's will be very viable- thus making up for HML short comings.
You know i was concerned with the missile changes at first (i didn't have any gun skills) but now I am glad I didn't waste much time traning into turrets.
CCP why is it your desire to destroy nano / kiting ships? You had relegated it down to a select few ships, but now you have basically booted most of those ships away. Turret based cruisers that are not the zealot are now unplayable.
As for all of the winmatards need dat nerf- have you ever looked at EFT? Do you realize that even with out the nerf most cruiser based minni ships (minus sleip) have horrible damage application at 24/28 k? Hurricane was never that good, and it certainly wasn't during the time of the drake.
CCP do you even play this game?
Listen to this man. People look at EFT numbers and think, "WOW OP that minmatar boat gets 400-500 dps at 25km!" When in fact the truth is more like 150-250 due to being in deep falloff.
|
soviet56
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
6
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 03:44:00 -
[175] - Quote
Thanks for nerfing my alliance.
Relevant: The Future is Munnin
Edit: well the past is munnin now vOv |
Taoist Dragon
The Church of Awesome
321
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 03:45:00 -
[176] - Quote
TE nerf? nah just a rebalance along with the ships really.
Now that I've thought about it more. Bring it on!
As for the people saying kiting will be killed or that scram range fighting is a no brainer......really?! you obviously have never kited in scram range before. Lrn2kite when people have a very slightly better chance to catch you!
This directly counters all the crap people have been posting about increasing point range DIRECTLY due to the increase of combat ranges to which TE are very responsible for. That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything. |
IrJosy
Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 03:51:00 -
[177] - Quote
Tonto Auri wrote:IrJosy wrote:The problem with nerfing RSB's is that it is too hard to get fights without them in many situations. Many players simply want to run away or cloak and warp. An interceptor crashing the gate simply can't be caught without an instalocking 90% web ship on the gate. Accept the fact that there's ships that you won't be able to kill. Life is harsh, you have to live with it.
name one |
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
45
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 04:00:00 -
[178] - Quote
Here are some EFT numbers for you for damage application at 28K.
All level 5 skills, no implants, no drugs, no heat.
Minni
Hurricane 2TE 2Gyro Barrage: 228 DPS Cynabal 2TE 2Gyro Barrage: 270 DPS Stabber 2TE 2Gyro Barrage: 166 DPS Vaga 2TE 2Gyro Barrage: 277 DPS Nado 2TE 2Gyro Barrage: 581 DPS
Amarr
Omen: 2TE 2Heat Sink Scorch: 330 DPS Harb 2TE 2Heat Sink Scorch: 445 DPS Zealot 2TE 2Heat Sink Scorch: 412 DPS Omen Navy 2TE 2Heat Sink Scorch: 395 DPS Oracle 2TE 2Heat Sink Scorch: 649 DPS
Gal (Only one ship reaches out this far with guns that are actually usable... ie blasters) Talos 2TE 2Mag Stab Null: 678 DPS
Now for the lulzy part: Caldari
Caracal 2BCS with Fury rapid light missile: 236 DPS Cerberus 2BCS with Scourge Fury rapid light missile: 296 DPS
I will not include any HML because on paper damage is not nearly close to applied damage.
If any one at ccp can understand simple tables, you will notice one thing- giving any of these ships a decrease in optimal or fall off will make everything turn into a brawl. 33% decrease on range for these numbers will make kiting nearly impossible unless you are flying an oracle or zealot. (missile ships excluded)
Why do you hate kiting? Unless you fly a pimped out nado or talos, your pick of cruisers is so limited already. With the proposed changes, you will make almost all turret based ships that are not large size obsoleate, and HMLs / RLMs will rule the sky. Hell even SB's using torps will be viable now. Nothing is going to be hitting them out at 24K anyway.
Please justify this CCP. You clearly have not looked at any of these numbers. Because if you have looked at the these numbers and did still come to the conclusion to nerf TE's asnwer me this-
Why are armor brawling ships becoming the only mode to play this game?
Shockingly not every one that goes out to pvp likes to hit F1 and brawl (or in the case of solo / small gang) get blobbed. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4432
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 04:04:00 -
[179] - Quote
It's easy to use EFT to find out the effect this would have because the current meta 0 tracking enhancer is the same as the proposed T2 TE would be after the change (as far as the optimal and falloff bonuses are concerned).
With the SFI for example, the damage isn't exactly spectacular - with 3 T2 gyrostabs and 2 T2 TEs it gets 330 DPS with o/f of 3.9/30 with barrage. This amounts to 250 DPS at a typical kiting range of 20 km. With the nerf this gets reduced to an even more anemic 180 DPS. By comparison an Omen without any range mods at all and a single T2 heatsink gets 250 DPS at 24 km with scorch on HPLs. Malcanis for CSM 8 Module activation timers are buggy - CCP please fix |
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
45
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 04:12:00 -
[180] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:It's easy to use EFT to find out the effect this would have because the current meta 0 tracking enhancer is the same as the proposed T2 TE would be after the change (as far as the optimal and falloff bonuses are concerned).
With the SFI for example, the damage isn't exactly spectacular - with 3 T2 gyrostabs and 2 T2 TEs it gets 330 DPS with o/f of 3.9/30 with barrage. This amounts to 250 DPS at a typical kiting range of 20 km. With the nerf this gets reduced to an even more anemic 180 DPS. By comparison an Omen without any range mods at all and a single T2 heatsink gets 250 DPS at 24 km with scorch on HPLs.
No drugs, no heat, no implants all level 5 skills 28K
SFI 2TE 2Gyro gets (with 425mm ) : 151 DPS SFI 2TE 2Gyro gets (with 220 Vulcan) : 122 DPS
Your numbers are way way off. SFI has no fall off bonues, and any sfi that can fit anything is not fit with 425's. Also you can't really kite at 20K. Sure if you are fighting just one or two ships, but normally you will not be at that range.... ever. Unless you have an absolutely amazing tank.
|
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
222
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 04:15:00 -
[181] - Quote
Chessur wrote:Here are some EFT numbers for you for damage application at 28K.
All level 5 skills, no implants, no drugs, no heat.
Minni
Hurricane 2TE 2Gyro Barrage: 228 DPS Cynabal 2TE 2Gyro Barrage: 270 DPS Stabber 2TE 2Gyro Barrage: 166 DPS Vaga 2TE 2Gyro Barrage: 277 DPS Nado 2TE 2Gyro Barrage: 581 DPS
Amarr
Omen: 2TE 2Heat Sink Scorch: 330 DPS Harb 2TE 2Heat Sink Scorch: 445 DPS Zealot 2TE 2Heat Sink Scorch: 412 DPS Omen Navy 2TE 2Heat Sink Scorch: 395 DPS Oracle 2TE 2Heat Sink Scorch: 649 DPS
Gal (Only one ship reaches out this far with guns that are actually usable... ie blasters) Talos 2TE 2Mag Stab Null: 678 DPS
Now for the lulzy part: Caldari
Caracal 2BCS with Fury rapid light missile: 236 DPS Cerberus 2BCS with Scourge Fury rapid light missile: 296 DPS
I will not include any HML because on paper damage is not nearly close to applied damage.
If any one at ccp can understand simple tables, you will notice one thing- giving any of these ships a decrease in optimal or fall off will make everything turn into a brawl. 33% decrease on range for these numbers will make kiting nearly impossible unless you are flying an oracle or zealot. (missile ships excluded)
Why do you hate kiting? Unless you fly a pimped out nado or talos, your pick of cruisers is so limited already. With the proposed changes, you will make almost all turret based ships that are not large size obsoleate, and HMLs / RLMs will rule the sky. Hell even SB's using torps will be viable now. Nothing is going to be hitting them out at 24K anyway.
Please justify this CCP. You clearly have not looked at any of these numbers. Because if you have looked at the these numbers and did still come to the conclusion to nerf TE's asnwer me this-
Why are armor brawling ships becoming the only mode to play this game?
Shockingly not every one that goes out to pvp likes to hit F1 and brawl (or in the case of solo / small gang) get blobbed.
I get the feeling someones been blatted too many times by navy apocs, sniper rail rokhs and kiting tier3s and completely forgot the effect this has on small and medium sized weapons on many setups - for instance dual T2 TEs on blaster boats with the 10% per level falloff bonus like the diemos have a role (mostly anti-tackle) and/or for fighting outnumbered that this change will affect quite heavily.
|
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
26
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 04:15:00 -
[182] - Quote
Quote: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.
the reason it meant the dominance of minmatars is because they mainly use falloff , and the TE gives 30% more falloff compared to lazors who uses optimal range and only gets 15% more range
TEs on lazors arent OP , it was on AC ships and blasters.
imho you should have just reduced the TE bonuses to 15% optimal / 20 or 15% more falloff instead of 30%
i.e : dont touch the optimal range bonus on the TE , its small enough as is IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
69
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 04:15:00 -
[183] - Quote
Taoist Dragon wrote:TE's - ouch!
I agree they can be over powering (especially on hulls like the Talos) at times but this will pretty much kill the only advantage the minnies get with their weapon systems - nice falloff.
Great falloff is the only Minmatar's weapon advantage if you ignore capacitor-free turrets, selectable damage type and by far easiest fitting requirements. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4432
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 04:18:00 -
[184] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Taoist Dragon wrote:TE's - ouch!
I agree they can be over powering (especially on hulls like the Talos) at times but this will pretty much kill the only advantage the minnies get with their weapon systems - nice falloff.
Great falloff is the only Minmatar's weapon advantage if you ignore capacitor-free turrets, selectable damage type and by far easiest fitting requirements. None of which matter if you can't deal damage to your target anyway.. Malcanis for CSM 8 Module activation timers are buggy - CCP please fix |
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
45
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 04:19:00 -
[185] - Quote
Rroff wrote:Chessur wrote:Here are some EFT numbers for you for damage application at 28K.
All level 5 skills, no implants, no drugs, no heat.
Minni
Hurricane 2TE 2Gyro Barrage: 228 DPS Cynabal 2TE 2Gyro Barrage: 270 DPS Stabber 2TE 2Gyro Barrage: 166 DPS Vaga 2TE 2Gyro Barrage: 277 DPS Nado 2TE 2Gyro Barrage: 581 DPS
Amarr
Omen: 2TE 2Heat Sink Scorch: 330 DPS Harb 2TE 2Heat Sink Scorch: 445 DPS Zealot 2TE 2Heat Sink Scorch: 412 DPS Omen Navy 2TE 2Heat Sink Scorch: 395 DPS Oracle 2TE 2Heat Sink Scorch: 649 DPS
Gal (Only one ship reaches out this far with guns that are actually usable... ie blasters) Talos 2TE 2Mag Stab Null: 678 DPS
Now for the lulzy part: Caldari
Caracal 2BCS with Fury rapid light missile: 236 DPS Cerberus 2BCS with Scourge Fury rapid light missile: 296 DPS
I will not include any HML because on paper damage is not nearly close to applied damage.
If any one at ccp can understand simple tables, you will notice one thing- giving any of these ships a decrease in optimal or fall off will make everything turn into a brawl. 33% decrease on range for these numbers will make kiting nearly impossible unless you are flying an oracle or zealot. (missile ships excluded)
Why do you hate kiting? Unless you fly a pimped out nado or talos, your pick of cruisers is so limited already. With the proposed changes, you will make almost all turret based ships that are not large size obsoleate, and HMLs / RLMs will rule the sky. Hell even SB's using torps will be viable now. Nothing is going to be hitting them out at 24K anyway.
Please justify this CCP. You clearly have not looked at any of these numbers. Because if you have looked at the these numbers and did still come to the conclusion to nerf TE's asnwer me this-
Why are armor brawling ships becoming the only mode to play this game?
Shockingly not every one that goes out to pvp likes to hit F1 and brawl (or in the case of solo / small gang) get blobbed. I get the feeling someones been blatted too many times by navy apocs, sniper rail rokhs and kiting tier3s and completely forgot the effect this has on small and medium sized weapons on many setups - for instance dual T2 TEs on blaster boats with the 10% per level falloff bonus like the diemos have a role (mostly anti-tackle) and/or for fighting outnumbered that this change will affect quite heavily.
you have no idea what your talking about. If you are seriously trying to justify using rail / beam ships for kiting.... Then you don't understand kiting. A kiting ship would not be readily killed by either of those two weapon systems. You need to do some math... Then go play more eve PvP
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
222
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 04:23:00 -
[186] - Quote
Chessur wrote:
you have no idea what your talking about. If you are seriously trying to justify using rail / beam ships for kiting.... Then you don't understand kiting. A kiting ship would not be readily killed by either of those two weapon systems. You need to do some math... Then go play more eve PvP
Where was I talking about using rail/beam for kiting? tho to be fair my comment was a little off as many of the common fits for those setups use TCs more readily than TEs tho there are TE versions of many of those fits especially kiting tier3s. |
Powers Sa
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
582
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 04:26:00 -
[187] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Dabigredboat wrote:If you would be so kind ccp fozzie. Explain to me why you would change the range of the TE and not the TC. This dirctly nerfs a fleet ship such as nagas and rokhs who rely on a TE due to shield tank being the dominate form of tank.
Why not change both equally as to adjust the change needed to effect Navy apocs as much as changing the Rokhs role. A Navy Apoc will use two tracking computers the same as a rokh uses two tracking enhances to balance the range ratio.
Any plans to fix the balance this will change in armor to shield fleets? This change is specifically designed to change the balance between TEs and TCs. TEs still give very good range bonuses, decent tracking bonuses, and do it with less than half the fittings cost of a TC. I know that this will affect 0.0 fleet doctrines, but shaking up doctrines a bit isn't something we consider a negative.
Is there a reason you went with 1/3 instead of 1/4 or 1/5 Vote Nullsec for CSM8 Mynnna Kesper North-á Malc00nis |
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
45
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 04:28:00 -
[188] - Quote
Rroff wrote:Chessur wrote:
you have no idea what your talking about. If you are seriously trying to justify using rail / beam ships for kiting.... Then you don't understand kiting. A kiting ship would not be readily killed by either of those two weapon systems. You need to do some math... Then go play more eve PvP
Where was I talking about using rail/beam for kiting? tho to be fair my comment was a little off as many of the common fits for those setups use TCs more readily than TEs tho there are TE versions of many of those fits especially kiting tier3s.
Kiting t3's use TEs pluse short range guns. As for blaster boats, no other ship outside of the talos / adrestia can use blasters to kite.
It seems that people are getting confused with the word kite. Perhaps a better word would be projection. A kiting sheep needs projection to at least 28K to be able to do much. While many gall ships do have some falloff bonus, kiting inside scram / web or less than 20K is really not kiting in the true sense. At those ranges you will be torn to shreds by an enemy gangs dps.
Sorry for the confusion |
DR BiCarbonate
Basgerin Pirate SCUM.
54
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 04:29:00 -
[189] - Quote
After the garbage cyclone rework, I dont think i will ever fly shield minmatar ships any more after this patch.
Sorry fozzie, your teams rebalancing was great until the BC nerf, now all i see is prophecy's with 100k ehp without even trying.
I cant remember the last time i saw a stabber. rifter has been phased out. hurricane double nerf. cyclone rebalance as mentioned before is ******* garbage. jaguar fell off like a rock after crucible. i can see sleipnir nerf to the ground incoming aswell. not sure how i feel about typhoon as primary missile boat, could be good, have yet to see.
now te nerf, lol. way to destroy playstyles there fozzie, great job, keep up the good work! |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
222
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 04:32:00 -
[190] - Quote
Chessur wrote: Kiting t3's use TEs pluse short range guns. As for blaster boats, no other ship outside of the talos / adrestia can use blasters to kite.
Deimos (see willl adama's fit) and while not very usual you can fit a prot out like Garmon's adrestia with interesting results. Thorax is also possible with more limited results.
|
|
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
503
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 04:36:00 -
[191] - Quote
Chessur wrote:As for blaster boats, no other ship outside of the talos / adrestia can use blasters to kite.
Not true... now. The Deimos, Vigilant, and Proteus can do shield-tanked kiting blaster setups. They do a little less dps than ACs at longer ranges (~30+) but are otherwise alright.
With this TE nerf though they'll be utter garbage again, just like they were before the null buffs. |
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
45
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 04:40:00 -
[192] - Quote
Show me any fit that a gallente boat with blasters other than talos / adrestia (that is also sub BS size) can use to kite, and i will give you a cake. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
223
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 04:59:00 -
[193] - Quote
Quote: [Proteus, example] Damage Control II Federation Navy Magnetic Field Stabilizer Federation Navy Magnetic Field Stabilizer Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Republic Fleet Large Shield Extender Republic Fleet Large Shield Extender Corelum C-Type 10MN Microwarpdrive True Sansha Warp Scrambler
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Medium Core Defense Field Extender II
Proteus Defensive - Augmented Plating Proteus Electronics - Friction Extension Processor Proteus Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix Proteus Offensive - Hybrid Propulsion Armature Proteus Propulsion - Localized Injectors
Warrior II x5 Warrior II x5 Hornet EC-300 x5
Just an example fit theres many variations on this fit possible depending on skill level and what you want from it (i.e. change the cap regen sub-system to supplemental for overload bonus). Load it up with snakes, gunnery implants, skirmish links, etc. and you have a very expensive cynabal that (until now) had the suprise factor (clocks up almost 6km/s + turns on a dime) and the choice of 30km scram or 80km point. If you have the skills to fly it lighter tanked you can get some pretty nasty levels of damage projection to. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
143
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 05:03:00 -
[194] - Quote
Oh wow, took you long enough. I think TEs will still be better than TCs by miles though. You should cut the falloff bonus by 2/3. Now you just need to fix t2 ammo.
Regarding sensor boosters, have you actually fixed the stacking on scan res rigs? I remember that being pretty broken. |
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
45
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 05:10:00 -
[195] - Quote
Rroff wrote:Quote: [Proteus, example] Damage Control II Federation Navy Magnetic Field Stabilizer Federation Navy Magnetic Field Stabilizer Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Republic Fleet Large Shield Extender Republic Fleet Large Shield Extender Corelum C-Type 10MN Microwarpdrive True Sansha Warp Scrambler
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Medium Core Defense Field Extender II
Proteus Defensive - Augmented Plating Proteus Electronics - Friction Extension Processor Proteus Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix Proteus Offensive - Hybrid Propulsion Armature Proteus Propulsion - Localized Injectors
Warrior II x5 Warrior II x5 Hornet EC-300 x5
Just an example fit theres many variations on this fit possible depending on skill level and what you want from it (i.e. change the cap regen sub-system to supplemental for overload bonus). Load it up with snakes, gunnery implants, skirmish links, etc. and you have a very expensive cynabal that (until now) had the suprise factor (clocks up almost 6km/s + turns on a dime) and the choice of 30km scram or 80km point. If you have the skills to fly it lighter tanked you can get some pretty nasty levels of damage projection to.
right,,,, your dps is abysmal.
20K 343 DPS 30K 175 DPS
Considering the amount of money you are pouring into this thing- the only useful part is the scram. Everything else (for the price) is very sub par. Explain to me how DPS like that is going to be effective? Especially for the cost? Why would you ever want to fly this on a regular basis? |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
223
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 05:15:00 -
[196] - Quote
Chessur wrote:
right,,,, your dps is abysmal.
20K 343 DPS 30K 175 DPS
Considering the amount of money you are pouring into this thing- the only useful part is the scram. Everything else (for the price) is very sub par. Explain to me how DPS like that is going to be effective? Especially for the cost? Why would you ever want to fly this on a regular basis?
As I said its an example fit, you can easily tweak it to do 400-500dps at 30km - don't forget medium 5% hybrid implant is cheap to and if your flying this might as well have the 5% all rate of fire, end of the day never said it was practical just possible.
|
Goldiiee
Superior Ratio High Sec Dropouts
312
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 05:15:00 -
[197] - Quote
My initial reaction to this was Incredulous, so awe struck I stare at the Forums and try as hard as I can to think of how this affects my game play and those I fly with. Losing what? where? and how bad? is the first thing I am trying to figure out. Using EVE-HQ I substitute the meta -0 (20%falloff/10% optimal) not a perfect match but close enough for an estimate. The ship for the base is my Mach, not the best for figuring this out as it has native bonuses, but it is the ship I use predominantly so it affects me there the most.
Results: Mach: Old: 59,002m falloff and 3899m optimal New: 50,709m falloff and 3586 optimal that makes a 14% loss of falloff at 30% nerf. I am assuming the target was 15% with a 33% nerf.
It seems strange to me that in the middle of the ship balancing (teiracide) CCP nerfs the Tracking Enhancer, so tinfoil hat tells me itGÇÖs a stealth nerf, probably of a ship that would cause too much uproar to hit in the open, so instead nerf the module that makes the ship OP. Mission accomplished.
Seems like a drastic hit to everyone for the sake of sparing the drama of a heavy ship nerf, but my tinfoil hat isnGÇÖt to tight so I will continue.
Tracking computers are not being nerfed (yet) so the difference can be made up with a change to the mid slot, but that also means the loss of a point/web/propulsion or some shield tank. Seems to be a targeted destruction of Minmatar benefits, as stated in FozzieGÇÖs post.
But is Minmatar really that OP? EVE kill would disagree at first glance with the Oracle being the heaviest hitter this month followed by the Naga then 3 Minmatar boats but all told Minmatar is still leading the pack with 216,117 kills and all the other races combined only amounting to 224,728 so a 3% difference between what Minmatar kills vs. all other races combined (sorry Caldari, you didnGÇÖt build a top ten killer this month).
So I take off my tin foil hat and settle in with popcorn for a show, I guess the Minmatar race is being fixed so the other guys can get a shot at the trophy.
Enjoyed you while it lasted Minmatar but it looks like the End is Nigh. I only hope the reverse is in store for Capital.
Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced (But I still try..) |
Andracin
Sickology
72
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 05:17:00 -
[198] - Quote
RSB Nerf : not going to change much...your still going to get caught cause if everyone in the gang brings one the tackler scan rez is still going to be through the roof.
TE Nerf : TBH Ive never heard anyone cry about them until this post. Tbh well minmatar ships do fit them, especially the mach and cynabal which, while they are awesome sauce cost a wad of isk, Ive been killing more blaster setups with te's than minmatar setups. I have a feeling all the WTF and HELL NO posts are mostly talos pilots....I don't see the nerf changing the way I fit or fly in any meaningful way... |
NORTEL
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
9
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 05:19:00 -
[199] - Quote
This will indirectly boost TD's. As if they weren't already overkill. TEs are the 'bread and butter' of a nano gang. Which is one of the few remaining ways of running low-man PVP/solo fleets. If you were searching to pervert small gang warfare, congrats CCP, this update's a winner. NORTEL |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
143
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 05:39:00 -
[200] - Quote
|
|
NORTEL
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
9
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 05:45:00 -
[201] - Quote
Semantics much? NORTEL |
Casha Andven
the undivided Negative Ten.
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 05:49:00 -
[202] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Hellakhanasos wrote:Venustas Blue wrote:If your fighting at 0, say in scram & Webb range to be doing affective damage, theres no way to disengage say if your off gate. Unless your ****** fit with stabs or possibly AB fit and able to burn out. The more powerful ship or better counter fit ship will always win. You will not have the ability granted to kiting ships to disengagde by either burning away, or causing the hostile to lose point by pulsing MWD on cross axis so they burn out of range & lose point, allowing you to warp out. There's little skill in fighting at 0 (scram/Webb) range, nerfing TEs kiting ability, wich is an art and skill its self would be yet another mistake by CCP, and a great loss as far as skill goes for the game. There is counters to kiting ships, & as far as minnie ships go, they have already been nerfed enough, dont ruin it by overstepping a reasonable current mark & success. This proposed change to TEs needs to be scrapped. All it would do is subject eve to yet a other nerf of making the game ever easier, this does not inspire anybody to become better within tactics and situational awareness, it only acts to dumb it down, even giving more reason to blob, and there should be no further reason given to blobbing WHAT SO EVER. Should be promoting skill and fun gfs instead. Sometimes it becomes very apparent CCP are out of touch with the game and its tactics, this is as good as any example. A resounding NO to TE nerf from me. After sifting through the turd of many prior posts over the last couple of pages. This is more of less spot on. Yeah basically this.
This. CCP you are dumbing down the game. May I ask why? |
Sigras
Conglomo
392
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 06:12:00 -
[203] - Quote
Casha Andven wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:Hellakhanasos wrote:Venustas Blue wrote:If your fighting at 0, say in scram & Webb range to be doing affective damage, theres no way to disengage say if your off gate. Unless your ****** fit with stabs or possibly AB fit and able to burn out. The more powerful ship or better counter fit ship will always win. You will not have the ability granted to kiting ships to disengagde by either burning away, or causing the hostile to lose point by pulsing MWD on cross axis so they burn out of range & lose point, allowing you to warp out. There's little skill in fighting at 0 (scram/Webb) range, nerfing TEs kiting ability, wich is an art and skill its self would be yet another mistake by CCP, and a great loss as far as skill goes for the game. There is counters to kiting ships, & as far as minnie ships go, they have already been nerfed enough, dont ruin it by overstepping a reasonable current mark & success. This proposed change to TEs needs to be scrapped. All it would do is subject eve to yet a other nerf of making the game ever easier, this does not inspire anybody to become better within tactics and situational awareness, it only acts to dumb it down, even giving more reason to blob, and there should be no further reason given to blobbing WHAT SO EVER. Should be promoting skill and fun gfs instead. Sometimes it becomes very apparent CCP are out of touch with the game and its tactics, this is as good as any example. A resounding NO to TE nerf from me. After sifting through the turd of many prior posts over the last couple of pages. This is more of less spot on. Yeah basically this. This. CCP you are dumbing down the game. May I ask why? Just a question . . . if kiting is "uber 1337 PvP for the skilled players" then doesnt making kiting harder raise the skill required to pull it off?
Doesnt that mean there is a clearer line between the "good PvPers who can kite" and the "bad PvPers who cant"?
That being said, in small gangs, life is a function of speed + damage projection thats what makes the shield tanking required in small gangs, because they get speed from not having armor plates and damage projection because they have a TON of free low slots.
This is now being brought into balance, so that armor tankers are now only down on one front not two. |
SmarncaV2
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
21
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 06:14:00 -
[204] - Quote
Remote sebos are used for countering Sensor damping wich is OP at the moment and with the remote sebo neft you are making them even more powerfull.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4433
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 06:17:00 -
[205] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Just a question . . . if kiting is "uber 1337 PvP for the skilled players" then doesnt making kiting harder raise the skill required to pull it off?
Doesnt that mean there is a clearer line between the "good PvPers who can kite" and the "bad PvPers who cant"?
That being said, in small gangs, life is a function of speed + damage projection thats what makes the shield tanking required in small gangs, because they get speed from not having armor plates and damage projection because they have a TON of free low slots.
This is now being brought into balance, so that armor tankers are now only down on one front not two. Or it means that kiting is reduced to a very very select group of setups that most people would never use. It's not even that common to begin with.
So it doesn't become "only the really good PVPers kite", it becomes "nobody kites because kiting has become worthless". Malcanis for CSM 8 Module activation timers are buggy - CCP please fix |
Cal Stantson
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
28
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 06:18:00 -
[206] - Quote
It would have made a lot more sense to rebalance the modules before rebalancing the ships , rather than the other way around.
|
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
508
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 06:30:00 -
[207] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Casha Andven wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:Hellakhanasos wrote:Venustas Blue wrote:If your fighting at 0, say in scram & Webb range to be doing affective damage, theres no way to disengage say if your off gate. Unless your ****** fit with stabs or possibly AB fit and able to burn out. The more powerful ship or better counter fit ship will always win. You will not have the ability granted to kiting ships to disengagde by either burning away, or causing the hostile to lose point by pulsing MWD on cross axis so they burn out of range & lose point, allowing you to warp out. There's little skill in fighting at 0 (scram/Webb) range, nerfing TEs kiting ability, wich is an art and skill its self would be yet another mistake by CCP, and a great loss as far as skill goes for the game. There is counters to kiting ships, & as far as minnie ships go, they have already been nerfed enough, dont ruin it by overstepping a reasonable current mark & success. This proposed change to TEs needs to be scrapped. All it would do is subject eve to yet a other nerf of making the game ever easier, this does not inspire anybody to become better within tactics and situational awareness, it only acts to dumb it down, even giving more reason to blob, and there should be no further reason given to blobbing WHAT SO EVER. Should be promoting skill and fun gfs instead. Sometimes it becomes very apparent CCP are out of touch with the game and its tactics, this is as good as any example. A resounding NO to TE nerf from me. After sifting through the turd of many prior posts over the last couple of pages. This is more of less spot on. Yeah basically this. This. CCP you are dumbing down the game. May I ask why? Just a question . . . if kiting is "uber 1337 PvP for the skilled players" then doesnt making kiting harder raise the skill required to pull it off?
You can't kite if you can't project damage at all. Then it's just called "running away." |
Volstruis
The Tuskers
12
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 06:40:00 -
[208] - Quote
I seriously f'n hated reading this post.
It's not TE's that are the problem it's the kiting meta. And I'm sorry, but everytime you whack Minnie pilots in the face like this in the name of balance it actually hurts that I spent 30 days training falloff 5 because there is now no significant reason without TE's to even try fly like that.
In a fair and equal engagement pretty much every Minnie boat dies horrible deaths to Caldari boats. Every single one of em. If you keep going at this rate there will be no reason whatsoever to fly anything but Caldari in pvp.
Or is that the plan? All hail the DraekTengu OVerlords?
Hallowed be thy payload?
|
Taoist Dragon
The Church of Awesome
322
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 06:45:00 -
[209] - Quote
LOL only kiting take brains! MY ARSE!
it is often just as difficult to fight as a brawler than it is to kite.
I fly both setups and they both are easy mode if you engage the opposite setup at your combat range.!
This won't stop kiting as a valid tactic, it was a valid tactic before the TE got overbonused so it'll still be a valid tactic. Get over yourselves!
Adapt or die! That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything. |
Sigras
Conglomo
392
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 06:45:00 -
[210] - Quote
I was just thinking of writing a treatise on why low slots are more valuable than mid slots in a PvP ship.
Many people get this backwards because there are two modules that are basically required in PvP that are mid slot items(prop mod and point), while there are basically no "required" low slot items, but I say that low slots are more valuable because every other mid slot module provides only slight bonuses in combat while you can add 6-8 low slot modules which all really effect how well the ship performs.
This is evidenced in most popular fits, and is probably most clear in the battlecruiser lineup. The hurricane is most commonly a shield tanking ship, despite its 7/4/6 slot configuration, This is because it uses all of its low slots for non tank applications and still gets to fit the 2 "required" mid slots. Nobody in their right mind would armor tank a ship with a 7/6/4 slot configuration unless they had bonused mid slots or a special role like the falcon, and even if you could fit a good tank with four slots, what would you put in the 4 free mids? a cap booster is probably the third most useful mid, and then what? two random jammers? maybe a web if you need to/can get that close?
even the Brutix and the Hyperion, both of which have armor tanking bonuses, commonly field a shield tank + damage mods. I even have a dominix shield fit because it does insanity damage, but nobody would ever think of armor tanking a Maelstrom.
This is a problem for small gang PvPers, but scales up even worse. In large fleets, you have dedicated tackle and dedicated e-war reducing the need for tackle mods in your general fleet.
TL;DR lows are more valuable than mids because there are more combat effecting low slot modules; the TE nerf changes that. |
|
Roman Sichko
Anonymous Operations Red Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 06:47:00 -
[211] - Quote
I think CCP simply want deleted Gallente from game. Especially close range blasters. What happened with gallente it's incredible...((( |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
143
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 06:47:00 -
[212] - Quote
How about you stop fitting short range weapons if you don't want to fight at short range. |
Sigras
Conglomo
392
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 06:50:00 -
[213] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Sigras wrote:Casha Andven wrote: This. CCP you are dumbing down the game. May I ask why?
Just a question . . . if kiting is "uber 1337 PvP for the skilled players" then doesnt making kiting harder raise the skill required to pull it off? You can't kite if you can't project damage at all. Then it's just called "running away." with just some quick math, my cynabal will drop from 3.9 + 44 to 3.6 + 38
Oh no, now my guns will never do any damage :(
EDIT: more quick math
The above numbers mean that I drop from 379 at max long point range to 357
its a 5.81% decrease in DPS |
Roman Sichko
Anonymous Operations Red Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 06:51:00 -
[214] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:How about you stop fitting short range weapons if you don't want to fight at short range.
Are you kidding me? 2-4 km on small ships and 4-8 on bigger - you said is this long range? |
Volstruis
The Tuskers
12
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 06:52:00 -
[215] - Quote
Don't stress dudes. This is obviously clearly needed for the significant Firetail buff.
2xTE, mse firetail would've been owning all over New Eden without this. Hail Fozzie and the new DreakTenngu OVerloards!
|
Sigras
Conglomo
392
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 06:55:00 -
[216] - Quote
Roman Sichko wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:How about you stop fitting short range weapons if you don't want to fight at short range. Are you kidding me? 2-4 km on small ships and 4-8 on bigger - you said is this long range? After this path it will more deplorably... if you dont want to get that close, why fit blasters? |
Roman Sichko
Anonymous Operations Red Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 07:00:00 -
[217] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Roman Sichko wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:How about you stop fitting short range weapons if you don't want to fight at short range. Are you kidding me? 2-4 km on small ships and 4-8 on bigger - you said is this long range? After this path it will more deplorably... if you dont want to get that close, why fit blasters?
I think all weapons in EVE may be usable, you don't think as? Simply lovers of gallente is so small numbers, and CCP decided - damn, kill them all now!!! |
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
141
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 07:05:00 -
[218] - Quote
I don't really care about the RSB change, doesn't really impact anything at all. Just means the ***** ships pirates use are now fitted with a couple extra RSBs. So whatevs
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Now for TEs. It's a fairly well accepted fact that the great optimal and falloff bonuses on TEs are over the top,
By who? I've never heard this?
CCP Fozzie wrote: The strength of TEs has been one of the reasons for Minmatar dominance in recent years,
Not really man. Minmatar has dominance for a couple of reasons, in battleship fleet warfare it's because of the Artillery buff. In Cruiser BC it's because they're kitey in nature and are fast - aka they run away the easiest which is the preferred tactic of choice for much of EVE. (The cynabal and vaga get dumpstered pretty hard these days so you can expect them to run away)
Really there's only a few Minmatar ships that are 'dominant' in recent years. Tornado, Cane, Fleet Stabber, Tempest, Mach and Vargur if we count tournies.
Tornado is because of the Alpha. Cane is because it was the fastest BC and you could shield or armor tank it and the neuts helped. Fleet stabber is because it is quite versatile, tanky or range, sig or buffer or rep fit. Tempest is just a big pre nerf hurricane, always been decent. Mach is most expensive non ~unique~ sub cap there is and it's whole bonus is to give ridiculous falloffs. Kinda seems fair to me.
CCP Fozzie wrote: inflating the value of non-tank low slots.
Low slots are always valuable because they affect your damage output and potential tank, always. Mid slots don't always affect your damage output because they are normally reserved for a shield tank or ewar/tackle. In gangs less tackle per ship is needed which gives more weight to low slots because if you have the enemy tackled well, next step is deeps.
but low slots are competitive real estate, you have to decide whether you want to add a 3rd or heck even a 4th damage mod or double up or triple up on TEs. but if you do fit that many damage mods and TEs, you might leave less room for fitting mods or speed mods or cap mods, or tank mods. All these things affect your ability to live.
.
Anyway you say you want to redress the minmatar 'dominance' but I don't really see that, I just see it making the more kitey ones (most of these are pretty sucky a la vaga cynabal) do a bit less dps.
To me this seems more like a nerf to the tier 3 bcs, but going about it in a way that it affects every ship rather than the ones that need it. (and they do need it because **** they do EVERYTHING)
Also I wrote this at 6am so whatevs yo
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1352
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 07:05:00 -
[219] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:While I agree with the remote sensor booster nerf, are there any plans for nerfing the cloak warp trick so often abused in lowsec? I'm getting kinda tired of missing out on all those solo navy battleships that are practically invincible, even without any support. Learn to decloak. Your solution involves bringing a unique person to a camp who can't do anything but mill about hoping for one of these idiots to jump in. Why not fix the issue at the core here? You want to move your (expensive) ship, get an escort or a courier, or face death. There's no reason a lumbering battleship should escape certain death in the face of overwhelming odds. Seeing as it's a successful tactic, they're not idiots for using it. You're the idiot for being unprepared and instead choosing to complain about it. Silly me, trying to argue with ex-northern coalition members.
No, silly you for demanding that another player do something (escort, courrier or die) while in the same breath refusing to simply have a ship around to de cloak people.
Not sure when you turned into a ninny Grarr but it actually happened.
|
Turgon Barash
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 07:06:00 -
[220] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Hellakhanasos wrote:Venustas Blue wrote:If your fighting at 0, say in scram & Webb range to be doing affective damage, theres no way to disengage say if your off gate. Unless your ****** fit with stabs or possibly AB fit and able to burn out. The more powerful ship or better counter fit ship will always win. You will not have the ability granted to kiting ships to disengagde by either burning away, or causing the hostile to lose point by pulsing MWD on cross axis so they burn out of range & lose point, allowing you to warp out. There's little skill in fighting at 0 (scram/Webb) range, nerfing TEs kiting ability, wich is an art and skill its self would be yet another mistake by CCP, and a great loss as far as skill goes for the game. There is counters to kiting ships, & as far as minnie ships go, they have already been nerfed enough, dont ruin it by overstepping a reasonable current mark & success. This proposed change to TEs needs to be scrapped. All it would do is subject eve to yet a other nerf of making the game ever easier, this does not inspire anybody to become better within tactics and situational awareness, it only acts to dumb it down, even giving more reason to blob, and there should be no further reason given to blobbing WHAT SO EVER. Should be promoting skill and fun gfs instead. Sometimes it becomes very apparent CCP are out of touch with the game and its tactics, this is as good as any example. A resounding NO to TE nerf from me. After sifting through the turd of many prior posts over the last couple of pages. This is more of less spot on. Yeah basically this.
THIS^^
As far as TE nerf goes you are just boosting TDs againe ( i thought you nerfed them why boost them now) and we still dont have anything against rockets/missiles like we have TDs for turrets.The most kiters i engage this days are in kestrels,hookbills or raptors in frig classes,talwars and coraxes in dessies,caracals none of this ships fit turrets as far as i know and i all see them sporting one or two TDs or RSDs.With this the only thing you are truly gona nerfe further down is solo play like its not been pounded to ground enough already.
I guess you'll have to change general description of minmatar ships now no more speedy,agile ships made for hit and run tactics to sitting ducks mediocre at everything excelling at nothing.
I see blobs and missiles everywhere.
While your at it nerfe lazorz too (scorch) when is the last time anyone saw someone fit beams when you can have awesome range with pulse and scorch + better tracking and rof
|
|
Sean Sonnach
FocusPoint
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 07:09:00 -
[221] - Quote
Put simply, all I see is gallente blaster boats loosing what little range they have. That is NOT a balanced change. If the aim is to reduce the Minnie ship pvp dominance then this significant side effect should not be overlooked.
I would propose that the DEV thinking of implementing this chance consider a balancing compensation measure for the people who use TE and Blaster boats (and even the targeted minnie ship users).
To the DEV: If you insist on fixing what is not broken I would suggest the introduction of a low slot module that is itself more dedicated to range than tracking(in addition to the new mainly tracking TE). This will leave the pilot choice, as the pilot who fits a TC has with scripts. It might be argued that the TE is currently overpowered considering it has 2 effects at once, but this nerf will destroy the choice in fitting ships.
I personally have invested a lot of skill points in blasters and shields, confident that CCP could only improve blasters. This really is bad news if you go ahead with it.
Also why are we nerfing the recently balanced ships? I thought the plan was ship re-balancing? not module re-balancing? if there is a perceived problem with certain ships and their optimal/falloff why not just tweak these individually in the much anticipated SHIP re-balance?
I will not go on but there is still plenty on my mind, but please deal with the above at present, they are my foremost thoughts on this matter.
|
Roman Sichko
Anonymous Operations Red Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 07:16:00 -
[222] - Quote
cannons - nice dps, any type damage, need tracking but good falloff. rockets - nice dps, any type of damage, don,t need tracking, nice range. blasters - nice dps - and that is only one nice side. Bad optimal bad falloff, only kin-term damage. Used many capa. And now innovation!!! - NERF TRACKING. - good work guys!!
|
Volstruis
The Tuskers
13
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 07:16:00 -
[223] - Quote
THIS^^
As far as TE nerf goes you are just boosting TDs againe ( i thought you nerfed them why boost them now) and we still dont have anything against rockets/missiles like we have TDs for turrets.The most kiters i engage this days are in kestrels,hookbills or raptors in frig classes,talwars and coraxes in dessies,caracals none of this ships fit turrets as far as i know and i all see them sporting one or two TDs or RSDs.With this the only thing you are truly gona nerfe further down is solo play like its not been pounded to ground enough already.
I guess you'll have to change general description of minmatar ships now no more speedy,agile ships made for hit and run tactics to sitting ducks mediocre at everything excelling at nothing.
I see blobs and missiles everywhere.
While your at it nerfe lazorz too (scorch) when is the last time anyone saw someone fit beams when you can have awesome range with pulse and scorch + better tracking and rof
[/quote]
THIS!! Good point RE:lazers, now I can sell all my Slicers and Coercers for moars TD condor's!
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1352
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 07:21:00 -
[224] - Quote
Ap01110n wrote:
Shields have never been dominant in anything but small scale hit and run tactics (except for Tengus which is a separate issue altogether). For the past 2+ years its been all amarr armor (or maels just to counter abaddons incredible buffer). .
You should make a more out of touch statement, because Maelstroms, Munnins, Rokhs, and Tengus were pretty much THE dominating doctrines used around 0.0.
Also the number of people in this thread assuming that all weapon ranges are nerfed 33% is amazing, I can't comprehend how you can't understand whats going on, but the collective loss of range in most cases ends up being around 1-2km optimal and a 2-4 km in fall off and suddenly everybody is screaming about how they're being forced into this tiny ball.
You're all sheep, i swear to go the ability to tie your shoes on your own in the morning must escape you.
The change is good, you could even say the change isn't strong enough to make the changes that CCP hopes for but that you're all whiners who throw a temper tantrum when your particular play style is in any way changed from what you're used to.
|
Roman Sichko
Anonymous Operations Red Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 07:30:00 -
[225] - Quote
It you don't understand friend, that a bad for matar, yes, but it a death for gallente. |
stagz
Invictus Australis Scrap Iron Flotilla.
20
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 07:30:00 -
[226] - Quote
The TE nerf is to much This damages small gang and skirmish play style far to much
|
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
559
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 07:31:00 -
[227] - Quote
Casha Andven wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:Hellakhanasos wrote:Venustas Blue wrote:If your fighting at 0, say in scram & Webb range to be doing affective damage, theres no way to disengage say if your off gate. Unless your ****** fit with stabs or possibly AB fit and able to burn out. The more powerful ship or better counter fit ship will always win. You will not have the ability granted to kiting ships to disengagde by either burning away, or causing the hostile to lose point by pulsing MWD on cross axis so they burn out of range & lose point, allowing you to warp out. There's little skill in fighting at 0 (scram/Webb) range, nerfing TEs kiting ability, wich is an art and skill its self would be yet another mistake by CCP, and a great loss as far as skill goes for the game. There is counters to kiting ships, & as far as minnie ships go, they have already been nerfed enough, dont ruin it by overstepping a reasonable current mark & success. This proposed change to TEs needs to be scrapped. All it would do is subject eve to yet a other nerf of making the game ever easier, this does not inspire anybody to become better within tactics and situational awareness, it only acts to dumb it down, even giving more reason to blob, and there should be no further reason given to blobbing WHAT SO EVER. Should be promoting skill and fun gfs instead. Sometimes it becomes very apparent CCP are out of touch with the game and its tactics, this is as good as any example. A resounding NO to TE nerf from me. After sifting through the turd of many prior posts over the last couple of pages. This is more of less spot on. Yeah basically this. This. CCP you are dumbing down the game. May I ask why?
So balancing the nanofaceroll and making more then 7 ships viable, including armor tanking, in dumbing down the game....
Keep up the good work CCP, you are doing an exelent job with this changes, the game will be in a much better state after this patch. Yes the nanofacerollers will cry and fill the forums with tears, but that was expected, just think of it as an indication that you are doing a good work. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4435
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 07:32:00 -
[228] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Ap01110n wrote:
Shields have never been dominant in anything but small scale hit and run tactics (except for Tengus which is a separate issue altogether). For the past 2+ years its been all amarr armor (or maels just to counter abaddons incredible buffer). .
You should make a more out of touch statement, because Maelstroms, Munnins, Rokhs, and Tengus were pretty much THE dominating doctrines used around 0.0. Also the number of people in this thread assuming that all weapon ranges are nerfed 33% is amazing, I can't comprehend how you can't understand whats going on, but the collective loss of range in most cases ends up being around 1-2km optimal and a 2-4 km in fall off and suddenly everybody is screaming about how they're being forced into this tiny ball. You're all sheep, i swear to go the ability to tie your shoes on your own in the morning must escape you. The change is good, you could even say the change isn't strong enough to make the changes that CCP hopes for but that you're all whiners who throw a temper tantrum when your particular play style is in any way changed from what you're used to.
Except several of us are also discussing ships e.g. the SFI that lose about 30-40 DPS in their standard operating regime, where they don't have all that much DPS to begin with. The ship goes from being just barely viable as a kiter to being completely useless because its DPS and tank are too weak to brawl with and it can't kite because its DPS is easy to shrug off. Malcanis for CSM 8 Module activation timers are buggy - CCP please fix |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
559
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 07:34:00 -
[229] - Quote
stagz wrote:The TE nerf is to much This damages small gang and skirmish play style far to much
Because small gand and skirmish play equals nano faceroll. |
Nomad I
University of Caille Gallente Federation
130
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 07:34:00 -
[230] - Quote
Nerfing Remote Sensor Boosters s a bad idea, because it's the counter for dampeners. This is creating a huge advantage for dampeners.
|
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4436
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 07:36:00 -
[231] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:stagz wrote:The TE nerf is to much This damages small gang and skirmish play style far to much
Because small gang and skirmish play equals nano faceroll. Yeah! Death to kiting! All ships should brawl at < 10 km! Malcanis for CSM 8 Module activation timers are buggy - CCP please fix |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2359
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 07:39:00 -
[232] - Quote
brb buying all the railguns
<3
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
PAPULA
The Dark Tribe
10
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 07:41:00 -
[233] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: NameOldFalloffNewFalloffOldOptimalNewOptimal Tracking Enhancer II30201510 Let me know what you think!
Wow Fozzie, you're nerfing this game ultra hard, i wonder what will happen with game when all players leave.
What's too much is too much.
STOP NERFING EVE !
|
Katsami
Sancta Terra
13
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 07:49:00 -
[234] - Quote
My prime question is why this wasn't the first change on the bucket list when ship re-balancing was first started up?
A change like this effectively invalidates a large amount of the work you just did one expansion ago. |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
559
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 07:49:00 -
[235] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Vaju Enki wrote:stagz wrote:The TE nerf is to much This damages small gang and skirmish play style far to much
Because small gang and skirmish play equals nano faceroll. Yeah! Death to kiting! All ships should brawl at < 10 km!
Yeah! Nano ships should "brawl at 20 km" will doing the huge dps that real brawlling ships should do, all of this will going at 2500km/s.
Some of you guys are bias as hell, Nano ships are broken beyond belief, making most ships of the game useless, armor tanking useless, etc.
I can't wait for this patch. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
489
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 07:51:00 -
[236] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: NameOldFalloffNewFalloffOldOptimalNewOptimal Tracking Enhancer II30201510 Let me know what you think!
Wow Fozzie, you're nerfing this game ultra hard, i wonder what will happen with game when all players leave. What's too much is too much. STOP NERFING EVE ! This is my only currently active char, but i will let it expire soon because eve is getting ultra bad. I'll go and play some other much better games than eve will be after these nerfs. Ha. Aha. Ah aha. Hahahaha. We are better off then. Give me your stuff?
Loving the changes! |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
559
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 07:52:00 -
[237] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: NameOldFalloffNewFalloffOldOptimalNewOptimal Tracking Enhancer II30201510 Let me know what you think!
Wow Fozzie, you're nerfing this game ultra hard, i wonder what will happen with game when all players leave. What's too much is too much. STOP NERFING EVE ! This is my only currently active char, but i will let it expire soon because eve is getting ultra bad. I'll go and play some other much better games than eve will be after these nerfs.
It's a buff to EvE Online, not a nerf. Their's more then Nano ships in this game, using speed shouldn't be the only viable tactic. Alot of ships will be viable again, armor tanking will be viable again. |
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
145
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 07:52:00 -
[238] - Quote
People are overreacting this isn't the death of blasters~ kiters~ anything but missiles~ but this does seem to be to be an unnecessary or misdirected nerf. |
PAPULA
The Dark Tribe
11
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:00:00 -
[239] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:PAPULA wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: NameOldFalloffNewFalloffOldOptimalNewOptimal Tracking Enhancer II30201510 Let me know what you think!
Wow Fozzie, you're nerfing this game ultra hard, i wonder what will happen with game when all players leave. What's too much is too much. STOP NERFING EVE ! This is my only currently active char, but i will let it expire soon because eve is getting ultra bad. I'll go and play some other much better games than eve will be after these nerfs. Ha. Aha. Ah aha. Hahahaha. We are better off then. Give me your stuff? Loving the changes! My stuff will go to > /dev/null You may not have my stuff.
|
AlexKent
Silver Guardians Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:08:00 -
[240] - Quote
For once there was a tiny bit of balance between races, now with this stupid TE you will be making Gallente and Minnie crap again...
IMO this nerf is completely unjustified and will just cause more damage than good. Please don't fix what does not need fixing CCP. |
|
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
236
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:11:00 -
[241] - Quote
whinematards :D so much butthurting qq goes on
btw now te will be balanced vs tc , and thats a good thing |
PAPULA
The Dark Tribe
11
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:12:00 -
[242] - Quote
AlexKent wrote:For once there was a tiny bit of balance between races, now with this stupid TE you will be making Gallente and Minnie crap again...
IMO this nerf is completely unjustified and will just cause more damage than good. Please don't fix what does not need fixing CCP. agreed |
Lev Arturis
Dark-Rising
18
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:13:00 -
[243] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Except several of us are also discussing ships e.g. the SFI that lose about 30-40 DPS in their standard operating regime, where they don't have all that much DPS to begin with. The ship goes from being just barely viable as a kiter to being completely useless because its DPS and tank are too weak to brawl with and it can't kite because its DPS is easy to shrug off.
SFI isn't a kiter. Tells me how much you know about small gang warfare.
|
Kaal Redrum
The Tuskers
16
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:14:00 -
[244] - Quote
I guess the AC shield Cane, Rupture, Stabber, Vagabond, Armor Wolf, Scram kiting Slasher, Rifter, Firetail all died with a collective smash across the face (add gallente to the list)
They really hate ACs or really want Matari pilots to use Arties when shield tanking
Please fix unbonused EWAR usage rather than try and ruin the frigate, cruiser, destroyer, BCruiser balance youve spent months achieving with this stupidly unneeded change. The Applied damage nerf to every blaster and AC ship is so far reaching, i dont think youve thought this through. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
236
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:22:00 -
[245] - Quote
AlexKent wrote:For once there was a tiny bit of balance between races, now with this stupid TE you will be making Gallente and Minnie crap again...
IMO this nerf is completely unjustified and will just cause more damage than good. Please don't fix what does not need fixing CCP. so what dmg does it cause? huh? that shield tanked nano gall ships cant kite as good ? quess what they never intended for that role and for winmatar when was the last time minmatar was crap??? it has been years since matard is the dominant race in small pvp, cause they are so op , they loose like 0 dps due to insane falloff at kite range , machariel 80km+ falloff with a short range gun ,yeah that is so balanced |
unimatrix0030
Viperfleet Inc. Transmission Lost
18
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:23:00 -
[246] - Quote
So will a blaster-talos be able to hit a large tower after this nerf? |
Tub Chil
Last Men Standing
41
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:28:00 -
[247] - Quote
Any chance of TE-s affecting missiles? In combination with TD-s affecting missiles.
CCP was talking about it, why wasn't it done? inability to disrupt missiles is a big problem in any small scale engagement. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
236
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:28:00 -
[248] - Quote
Kaal Redrum wrote:I guess the AC shield - Cane, Tornado, Rupture, Stabber, Vagabond, Lokis, Sleipnirs and Scram kiting - Slasher, Rifter, Firetail, Wolf, Jaguar all died with a collective smash across the face (add gallente to the list)
They really hate ACs or really want Matari pilots to use Arties when shield tanking
Please fix unbonused EWAR usage rather than try and ruin the frigate, cruiser, destroyer, BCruiser balance youve spent months achieving with this stupidly unneeded change. The Applied damage nerf to every blaster and AC ship is so far reaching, i dont think youve thought this through. so how they die with that small nerf ?tell us oh and add gallente to the list... :D that makes me laugh butthurt arent you?
|
AlexKent
Silver Guardians Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:38:00 -
[249] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:AlexKent wrote:For once there was a tiny bit of balance between races, now with this stupid TE you will be making Gallente and Minnie crap again...
IMO this nerf is completely unjustified and will just cause more damage than good. Please don't fix what does not need fixing CCP. so what dmg does it cause? huh? that shield tanked nano gall ships cant kite as good ? quess what they never intended for that role and for winmatar when was the last time minmatar was crap??? it has been years since matard is the dominant race in small pvp, cause they are so op , they loose like 0 dps due to insane falloff at kite range , machariel 80km+ falloff with a short range gun ,yeah that is so balanced
Blasters will be **** again. Huge damage means nothing if you can't project it.
Just because matar is the dominant race in pvp does not mean it needs a kick in the nuts, other races should be brought up to par. The reason minnie ships work is the AC falloff that compensates for arty being **** (besides alpha).
Mach is 1.5b ship, it's supposed to be good as not everyone affords to buy and loose them.
Look at the killboards, after last round of rebalancing you can see all kinds of ships being used, from small to big. Before that everyone was just flying drakes... Do you miss that?
On topic: If this is supposed to be an AC nerf, just nerf the AC by reducing their falloff, don't nerf all the ships that use this module.
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1354
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:39:00 -
[250] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Except several of us are also discussing ships e.g. the SFI that lose about 30-40 DPS in their standard operating regime, where they don't have all that much DPS to begin with. The ship goes from being just barely viable as a kiter to being completely useless because its DPS and tank are too weak to brawl with and it can't kite because its DPS is easy to shrug off.
And you're all wrong, the amount of range you'll lose is vastly exaggerated in this thread. The actual loss is very small.
Heres an example, the standard PL Blaster Rokh fit that uses 2 TE's:
24.6+28.7 before the nerf, to 22.6+24.6 after the nerf.
LOOK AT THAT MASSIVE RANGE CHANGE THERE OH MAN. Thas on a battleship, where the TE range boost is much more obvious. On smaller ships the change will be significantly lower.
You are all making a mountain out of a mole hill, nothing will REALLY change, other than maybe a 1-2 kilometer engagement change.
|
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1354
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:42:00 -
[251] - Quote
Seriously anybody saying this is a blaster nerf should probably drink bleach, the change is negligible in range, and I'm seriously curious if any of you have a single clue about ship stats or if you just see the word nerf and lose the farm. |
PAPULA
The Dark Tribe
11
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:43:00 -
[252] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: You are all making a mountain out of a mole hill, nothing will REALLY change, other than maybe a 1-2 kilometer engagement change.
Then why the change if change is so "small" Also try to apply those nerfs to machariel. |
AlexKent
Silver Guardians Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:45:00 -
[253] - Quote
Grath,
Blaster-related do you consider this change to be necessary? |
Nomad I
University of Caille Gallente Federation
130
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:47:00 -
[254] - Quote
What is going to be happen is, that everyone is going to be more close range. This will be in favor for blaster ships. On the other side , shooting large POS with blaster ships will be more tedious.
Concepts for blob wars like the supporting alpha tornado getting more problems. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1355
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:51:00 -
[255] - Quote
AlexKent wrote:Grath,
Blaster-related do you consider this change to be necessary?
I think that the change isn't strong enough. The Tracking Computer is an active module, it should be both stronger and more attractive then its passive low slot counter part. Thats not the case currently, the Tracking Enhancer is currently more attractive in every single way.
Also looking at the fleet stabber that everybody is crying about, it looses 1/2 a km in optimal and 3km and fall off. |
AlexKent
Silver Guardians Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:57:00 -
[256] - Quote
In that case, maybe the TC needs a slight buff to compensate for the loss.
I feel like blasters were finally decent, i really don't want to see blaster ships suffer from this change, IMO it's totally uncalled for. Maybe a small faloff buff is in order for blasters if this change makes it to TQ. Not enough to make them the new OP, FOTM guns, but just so they maintain current range. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
489
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:00:00 -
[257] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: You are all making a mountain out of a mole hill, nothing will REALLY change, other than maybe a 1-2 kilometer engagement change.
Then why the change if change is so "small" Also try to apply those nerfs to machariel. You lose 8km falloff. From 59km to 51km
So I guess the Machariel is dead and useless now. /sarcasm |
PAPULA
The Dark Tribe
11
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:01:00 -
[258] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:PAPULA wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: You are all making a mountain out of a mole hill, nothing will REALLY change, other than maybe a 1-2 kilometer engagement change.
Then why the change if change is so "small" Also try to apply those nerfs to machariel. You lose 8km falloff. From 59km to 51km So I guess the Machariel is dead and useless now. /sarcasm 8km is alot.
|
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
69
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:03:00 -
[259] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Key stat for this change is a reduction in the Optimal/Falloff bonus on a T2 Tracking Enhancer from 15%/30% to 10%/20%.
A nerf to TE had been needed for a long time. However I think that it will make already inferior Railguns even more weaker compared to anything that don't use TE a lot. Have you considered instead 15%/30% -> 10%/20% more specified nerf of 15%/30% -> 15%/15%? With such change TC will have an unique utility of great falloff benefit and will be often seen as good option for Minmatar ships. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1355
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:03:00 -
[260] - Quote
PAPULA wrote: Also try to apply those nerfs to machariel.
Currently my mach (shield fit) is 4.2+69, after the change it will be 3.8+56.
So you lose 13km fall off, and less than half a km of optimal.
You can't possibly be that upset over those number changes, you're still relatively firing about the same range.
PAPULA wrote:Says pandemic legion who controls fozzie and whole game.
Yea, I gave you my friend that I play games with to help undo some of the years long neglect and you defame, insult, and slander him because you're mad about less than half a km of optimal range and a little bit of fall off.
How about you nut up and stop crying over literally nothing.
|
|
spellbound spirit
Pink Bunnies C0VEN
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:03:00 -
[261] - Quote
This is same kind of balance as nano nerf was = let's lower skill impact on pilots effectiveness and game will be more balanced...
CCP encourages blobbing more and more with their balance changes and they want to hurt small gang/solo gang that are skill dependant to make some "F1 players" happy.
I feel that CCP's balance changes drive towards making EVE even less skill dependant, so that every 3month character not only has technical capabilities to engage 6 years old veteran, but also CCP wants to make sure that there won't be major skill gap.
All that while moon goo is still inact, practically the same it was 6years ago.
So much for keeping veterans in this game... |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1355
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:05:00 -
[262] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:PAPULA wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: You are all making a mountain out of a mole hill, nothing will REALLY change, other than maybe a 1-2 kilometer engagement change.
Then why the change if change is so "small" Also try to apply those nerfs to machariel. You lose 8km falloff. From 59km to 51km So I guess the Machariel is dead and useless now. /sarcasm 8km is alot.
No, its not, at that range your DPS is cut so incredibly far just due to being the outside edge of your fall off that you're drastically exaggerating the loss.
Again, you really won't notice this change much at all in any real way, you're actually spazing out over nothing. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
489
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:07:00 -
[263] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:PAPULA wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: You are all making a mountain out of a mole hill, nothing will REALLY change, other than maybe a 1-2 kilometer engagement change.
Then why the change if change is so "small" Also try to apply those nerfs to machariel. You lose 8km falloff. From 59km to 51km So I guess the Machariel is dead and useless now. /sarcasm 8km is a lot. At that range, are you serious? If you can't get around this issue then you do not have the intelligence I would assume is required to play Eve. If a blaster cruiser like the Thorax lost 8km range, THAT, would be a lot. A ship that has over 50km range with "short" range guns losing some of that range is no big deal. |
To mare
Advanced Technology
179
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:08:00 -
[264] - Quote
i can understand the need of a nerf to TE but since some minmatar ship got rebalanced being weaker than their cunterparts in recent balancing can we take a look at that as well? |
PAPULA
The Dark Tribe
11
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:09:00 -
[265] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:PAPULA wrote: Also try to apply those nerfs to machariel.
Currently my mach (shield fit) is 4.2+69, after the change it will be 3.8+56. So you lose 13km fall off, and less than half a km of optimal. You can't possibly be that upset over those number changes, you're still relatively firing about the same range. PAPULA wrote:Says pandemic legion who controls fozzie and whole game. Yea, I gave you my friend that I play games with to help undo some of the years long neglect and you defame, insult, and slander him because you're mad about less than half a km of optimal range and a little bit of fall off. How about you nut up and stop crying over literally nothing. Says man who controls eve.
|
Xyris Rixx
Haruspex Industries Wrong Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:11:00 -
[266] - Quote
Is there a current trend to nerf shield tanking into the ground when compared to armor tanking? For years shield tanking was almost obsolete and irrelevent with megas and apocs being the ships of choice for fleet combat. Right now there is a solid choice to be made between the advantages and disadvantages of both, but it appears through direct buffs and indirect nerfs that shield tanking is going to be rendered obsolete again - is this a deliberate plan on behalf of ccp or just accidental? |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
489
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:11:00 -
[267] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:Says man who controls eve.
Argument of the year award goes to this guy |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
489
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:12:00 -
[268] - Quote
Xyris Rixx wrote:Is there a current trend to nerf shield tanking into the ground when compared to armor tanking? For years shield tanking was almost obsolete and irrelevent with megas and apocs being the ships of choice for fleet combat. Right now there is a solid choice to be made between the advantages and disadvantages of both, but it appears through direct buffs and indirect nerfs that shield tanking is going to be rendered obsolete again - is this a deliberate plan on behalf of ccp or just accidental? Let me get this right.. Hmm, how do you say it... WHAT??? |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1356
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:17:00 -
[269] - Quote
Xyris Rixx wrote:Is there a current trend to nerf shield tanking into the ground when compared to armor tanking? For years shield tanking was almost obsolete and irrelevent with megas and apocs being the ships of choice for fleet combat.
I dont know who told you this but its an outright lie. Dominion launched 4 years ago, the Maelstrom was one of the most common main line battleship across that 4 years. The welp cane, the tengu, the munin fleet.
I'm not sure who told you that shield tanking was obsolete but you should be mad at them.
|
Caelum Dominus
Invicta. Lost Obsession
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:18:00 -
[270] - Quote
I agree with your sentiments on Remote Sensor Boosters, but I don't think you need to nerf Tracking Enhancers. They may break some ships, yet on most they are fine. I think you should look at those ships instead. |
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2359
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:18:00 -
[271] - Quote
unimatrix0030 wrote:So will a blaster-talos be able to hit a large tower after this nerf? If not there won't be any gallente ship usuable to remove posses from C1 wormholes... .
Rail Talos.
This TE change doesn't really mean much, but the nerd rage of the whinematards is highly amusing. As clueless as ever, they keep equalling ship speed and range to player skill, and go on about complaining that removing OGBs hurt skilled players in the same post.
Furthermore there really aren't that many blaster ships that use TEs and would suffer in any meaningful way from this tweak.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries Sick N' Twisted
428
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:18:00 -
[272] - Quote
At least there will be more reason to fit a TC over a TE now. I never understood why an active module could not match the performance of a passive module.
Any word on wether there has been any progress on a missile version of the TE/TC and what will be don't about missile TDs? MODULAR DRONES
MORE ORE SHIPS |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3231
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:19:00 -
[273] - Quote
Roime wrote:unimatrix0030 wrote:So will a blaster-talos be able to hit a large tower after this nerf? If not there won't be any gallente ship usuable to remove posses from C1 wormholes... . Rail Talos. This TE change doesn't really mean much, but the nerd rage of the whinematards is highly amusing. As clueless as ever, they keep equalling ship speed and range to player skill, and go on about complaining that removing OGBs hurt skilled players in the same post. Furthermore there really aren't that many blaster ships that use TEs and would suffer in any meaningful way from this tweak.
Hmmm... Talos, Brutix, Vigilant, Deimos... that's about it really. I'm super curious how this will all pan out.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
490
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:21:00 -
[274] - Quote
Caelum Dominus wrote:I agree with your sentiments on Remote Sensor Boosters, but I don't think you need to nerf Tracking Enhancers. They may break some ships, yet on most they are fine. I think you should look at those ships instead. Or maybe this was intended all along and the ships are properly balanced based on this?
You don't think TE needs nerfing because you have reasons for it, or because you use them so much? |
PAPULA
The Dark Tribe
11
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:23:00 -
[275] - Quote
We all see who's most active in this thread - pandemic legion. This proves that PL is controlling the game as they please.
This is newest idea from PL - to nerf tracking falloff and optimal.
|
idontcare4
NO LOCAL INDUSTRIES
14
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:23:00 -
[276] - Quote
In all honesty there does not need to be a nerf to falloff and optimal. Minnie ships have been nerfed, I would consider great caution before you nerf all kiting ships too greatly. If say talos cane etc are going to have **** falloffs then there's going to be very little skill left within eve for people to expand ability. Kiting is a concept of its own, but had well know counters. You will be to a great extent be making this skill and ability null and void. Would refrain from any hasty daft decisions. If everything is going to be nerfed to the extent that you have to sit ontop of the hostile to do affective damage then again think, there's little skill on sitting ontop of your enemy, as the more powerful ship or the better fit ship will win without being able to use skill to avade if needs be. I just see TEs as dumbing eve further down. Enough damage has been created by doing this is the past![/i][/i] |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
490
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:24:00 -
[277] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:We all see who's most active in this thread - pandemic legion. This proves that PL is controlling the game as they please.
This is newest idea from PL - to nerf tracking falloff and optimal.
Please stop posting |
PAPULA
The Dark Tribe
11
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:25:00 -
[278] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:PAPULA wrote:We all see who's most active in this thread - pandemic legion. This proves that PL is controlling the game as they please.
This is newest idea from PL - to nerf tracking falloff and optimal.
Please stop posting or what ?
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1356
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:25:00 -
[279] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:We all see who's most active in this thread - pandemic legion. This proves that PL is controlling the game as they please.
This is newest idea from PL - to nerf tracking falloff and optimal.
Yes, I'm going to nerf your fall off and rule the universe in brawling Moa's. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
490
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:28:00 -
[280] - Quote
idontcare4 wrote:In all honesty there does not need to be a nerf to falloff and optimal. Minnie ships have been nerfed, I would consider great caution before you nerf all kiting ships too greatly. If say talos cane etc are going to have **** falloffs then there's going to be very little skill left within eve for people to expand ability. Kiting is a concept of its own, but had well know counters. You will be to a great extent be making this skill and ability null and void. Would refrain from any hasty daft decisions. If everything is going to be nerfed to the extent that you have to sit ontop of the hostile to do affective damage then again think, there's little skill on sitting ontop of your enemy, as the more powerful ship or the better fit ship will win without being able to use skill to avade if needs be. I just see TEs as dumbing eve further down. Enough damage has been created by doing this is the past! In all honesty, yes they need a nerf.
Define "sh**" falloff. Is going from 25 to 22km "sh**"?
Besides, if everything is nerfed, then nothing is nerfed.
If every ship in the game got all stats multiplied by 10, would they have been buffed? Literally nothing would change, since every ship would perform EXACTLY the same compared to the rest of the ships. |
|
McBorsk
Multispace Technologies Inc Yulai Federation
10
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:28:00 -
[281] - Quote
To make up for this, you should up the optimal for artillery turrets by 20%. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
490
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:30:00 -
[282] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:PAPULA wrote:We all see who's most active in this thread - pandemic legion. This proves that PL is controlling the game as they please.
This is newest idea from PL - to nerf tracking falloff and optimal.
Please stop posting or what ? It's the truth. By this logic, the flying spaghetti monster is real, god exists, homeopathy works and vaccines cause autism.
What do they all have in common? Oh that's right. NO EVIDENCE. |
Kaal Redrum
The Tuskers
16
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:31:00 -
[283] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:Kaal Redrum wrote:I guess the AC shield - Cane, Tornado, Rupture, Stabber, Vagabond, Lokis, Sleipnirs and Scram kiting - Slasher, Rifter, Firetail, Wolf, Jaguar all died with a collective smash across the face (add gallente to the list)
They really hate ACs or really want Matari pilots to use Arties when shield tanking
Please fix unbonused EWAR usage rather than try and ruin the frigate, cruiser, destroyer, BCruiser balance youve spent months achieving with this stupidly unneeded change. The Applied damage nerf to every blaster and AC ship is so far reaching, i dont think youve thought this through. so how they die with that small nerf ?tell us oh and add gallente to the list... :D that makes me laugh butthurt arent you?
Naomi Knight: http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Naomi+Knight
For a moment I thought I might just explain you, step by step, how it ruins shield tanked AC ships and scram kite AC ships... then I saw ur BC profile.
I wont bother - go kill something, anything, learn this game, then youre welcome to have an opinion on fittings and PvP balance.
Till then, keep trolling son.
If you'de like to be schooled about TE mechanics and how this 33% nerf ruins above fits, just look me up ingame. I don't mind helping noobobs.
(And if youre posting with an alt, then stop failing and post with your main)
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1356
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:31:00 -
[284] - Quote
beware my moa army. |
Ouya Sfahei
Horizon Corp
8
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:33:00 -
[285] - Quote
Maybe you guys need these,
Tracking Enhancer Rebalancing
Remote Sensor Booster Balancing |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
490
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:33:00 -
[286] - Quote
Kaal Redrum wrote:Naomi Knight: http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Naomi+KnightFor a moment I thought I might just explain you, step by step, how it ruins shield tanked AC ships and scram kite AC ships... then I saw ur BC profile. I wont bother - go kill something, anything, learn this game, then youre welcome to have an opinion on fittings and PvP balance. Till then, keep trolling son. If you'de like to be schooled about TE mechanics and how this 33% nerf ruins above fits, just look me up ingame. I don't mind helping noobobs. (And if youre posting with an alt, then stop failing and post with your main) You know, it's not a 33% total range nerf.
Fire up EFT and fit TE I's instead of TE II's and you see how this does NOT break any fits |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1356
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:34:00 -
[287] - Quote
Kaal Redrum wrote:
If you'de like to be schooled about TE mechanics and how this 33% nerf ruins above fits, just look me up ingame. I don't mind helping noobobs.
School me, most of those ships you listed lose under 3km falloff and 1km optimal. Tell me how that massive loss in range makes those ships no longer viable. Tell me how they've died.
Use actual numbers, show me what the actual number differences are and then tell me how that ruins those fits.
I'll wait right here while you do the math on your fits., or you can post them and I can do the math for you, then we can talk it over.
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
490
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:35:00 -
[288] - Quote
Ugh, horrible site.
Here is the imgur album:
http://imgur.com/a/1U5qj |
Rek Seven
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Polarized.
652
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:36:00 -
[289] - Quote
So CCP want to make it harder to insta lock people at gates, by reducing the scan res bonus on remote sensor boosters. Genius!
... Oh wait, what's stopping these gate camping fleets from using more remote sebo's to compensate?
What you should be doing is making all T2 modules better than the meta 4 variants. It's ridiculous that many of the meta modules in game have less fitting requirements but are just as strong as their T2 variants. Is my bitter vet membership card in the mail? |
Lev Arturis
Dark-Rising
19
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:41:00 -
[290] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:So CCP want to make it harder to insta lock people at gates, by reducing the scan res bonus on remote sensor boosters. Genius!
... Oh wait, what's stopping these gate camping fleets from using more remote sebo's to compensate?
Stacking penalties...
|
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
490
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:42:00 -
[291] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote: ... Oh wait, what's stopping these gate camping fleets from using more remote sebo's to compensate?
Stacking penalties |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1358
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:47:00 -
[292] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote: Oh wait, what's stopping these gate camping fleets from using more remote sebo's to compensate?
You're aware of stacking penalties right?
You're aware that after 3 mods the diminishing return on investment makes it not REALLY worth it right?
From 1-3 Rsebo's you get a noticeable difference, then from 4-6 you can't even reach the same boost as the first Rsebo that was applied.
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1798
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:51:00 -
[293] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:AWESOME! I'm really suprised it took you that long, though
This.
I remember my jaw dropping when TE's got boosted to the level they're at now and thinking it wouldn't be long until they got nerfed back into balance. That was what, about 4 years back when Minnie guns sucked and overnight became Winmatar.
I guess it was long in coming, but better late than never.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Kaal Redrum
The Tuskers
16
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:55:00 -
[294] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Kaal Redrum wrote:
If you'de like to be schooled about TE mechanics and how this 33% nerf ruins above fits, just look me up ingame. I don't mind helping noobobs.
School me, most of those ships you listed lose under 3km falloff and 1km optimal. Tell me how that massive loss in range makes those ships no longer viable. Tell me how they've died. Use actual numbers, show me what the actual number differences are and then tell me how that ruins those fits. I'll wait right here while you do the math on your fits., or you can post them and I can do the math for you, then we can talk it over.
Lets take the standard Shield-AC Cane. Fit used: [Hurricane, Shield 425s T2] Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II Large Shield Extender II Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M Med Neut
any Shield Rigs you like
344 cold gun dps at 22km with current TEs 297 cold gun dps at 22km with new TEs ~14% loss in applied DPS at the desired engagement range
The latest version of the Shield AC Cane with -1 Med Neut already was below a Drake or Scorch Harby or HAM Prophecy's applied DPS at above ranges - in gank, tank and utility. (Speed still in its favor, barely)
Would you like to more?
Maybe you want me to now run the math with links included? |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
491
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:58:00 -
[295] - Quote
Kaal Redrum wrote: Lets take the standard Shield-AC Cane. Fit used: [Hurricane, Shield 425s T2] Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II Large Shield Extender II Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M Med Neut
any Shield Rigs you like
344 cold gun dps at 22km with current TEs 297 cold gun dps at 22km with new TEs ~14% loss in applied DPS at the desired engagement range
The latest version of the Shield AC Cane with -1 Med Neut already was below a Drake or Scorch Harby or Prophecy's applied DPS at above ranges - in gank, tank and utility. (Speed still in its favor, barely)
Would you like to more?
Maybe you want me to now run the math with links included?
You should post at which range they have the same DPS.
Also, why are you whining? It's a nerf, it's supposed to be like this. And can you honestly tell me that you have perfect control when orbiting, staying at exactly 22km at all times? |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1360
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:08:00 -
[296] - Quote
Kaal Redrum wrote:
Maybe you want me to now run the math with links included?
Who cares bout the links, your numbers are static against a sitting target at the edge of your fall off (actually past the edge of your fall off to the point that you're in your second tier of falloff). Realistically you'll be doing about 200 DPS with the post buff cane and 250 with your current cane.
Tell me more about how a collective change of 50 dps when fighting at the worst possible range kills the ship as a whole.
The collective change for those that are wondering on his fit for ranges?
Pre TE Nerf:
1.9+20
Post TE Nerf:
1.8+17
I'm going to tell you honestly that you'll likely never notice that difference. You're not as good at Eve as you think you are, the likely hood that you'll be consistantly able to hold at 22km is pretty damn slim, you will bounce in and out of that range with a fair degree of consistency.
So tell me more about your on paper DPS and how the collective change of 50 DPS at the extreme end of your range nerfs your ship.
The truth is the difference isn't really that big. Lets do another fit that you're claiming is "dead". |
Xyris Rixx
Haruspex Industries Wrong Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:08:00 -
[297] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Xyris Rixx wrote:Is there a current trend to nerf shield tanking into the ground when compared to armor tanking? For years shield tanking was almost obsolete and irrelevent with megas and apocs being the ships of choice for fleet combat. I dont know who told you this but its an outright lie. Dominion launched 4 years ago, the Maelstrom was one of the most common main line battleship across that 4 years. The welp cane, the tengu, the munin fleet. I'm not sure who told you that shield tanking was obsolete but you should be mad at them.
Sure , but 4 years is not a massive amount of time in comparison to the 10 years the game has been runing and in that time we have seen quite a shift away from BS's being the sole workhorse to include things like AHAC/tengu fleets. I remember being in massive sniper apoc/mega double-doomsday tanked BS fleets - this was before projectile weapons were buffed. For years armor tanking was the preferred option for large fleets, and if it appeared I was saying that shield tanking was currently obsolete then I have not explained myself.
My point was that we are seeing a trend to buff armor fleets - their main disadvantages were that reps at the end of the cycle were ****** under pre-tidi lag which has now been fixed and overall armor reps are more efficient. The agility buff has significantly reduced the agility advantage shield tanked BS's had, and the effective devaluing of free lowslots with this nerf starts to tip the scales in favor of armor taning as a mainline doctrine. Both CFC and HBC are switching to Techfleet/foxcats as a main fleet comp - both of which ar armor tanked.
So no - I'm not bitching about this nerf - as your previous posts showed, this is not a massive nerf and more of a refocusing, I was really just trying to get clarification on CCPs opinion of the shield/armor tanking choice atm - is it considered to be fair, is one over powered and is there an internal decision to pull one into line withthe other - especially since the uniquness between the two systems is starting to be blurred. |
Paikis
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
726
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:09:00 -
[298] - Quote
ITT: People who think you should be able to KITE with SHORT RANGE weapons using SHORT RANGE ammo (ACs) Also ITT: People who think you should be able to KITE with the SHORTEST RANGE weapons in the game. (Blasters)
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1360
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:11:00 -
[299] - Quote
Xyris Rixx wrote:, I was really just trying to get clarification on CCPs opinion of the shield/armor tanking choice atm - is it considered to be fair, is one over powered and is there an internal decision to pull one into line withthe other - especially since the uniquness between the two systems is starting to be blurred.
CCP have stated on several occasions that they believe that Shield tanking is a bit skewed and too strong at the moment and have been taking steps to bring armor tanking back in line.
|
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
88
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:12:00 -
[300] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:I don't really get the RSB nerf either. Guy guys we need a way to make burning back to gates easier. Because this game really needs to be more forgiving of pilot error.
You make a mistake, you die. The system is perfect. |
|
Xyris Rixx
Haruspex Industries Wrong Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:15:00 -
[301] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Xyris Rixx wrote:, I was really just trying to get clarification on CCPs opinion of the shield/armor tanking choice atm - is it considered to be fair, is one over powered and is there an internal decision to pull one into line withthe other - especially since the uniquness between the two systems is starting to be blurred. CCP have stated on several occasions that they believe that Shield tanking is a bit skewed and too strong at the moment and have been taking steps to bring armor tanking back in line.
Aww Grath - I was expecting an angry rant and now you have left me disapointed with your reasoned arguments :P
Cheers for clarifying though - I've missed any dev-things saying that. |
Alexander vadowa
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:16:00 -
[302] - Quote
Lex Arson wrote:Yes please nerf TE's, having **** DPS at acceptable ranges in all kiting ships is more of what we the userbase want Why would goon developer like kiting ships? |
Magic Crisp
Amarrian Micro Devices Yulai Federation
65
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:18:00 -
[303] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: 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.
Well, this is decreasing minmatar DPS, straightly. The most who'll suffer from this are the ratters i think. Right now it's already hard from a matar marauder to hit orbitting sanshas around 40-50K, after this, that'll be even more of a PAIN.
Otherwise, the naglfar, which works from fallof, and has to be able to hit a large CT outside of the FF,will probably do,especially if the launchers are gone and we can compensate by replacing a BCU with another TE. Right now the effective range (opt+falloff/2,that is 90% applied damage) is around 41K on a nag, the ff radius is 30K, so right now it mostly works. After the change 38.75, so not that much of a change (this was calculated with a 3gyro+1TE nag fit), so probably it'll do.
I think this will hurt the ratters quite bad, but from a pvp point of view, we'll manage somehow. |
Zilero
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
58
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:19:00 -
[304] - Quote
I don't understand the need for this nerf, but what's really bugging me about it is that in most cases it seems to be a idiotic divide by 2 in terms of bonuses.
A proper rebalance would have looked at the (quite expensive) faction TE's and noticed that these have NO bonus to falloff as opposed to their T2 counterpart.... and increased this falloff bonus a bit so they would be better than the T2.
Right now faction TE's are not worth a dime (except if you have CPU problems) and a proper rebalance would have fixed this.
0/10 CCP for fixing **** that did not need a fix and as you insisted on fixing it, for not fixing it properly. |
PAPULA
The Dark Tribe
12
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:25:00 -
[305] - Quote
Zilero wrote:I don't understand the need for this nerf, but what's really bugging me about it is that in most cases it seems to be a idiotic divide by 2 in terms of bonuses.. It's Mr. Fozzie being bored and doing idiotic changes. Fozzie nerfed missiles first, now everything else will be nerfed also.
|
Kaal Redrum
The Tuskers
17
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:25:00 -
[306] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Kaal Redrum wrote:
Maybe you want me to now run the math with links included?
Who cares bout the links, your numbers are static against a sitting target at the edge of your fall off (actually past the edge of your fall off to the point that you're in your second tier of falloff). Realistically you'll be doing about 200 DPS with the post buff cane and 250 with your current cane. Tell me more about how a collective change of 50 dps when fighting at the worst possible range kills the ship as a whole. The collective change for those that are wondering on his fit for ranges? Pre TE Nerf: 1.9+20 Post TE Nerf: 1.8+17 I'm going to tell you honestly that you'll likely never notice that difference. You're not as good at Eve as you think you are, the likely hood that you'll be consistantly able to hold at 22km is pretty damn slim, you will bounce in and out of that range with a fair degree of consistency. So tell me more about your on paper DPS and how the collective change of 50 DPS at the extreme end of your range nerfs your ship. The truth is the difference isn't really that big. Lets do another fit that you're claiming is "dead".
Ughhhh losing argument .... Must start to nitpick ... Must start hurling personal insults .. Else people might actually believe another set of facts than my own...
Lol, you're very passionate about this - do explain why exactly this change is needed. I'm a pirate, who flies pretty much all sub-Bs ships, I'll just enjoy my time in another hull/fit, but am very curious where this change comes from.
Finally, the 22km range used is an approximation - ofcourse you'll swing between 20-24km. Irrespective it's still a 15ish % nerf to applied dps. Why are you PL boys so bothered about the 22km number.
Use your 200 vs 250dps number, are you telling me that a 20% applied dps nerf isn't 'really that big a difference?' how much premium are people paying for 5-10% increases using faction/deadspace mods and implants?
|
Goldiiee
Superior Ratio High Sec Dropouts
312
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:28:00 -
[307] - Quote
Zilero wrote:I don't understand the need for this nerf, but what's really bugging me about it is that in most cases it seems to be a idiotic divide by 2 in terms of bonuses.
A proper rebalance would have looked at the (quite expensive) faction TE's and noticed that these have NO bonus to falloff as opposed to their T2 counterpart.... and increased this falloff bonus a bit so they would be better than the T2.
Right now faction TE's are not worth a dime (except if you have CPU problems) and a proper rebalance would have fixed this.
0/10 CCP for fixing **** that did not need a fix and as you insisted on fixing it, for not fixing it properly. Agreed, as stated earlier: how is 3 levels of meta only worth 7 cpu, not to metion the implied benifits relevent to the cost in the LP store. I imagine there are some crafty marketers trying to unload their entire inventory of faction tracking enhancers this morning (I unloaded mine last night) within a week poeple should be reprocessing them for their value in ore. Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced (But I still try..) |
Sean Sonnach
FocusPoint
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:30:00 -
[308] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Seriously anybody saying this is a blaster nerf should probably drink bleach, the change is negligible in range, and I'm seriously curious if any of you have a single clue about ship stats or if you just see the word nerf and lose the farm.
Change is change, even what might be a little one opinion. Best to prevent the small scale slip and slide when ever authorities make little changes in my opinion.
Essentially the argument for the nerf is a fallacy. The notion that it is intended solely to re-balance minnie ships is a nonsense. That would be better achieved by either effecting their individual stats or the weapon they use. This does nerf blaster ships that use TE, any idiot can see that.
and nerf is a word, get over it. |
Sean Sonnach
FocusPoint
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:33:00 -
[309] - Quote
Caelum Dominus wrote:I agree with your sentiments on Remote Sensor Boosters, but I don't think you need to nerf Tracking Enhancers. They may break some ships, yet on most they are fine. I think you should look at those ships instead.
^^^ Perfect sentiment |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1360
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:43:00 -
[310] - Quote
Kaal Redrum wrote:
Lol, you're very passionate about this - do explain why exactly this change is needed. I'm a pirate, who flies pretty much all sub-Bs ships, I'll just enjoy my time in another hull/fit, but am very curious where this change comes from.
Finally, the 22km range used is an approximation - ofcourse you'll swing between 20-24km. Irrespective it's still a 15ish % nerf to applied dps. Why are you PL boys so bothered about the 22km number.
Use your 200 vs 250dps number, are you telling me that a 20% applied dps nerf isn't 'really that big a difference?' how much premium are people paying for 5-10% increases using faction/deadspace mods and implants?
I'm passionate because your argument doesn't seem to be based on facts. You said you like to hang around 22-24km.
Whats the major difference if you can manage that kind of control to hanging between 17-19km?
No new module has any effect at that range.
As to the DPS change, your words, not mine, yours, were that this change makes the ship fits "dead". You're over exaggerating so much that according to you this change kills the fits of about 8 or 9 ships. Dead. Non viable in any way.
That's not even close to accurate, because as I've shown with real live numbers, the difference is after this change is fairly minimal, and shouldn't have any bearing on your playstyle if you're into kiting. You simply need to make a very VERY minor adjustment.
|
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1360
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:46:00 -
[311] - Quote
Sean Sonnach wrote:
Essentially the argument for the nerf is a fallacy. The notion that it is intended solely to re-balance minnie ships is a nonsense. That would be better achieved by either effecting their individual stats or the weapon they use. This does nerf blaster ships that use TE, any idiot can see that.
Veiled government conspiracy theory nut post aside, you've absolutely missed what this change is about, it has nothing to do with re balancing minnie ships or nerfing blaster boats, and it even says exactly what its for in Fozzie's OP.
Anything else that you or anybody else has attached to it as the reason is flat out your own creation.
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1799
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:48:00 -
[312] - Quote
Chessur wrote:Here are some EFT numbers for you for damage application at 28K.
All level 5 skills, no implants, no drugs, no heat.
Minni
Hurricane 2TE 2Gyro Barrage: 228 DPS Cynabal 2TE 2Gyro Barrage: 270 DPS Stabber 2TE 2Gyro Barrage: 166 DPS Vaga 2TE 2Gyro Barrage: 277 DPS Nado 2TE 2Gyro Barrage: 581 DPS
Amarr
Omen: 2TE 2Heat Sink Scorch: 330 DPS Harb 2TE 2Heat Sink Scorch: 445 DPS Zealot 2TE 2Heat Sink Scorch: 412 DPS Omen Navy 2TE 2Heat Sink Scorch: 395 DPS Oracle 2TE 2Heat Sink Scorch: 649 DPS
Gal (Only one ship reaches out this far with guns that are actually usable... ie blasters) Talos 2TE 2Mag Stab Null: 678 DPS
Now for the lulzy part: Caldari
Caracal 2BCS with Fury rapid light missile: 236 DPS Cerberus 2BCS with Scourge Fury rapid light missile: 296 DPS
I will not include any HML because on paper damage is not nearly close to applied damage.
If any one at ccp can understand simple tables, you will notice one thing- giving any of these ships a decrease in optimal or fall off will make everything turn into a brawl. 33% decrease on range for these numbers will make kiting nearly impossible unless you are flying an oracle or zealot. (missile ships excluded)
Why do you hate kiting? Unless you fly a pimped out nado or talos, your pick of cruisers is so limited already. With the proposed changes, you will make almost all turret based ships that are not large size obsoleate, and HMLs / RLMs will rule the sky. Hell even SB's using torps will be viable now. Nothing is going to be hitting them out at 24K anyway.
Please justify this CCP. You clearly have not looked at any of these numbers. Because if you have looked at the these numbers and did still come to the conclusion to nerf TE's asnwer me this-
Why are armor brawling ships becoming the only mode to play this game?
Shockingly not every one that goes out to pvp likes to hit F1 and brawl (or in the case of solo / small gang) get blobbed.
33% Nerf to TE is not the same as a 33% decrease in total range. Go back and do some more math yourself before leaping to ranting conclusions.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Nova Satar
Rekall Incorporated Sinewave Alliance
71
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:48:00 -
[313] - Quote
I think what you're missing is that the falloff boost NEEDS to be large for it to be worth it. If you're still sitting in web/neut range then what is the point? tracking enhancers either need to give you the option to AVOID getting tackled.
You'd be betting off making them stack along side gyros. So If you use TE's, DPS is reduced as a balance. My optimal going from 2km to 7km makes no difference, im still getting tackled, so will need a tank anyway.
Stop looking at ******* spreadsheets CCP, look at how they are used IN GAME, and why they are used IN GAME.
basically it's BRAWL-Online and a also a nice little boost for the sodding falcons again who can continue sit at range to the slug fest |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
115
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:53:00 -
[314] - Quote
Sean Sonnach wrote:Essentially the argument for the nerf is a fallacy. The notion that it is intended solely to re-balance minnie ships is a nonsense. That would be better achieved by either effecting their individual stats or the weapon they use. This does nerf blaster ships that use TE, any idiot can see that. I think it's more a nerf to kiting ships in general than just Minnie ships. Most kiting cruisers/BCs that operate at 20km will have their DPS cut by about 10-15%. If they want that DPS back, then they are going to have to risk closing to that more dangerous 17-18km zone.
Fortunately that won't be a problem for most kiters, for I have read on these forums that they are the most elite and accomplished of all PvPers, and "know how to fly their ship" rather than just hit Approach+F1.
|
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
115
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:58:00 -
[315] - Quote
Nova Satar wrote:I think what you're missing is that the falloff boost NEEDS to be large for it to be worth it. If you're still sitting in web/neut range then what is the point? tracking enhancers either need to give you the option to AVOID getting tackled. Which is the issues they are addressing with kiters - that you can do significant damage without incurring any significant risk. Hence the damage is being lowered (by a mere 10-15% for most medium sized ships). If you want that damage back, then you need to incur more risk. Fortunately, you still retain enough speed to disengage at will and dictate the engagement. So what's the problem?
|
Sean Sonnach
FocusPoint
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:58:00 -
[316] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Sean Sonnach wrote:
Essentially the argument for the nerf is a fallacy. The notion that it is intended solely to re-balance minnie ships is a nonsense. That would be better achieved by either effecting their individual stats or the weapon they use. This does nerf blaster ships that use TE, any idiot can see that.
Veiled government conspiracy theory nut post aside, you've absolutely missed what this change is about, it has nothing to do with re balancing minnie ships or nerfing blaster boats, and it even says exactly what its for in Fozzie's OP. Anything else that you or anybody else has attached to it as the reason is flat out your own creation.
ok, but.... [quote=CCP Fozzie] 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.
So the range bonus is the target here. I would suggest that there be an alternative choice made available for pilots to use a low slot to increase range if the TE is to be mainly dedicated to tracking, and I can see the point of it being so as it's name alone suggests tracking is its primary function. A competing low slot module to increase range so that the ship set up can be more varied would be my idea of a balanced approach to this (while making the TE dedicated to tracking), because the TC provides the means to do both in the mids.
How do u react to that suggestion? |
SubStandard Rin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:58:00 -
[317] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Tracking Enhancer II30201510 Domination Tracking Enhancer30201510 Republic Fleet Tracking Enhancer30201510
I wouldn't mind if the Faction version is slightly better then the Tec2 version.
other then that does this mean it takes 3x TE to be equal to a TC ?
Its going to mess up alot of fittings especialy thoes ships that are shield tanked creativly even thoes ships that are shieldtanked and should be it will suffer Alpha Maelstrom is one sutch iteration that will suffer from bad tracking.
|
PAPULA
The Dark Tribe
13
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 11:01:00 -
[318] - Quote
Kaal Redrum wrote: Use your 200 vs 250dps number, are you telling me that a 20% applied dps nerf isn't 'really that big a difference?' how much premium are people paying for 5-10% increases using faction/deadspace mods and implants?
Welcome to Pandemic Legion OnLine |
Schnapss
OEG Academy Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 11:04:00 -
[319] - Quote
CCP, all your changes mean nothing, because whole conception of damage modifiers in game is wrong. You have 4 different damage modules: 1. Low slot +damage 2. Low slot +tracking/optimal/falloff 3. Med Slot +optima/falloff 4. Med Slot +optimal/falloff
Both med slot module titles contain the word "Tracking", but in reality they dont provide tracking bonus, only optimal+fallof. at the same time, we have low slot module which provides optimal+falloff+tracking, and it doesnt use capacitor.
Because of this we have all kinds of bonuses for guns with 2 used slots only. You should remove optimal and fallof from Tracking enhancers and move Tracking Link or Tracking Computer from med slot to low. The main idea is that you can not get huge amount of damage+optimal+tracking at once just using only low slots. you should to choose damage+optimal or damage+tracking or tracking+optimal, and for all three damage bonuses you should use med slots |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1360
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 11:05:00 -
[320] - Quote
Nova Satar wrote:I think what you're missing is that the falloff boost NEEDS to be large for it to be worth it. If you're still sitting in web/neut range then what is the point?
Stop being a baby the change wont bring you into neut and web range. You literally barely lose anything at all.
Sean Sonnach wrote:.
So the range bonus is the target here. I would suggest that there be an alternative choice made available for pilots to use a low slot to increase range if the TE is to be mainly dedicated to tracking, and I can see the point of it being so as it's name alone suggests tracking is its primary function. A competing low slot module to increase range so that the ship set up can be more varied would be my idea of a balanced approach to this (while making the TE dedicated to tracking), because the TC provides the means to do both in the mids.
How do u react to that suggestion?
I would say that you do have a low slot mod that affects range: Its called the Tracking Enhancer.
The optimal and falloff modifier isn't being removed, its being adjusted downwards slightly, not even really that much per given ship, the actual end result changes are extremely minimal, and largely just bring the module in line with the Tracking Computer (which uses cap).
I could see your point if they had entirely removed any optimal or falloff bonuses but this hasn't happened, and the overall reduction in optimal and fall off isn't enough to raise this much of a stink about.
|
|
Sean Sonnach
FocusPoint
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 11:07:00 -
[321] - Quote
Schnapss wrote:CCP, all your changes mean nothing, because whole conception of damage modifiers in game is wrong. You have 4 different damage modules: 1. Low slot +damage 2. Low slot +tracking/optimal/falloff 3. Med Slot +optima/falloff/tracking 4. Med Slot +optimal/falloff/tracking
Both med slot module titles contain the word "Tracking", but in reality they dont provide tracking bonus, only optimal+fallof. at the same time, we have low slot module which provides optimal+falloff+tracking, and it doesnt use capacitor.
Because of this we have all kinds of bonuses for guns with 2 used slots only. You should remove optimal and fallof from Tracking enhancers and move Tracking Link or Tracking Computer from med slot to low. The main idea is that you can not get huge amount of damage+optimal+tracking at once just using only low slots. you should to choose damage+optimal or damage+tracking or tracking+optimal, and for all three damage bonuses you should use med slots
See that is at least a balanced approach. |
Sean Sonnach
FocusPoint
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 11:13:00 -
[322] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Nova Satar wrote:I think what you're missing is that the falloff boost NEEDS to be large for it to be worth it. If you're still sitting in web/neut range then what is the point? Stop being a baby the change wont bring you into neut and web range. You literally barely lose anything at all. Sean Sonnach wrote:.
So the range bonus is the target here. I would suggest that there be an alternative choice made available for pilots to use a low slot to increase range if the TE is to be mainly dedicated to tracking, and I can see the point of it being so as it's name alone suggests tracking is its primary function. A competing low slot module to increase range so that the ship set up can be more varied would be my idea of a balanced approach to this (while making the TE dedicated to tracking), because the TC provides the means to do both in the mids.
How do u react to that suggestion? I would say that you do have a low slot mod that affects range: Its called the Tracking Enhancer. The optimal and falloff modifier isn't being removed, its being adjusted downwards slightly, not even really that much per given ship, the actual end result changes are extremely minimal, and largely just bring the module in line with the Tracking Computer (which uses cap). I could see your point if they had entirely removed any optimal or falloff bonuses but this hasn't happened, and the overall reduction in optimal and fall off isn't enough to raise this much of a stink about.
Well I've said all I want, at the end of the day its adapt or die. Do u want to give me some fitting advice if the change does happen :P
goodnight internet spaceship friends!
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
21
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 11:13:00 -
[323] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:Beaver Retriever wrote:PinkKnife wrote:This hurts Minmatar more than Gallente because Gal almost always have the free mids to run a Tracking Computer, thus your Talos and Megathron will be fine assuming you aren't shield tanking them.
It's a nerf to shield ships with free lows, I.e. Canes, and it is ENTIRELY needed. Oh no Projectiles won't dominate in every single possible way anymore, they only get to still pick damage type, use no cap, and have the highest alpha of any turret. Yes, poor Projectiles.
The Blaster boats won't suffer, and the Minmatar's ability to kite at any distance and still be able to hit fully will be nerfed. It is about time. Thank you Fozzie.
The userbase can deal with flying ships with risk. Currently the same userbase flies almost exclusive caldari/minmatar because you can kite out, apply all your dps, and risk nothing in the engagement. See Drake, See Hurricane for further examples. Literally no one armor tanks their Talos. Which exactly proves my point, the reason being you HAVE to shield tank everything these days, and the current TE exacerbate this problem. You shouldn't get to have all of your tank, plus all of your gank. Trade offs and decisions, considerations, and drawbacks. The problem that you HAVE to shield tank a Talos, proves the issue. You have to be able to keep up/kite otherwise you lose, as Canes and other ships can apply their dps well within/outside scram range and there isn't **** you can do about it if you are slower than they are. It is a side buff to armor ships, and it is fantastic. If you're shield tanking your armor ships, you're gonna have a bad time. Well you should anyway.
What makes shield tanking a prefered methodology is not a module, its an evolution of the past thinking that made armor tanking a must. In the past peopel used only armor for pvp because you needed slots for tackle.
Back then most pvp was in small scale and bringing more points and webs was paramaunt. The medium sized fleets would be spider tanking battleships, armor tanked since remote armor repair is much easier to fit. Armor tanking was much more common in 0.0 also because of Doomsday devices AoE.
Time passed and we got specializing tackling ships (like hictors) and more important the combat shifted into much larger groups. In a much larger fleet you can let only a few ships bring tackle. Because that will be enough. You do not need to hold more than 3-4 ships at same time. The rest of the fleet can focus where it should focus, FIREPOWER. And Firepower is a low slot thing. Then came the end of the MAJOR battleship buffer tanked model, the end of the Doomsday AOE. Now there was no need for large buffers. Now was much simpler to bring smaller ships and logistics (before the end of AoE doomsdays, logistics were useless)
That is the history of shield tanking rise.
Tracking enhancers are MINIMAL effect compared to that.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
551
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 11:13:00 -
[324] - Quote
Sigras wrote:TL;DR lows are more valuable than mids because there are more combat effecting low slot modules; the TE nerf changes that. But the lows are and can only be abused in such a manner due to having 'enough' (read: 4+) mids to begin with .. the old Rupture with only 3 mids worked with shield config but only barely regardless of lows and the SFI is arguably better with armour config using mids for eWar/Control to mitigate damage. Your account also managed to skip nimbly over the whole eWar in mids and the benefits of shield over armour (somewhat repaired with last round) .. would you rather have a TE+extender or a TD+plate/EANM if going up against another gun boat?.
Mids might be made equal if cap consumption was increased on all mods using that rack, effect is generally higher than the few low equivalents and the rack has a monopoly on practically all eWar/Assist mods. Flying Amarr exclusively I am painfully aware of the power of mids, they just add a lot more utility than lows.
Nice try though. |
Chaosstation
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 11:17:00 -
[325] - Quote
I guess blasters just took a major hit to the balls then? |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1360
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 11:17:00 -
[326] - Quote
Sean Sonnach wrote:Do u want to give me some fitting advice if the change does happen :P
I wouldn't alter your fitting at all, nothing really changes.
|
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
236
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 11:22:00 -
[327] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
Fortunately that won't be a problem for most kiters, for I have read on these forums that they are the most elite and accomplished of all PvPers, and "know how to fly their ship" rather than just hit Approach+F1.
hehehe :D so true :D the irony you know the approach button is for the noobs , the pros use the other one :)
|
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
218
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 11:25:00 -
[328] - Quote
Scorch, baby! |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
342
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 11:31:00 -
[329] - Quote
This issue may have already been brought up, and answered, in which case I apologize to everyone for not reading through 17 pages of comments and for wasting bandwidth:
Why do both TCs and TEs give twice the bonus to falloff vs. optimal? Why isn't the bonus to optimal equal to the bonus for falloff?
As it stands, even with the proposed changes, these modules still overwhelmingly favor projectile weapons. I rarely used either TCs or TEs with hybrids and lasers, since the bonus to optimal was already rather anemic, but I almost always fit them when using projectiles. The nerf makes them even more useless for hybrids/lasers, while still providing an advantage to projectiles... and, by extension, to Minmatar ships.
So, how about making the optimal bonus equal to the falloff bonus, if you really are talking about balancing these modules? |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
117
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 11:33:00 -
[330] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Kobea Thris wrote:Just to clarify, are you happy with the state of range scripted tracking computers? I don't see a dire need to change them. After this change TEs will give more range than an unscripted TC but less than a scripted one.
I'd prefer to see TEs nerfed a bit more tbh. I'd prefer a situation where the TC (requiring more fitting and being an active module) sits equal with or slightly superior to the TE in it's unscripted form and then has the scripted alternative when needed. I don't see the sense of the TC becoming better by less than 100% of the TE with a script loaded since at that point it has lost either it's tracking or range benefits. On top of the tougher fitting needs. And the cap usage.
Nerf TEs to 40-50% of current for me. |
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
21
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 11:35:00 -
[331] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:This issue may have already been brought up, and answered, in which case I apologize to everyone for not reading through 17 pages of comments and for wasting bandwidth:
Why do both TCs and TEs give twice the bonus to falloff vs. optimal? Why isn't the bonus to optimal equal to the bonus for falloff?
As it stands, even with the proposed changes, these modules still overwhelmingly favor projectile weapons. I rarely used either TCs or TEs with hybrids and lasers, since the bonus to optimal was already rather anemic, but I almost always fit them when using projectiles. The nerf makes them even more useless for hybrids/lasers, while still providing an advantage to projectiles... and, by extension, to Minmatar ships.
So, how about making the optimal bonus equal to the falloff bonus, if you really are talking about balancing these modules?
Because falloff effectively is worth half. There was a looong mathemathical proof at the old super thread that generated the addition of falloff bonus into the modules.
Basically think on the definition of falloff If you double the falloff you double the distance to which you do HALF your damage. |
Weasel Juice
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
40
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 11:36:00 -
[332] - Quote
Rather than fancy EFT warrior skills, I present you with numbers about reality.
RankShipsKills 1Oracle54,779 Shield (primarily) 2Naga51,812 Shield 3Tornado50,412 Shield (primarily) 4Hurricane47,395 Shield (primarily) 5Loki 44,967 Armor (shield possible though) 6Talos44,429 Shield 7Rokh42,509 Shield 8Thrasher40,014 N/A 9Maelstrom34,905 Shield 10Zealot32,453 Armor 11Rupture32,351 Shield 12Caracal32,316 Shield (missiles) 13Sabre31,227 N/A 14Hound29,868 N/A 15Tempest Fleet Issue29,182 Shield 16Drake27,872 Shield 17Talwar25,621 N/A 18Cynabal25,341 Shield 19Stabber Fleet Issue24,882 Shield 20Proteus23,988 Armor
~725,000 in the top 20 ~100,000 on armor ships. ~125,000 on speed tanked ships ~500,000 kills on traditional shield ships. ~385,000 kills on shield ships that utilize TEs.
Now let's look at why this trend exists: * Mobility. Shields are faster, accelerate better, align faster. * Shield reps hit instantly and still rep for the same amount. * More base damage potential due to abundance of lowslots
And in addition comes the TE.
* A TC gives 7.5/15/15, 0/0/30 or 15/30/0 (Optimal/Falloff/Speed) * A TE gives 15/30/9.5 (Optimal/Falloff/Speed) * New TE gives 10/20/9.5 (Optimal/Falloff/Speed)
Except when you want insanely high tracking speed, currently the TC is just inferior.
But even for speed, since transversal does not matter but angular - when you pull range angular velocity goes down. (Even unbonused) Webs also work a lot better than tracking computers, and they work for everyone that is shooting the target - meaning a single web in the fleet can replace a speed scripted tracking computer for *everyone*.
Conclusion: TE offer better damage application than TC.
The upcoming TE will be like an unscripted TC, except it has bit better optimal/falloff but worse tracking speed, rather than being a downright superior version of Tracking Comps.
I like the change, armor is becoming more viable for null/lowsec with every patch! Hooray! |
Mariner6
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
111
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 11:41:00 -
[333] - Quote
So this change will now unbalance guns vs. missile boats. Missile boats will be now OP and dominate in the range department for many fits (even with shorter range rockets, hams etc). So everyone has to now get in closer to fight....except missile boats.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
21
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 11:46:00 -
[334] - Quote
Weasel Juice wrote:Rather than fancy EFT warrior skills, I present you with numbers about reality.
RankShipsKills 1Oracle54,779 Shield (primarily) 2Naga51,812 Shield 3Tornado50,412 Shield (primarily) 4Hurricane47,395 Shield (primarily) 5Loki 44,967 Armor (shield possible though) 6Talos44,429 Shield 7Rokh42,509 Shield 8Thrasher40,014 N/A 9Maelstrom34,905 Shield 10Zealot32,453 Armor 11Rupture32,351 Shield 12Caracal32,316 Shield (missiles) 13Sabre31,227 N/A 14Hound29,868 N/A 15Tempest Fleet Issue29,182 Shield 16Drake27,872 Shield 17Talwar25,621 N/A 18Cynabal25,341 Shield 19Stabber Fleet Issue24,882 Shield 20Proteus23,988 Armor
~725,000 in the top 20 ~100,000 on armor ships. ~125,000 on speed tanked ships ~500,000 kills on traditional shield ships. ~385,000 kills on shield ships that utilize TEs.
Now let's look at why this trend exists: * Mobility. Shields are faster, accelerate better, align faster. * Shield reps hit instantly and still rep for the same amount. * More base damage potential due to abundance of lowslots
And in addition comes the TE.
* A TC gives 7.5/15/15, 0/0/30 or 15/30/0 (Optimal/Falloff/Speed) * A TE gives 15/30/9.5 (Optimal/Falloff/Speed) * New TE gives 10/20/9.5 (Optimal/Falloff/Speed)
Except when you want insanely high tracking speed, currently the TC is just inferior.
But even for speed, since transversal does not matter but angular - when you pull range angular velocity goes down. (Even unbonused) Webs also work a lot better than tracking computers, and they work for everyone that is shooting the target - meaning a single web in the fleet can replace a speed scripted tracking computer for *everyone*.
Conclusion: TE offer better damage application than TC.
The upcoming TE will be like an unscripted TC, except it has bit better optimal/falloff but worse tracking speed, rather than being a downright superior version of Tracking Comps.
I like the change, armor is becoming more viable for null/lowsec with every patch! Hooray!
woooa assuring that ruptures are mostly shield tank is a bit far fetched. You can be sure a VERY large ammount of them are armor tanked.
|
General Escobar
BREAKING-POINT Primal Force
13
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 11:47:00 -
[335] - Quote
Quote:...as well as contributing to the relative strength of shield tanking over armor tanking by inflating the value of non-tank low slots. way to buff armor tanking over shield tanking even more.... it`s getting a lill excessive don`t you think? |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
236
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 11:49:00 -
[336] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:
woooa assuring that ruptures are mostly shield tank is a bit far fetched. You can be sure a VERY large ammount of them are armor tanked.
nah that would make his datas far fetched and highly questionable, and we dont want that do we ?:O
btw shield tanking arent that good , in eve speed/agility matters too much ,no wonder ppl want to use the tools wich gives them the most |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War Out of Sight.
1015
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 12:01:00 -
[337] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:
woooa assuring that ruptures are mostly shield tank is a bit far fetched. You can be sure a VERY large ammount of them are armor tanked.
nah that would make his datas far fetched and highly questionable, and we dont want that do we ?:O btw shield tanking arent that good , in eve speed/agility matters too much ,no wonder ppl want to use the tools wich gives them the most Mobility should matter much, just like IRL, otherwise the game is really dumb.
And it's not like you can get double or tripple speed in comparison to conventional setups, like it used to be before the Great Nano Fix. My campaign for CSM 8 |
Vulfen
Hax. Game Over.
7
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 12:08:00 -
[338] - Quote
@ CCP fozzie. Im hoping that these changes are a precursor to the TE/TC/TD beginning to affect missiles, because yes having the same range boost on as a TC on a TE for a shield missile ship would make them a little OP. And if that's the plan then great sounds like your doing the right thing but release it at the same time don't just dos around giving us half a change to a very important module. I hate when CCP dont just do the job right first time.
for example, you took PWG off the cane in the winter update and then took a high-slot from it in the 1.1 release. i think you need to take more time and do a complete job to make it balanced. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1362
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 12:09:00 -
[339] - Quote
General Escobar wrote:Quote:...as well as contributing to the relative strength of shield tanking over armor tanking by inflating the value of non-tank low slots. way to buff armor tanking over shield tanking even more.... it`s getting a lill excessive don`t you think?
No, armor tanking has a long way to go before its anywhere near ready to be compared to shield tanking.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
733
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 12:11:00 -
[340] - Quote
I haven't seen this many tears since the HM nerf. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
21
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 12:13:00 -
[341] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:
woooa assuring that ruptures are mostly shield tank is a bit far fetched. You can be sure a VERY large ammount of them are armor tanked.
nah that would make his datas far fetched and highly questionable, and we dont want that do we ?:O btw shield tanking arent that good , in eve speed/agility matters too much ,no wonder ppl want to use the tools wich gives them the most Mobility should matter much, just like IRL, otherwise the game is really dumb. And it's not like you can get double or tripple speed in comparison to conventional setups, like it used to be before the Great Nano Fix.
I do not disagree at all with you.
Problem is not that speed is too valuable. Problem is that currently due to the increasing focus on larger number of ships, speed is the ONLY way you can fight outnumbered. All the techniques that helped people fight outnumbered ( old NOS, ECM and dampeners on non dedicated ships, snipers (now easily probable) ) were all nerfed. The constant nerfing of force multipliers has relegated the game into a situation where you need to have more people than the enemy... or you must be faster (the only remaining way to fight outnumbered).
That is something CCP must keep in mind. Keep making so that only dedicated ships can use force multipliers effectively and you will continue to hurt more and more all the chances of small scale warfare . That is what makes speed so important.
Peopel, please I urge you. Stop trying to focus on modules and the layouts and think more about the current metagame and combat situations. There you will find the real culprints. And a lot of to blame are in the last years of nerfing of all force multipliers and area of effect (in the case of 0.0). |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 12:16:00 -
[342] - Quote
That TE nerf is way too much... CCP seems to be working very hard to make this game appear less attractive to me.
I'm still not happy with how missiles were "balanced" and also many of my favourite ships were completely changed for totally different approach.
This constant nerfing of all the things i used to love is getting more painful every "balance" that you are making. Sure there has been few positive surprises here and there but it's mostly just negative things.
Oh, and where is my darn jukebox -_- |
Sparkus Volundar
Applied Creations The Fendahlian Collective
28
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 12:16:00 -
[343] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Taoist Dragon wrote:TE's - ouch!
I agree they can be over powering (especially on hulls like the Talos) at times but this will pretty much kill the only advantage the minnies get with their weapon systems - nice falloff.
Now they will have the worst damage and not the best range. Any thoughts on uping their dps or base range to at least keep them competive? This change affects falloff and optimal bonuses equally, so it doesn't decrease Minmatar falloff relative to any other ship that fits TEs. Minmatar feel the pain mainly because they have a lot of ships that shield tank and use extra lows for TEs.
Minmatar might feel pain because they can shield tank with more low slots but there is also the fundamental aspect that Minmatar weapons are biased towards a greater proportion of falloff relative to optimal.
So whilst yes, the % changes are the same against all weapons, this proposed change will affect projectiles proportionately more than hybrids or energy weapons because the starting point is TEs offering more falloff than optimal. Since Falloff mechanics incorporate damage reduction with range, I donGÇÖt personally think that a baseline of TEs offering a larger bonus to falloff than optimal is a problem incidentally (but others could disagree).
Examples with sub-capital turrets using 2 TEs each follow.
Close range turrets Range = Optimal+25% Falloff: Autocannons = 7.0% reduction in range (43.1% more than for Pulse Lasers). Blasters____ = 5.6% reduction in range (15.9% more than for Pulse Lasers). Pulse Lasers = 4.9% reduction in range.
Range = Optimal+50% Falloff: Autocannons = 7.6% reduction in range (47.8% more than for Pulse Lasers). Blasters____ = 6.6% reduction in range (27.8% more than for Pulse Lasers). Pulse Lasers = 5.2% reduction in range.
Range = Optimal+75% Falloff: Autocannons = 7.9% reduction in range (41.0% more than for Pulse Lasers). Blasters____ = 7.0% reduction in range (24.9% more than for Pulse Lasers). Pulse Lasers = 5.6% reduction in range.
Long range turrets Range = Optimal+25% Falloff: Artillery_____ = 5.6% reduction in range (10.5% more than for Pulse Lasers). Rails________ = 4.9% reduction in range ( 1.5% more than for Pulse Lasers). Beams Lasers = 4.9% reduction in range.
Range = Optimal+50% Falloff: Artillery_____ = 5.9% reduction in range (15.3% more than for Pulse Lasers). Rails________ = 5.5% reduction in range (6.2% more than for Pulse Lasers). Beams Lasers = 5.2% reduction in range.
Range = Optimal+75% Falloff: Artillery_____ = 6.3% reduction in range (12.4% more than for Pulse Lasers). Rails________ = 5.8% reduction in range (3.4% more than for Pulse Lasers). Beams Lasers = 5.6% reduction in range.
Applied Creations is recruiting. Mystic Volundar says, "It could be you! " |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
21
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 12:23:00 -
[344] - Quote
Sparkus Volundar wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Taoist Dragon wrote:TE's - ouch!
I agree they can be over powering (especially on hulls like the Talos) at times but this will pretty much kill the only advantage the minnies get with their weapon systems - nice falloff.
Now they will have the worst damage and not the best range. Any thoughts on uping their dps or base range to at least keep them competive? This change affects falloff and optimal bonuses equally, so it doesn't decrease Minmatar falloff relative to any other ship that fits TEs. Minmatar feel the pain mainly because they have a lot of ships that shield tank and use extra lows for TEs. Minmatar might feel pain because they can shield tank with more low slots but there is also the fundamental aspect that Minmatar weapons are biased towards a greater proportion of falloff relative to optimal. So whilst yes, the % changes are the same against all weapons, this proposed change will affect projectiles proportionately more than hybrids or energy weapons because the starting point is TEs offering more falloff than optimal. Since Falloff mechanics incorporate damage reduction with range, I donGÇÖt personally think that a baseline of TEs offering a larger bonus to falloff than optimal is a problem incidentally (but others could disagree). Examples with sub-capital turrets using 2 TEs each follow. Close range turretsRange = Optimal+25% Falloff: Autocannons = 7.0% reduction in range (43.1% more than for Pulse Lasers). Blasters____ = 5.6% reduction in range (15.9% more than for Pulse Lasers). Pulse Lasers = 4.9% reduction in range. Range = Optimal+50% Falloff: Autocannons = 7.6% reduction in range (47.8% more than for Pulse Lasers). Blasters____ = 6.6% reduction in range (27.8% more than for Pulse Lasers). Pulse Lasers = 5.2% reduction in range. Range = Optimal+75% Falloff: Autocannons = 7.9% reduction in range (41.0% more than for Pulse Lasers). Blasters____ = 7.0% reduction in range (24.9% more than for Pulse Lasers). Pulse Lasers = 5.6% reduction in range. Long range turretsRange = Optimal+25% Falloff: Artillery_____ = 5.6% reduction in range (10.5% more than for Pulse Lasers). Rails________ = 4.9% reduction in range ( 1.5% more than for Pulse Lasers). Beams Lasers = 4.9% reduction in range. Range = Optimal+50% Falloff: Artillery_____ = 5.9% reduction in range (15.3% more than for Pulse Lasers). Rails________ = 5.5% reduction in range (6.2% more than for Pulse Lasers). Beams Lasers = 5.2% reduction in range. Range = Optimal+75% Falloff: Artillery_____ = 6.3% reduction in range (12.4% more than for Pulse Lasers). Rails________ = 5.8% reduction in range (3.4% more than for Pulse Lasers). Beams Lasers = 5.6% reduction in range.
I already posted math evidence of why fallof bonus must be exaclty double the range bonus. Go check it. That was discussed beyond any thinkable limits years ago when the changes were implemented.
50 range and 50 falloff. Distance where damage is half? apply only 10% range and 20% falloff and you get exact same distance where damage is half for BOTH cases.
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War Out of Sight.
1015
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 12:26:00 -
[345] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:
woooa assuring that ruptures are mostly shield tank is a bit far fetched. You can be sure a VERY large ammount of them are armor tanked.
nah that would make his datas far fetched and highly questionable, and we dont want that do we ?:O btw shield tanking arent that good , in eve speed/agility matters too much ,no wonder ppl want to use the tools wich gives them the most Mobility should matter much, just like IRL, otherwise the game is really dumb. And it's not like you can get double or tripple speed in comparison to conventional setups, like it used to be before the Great Nano Fix. I do not disagree at all with you. Problem is not that speed is too valuable. Problem is that currently due to the increasing focus on larger number of ships, speed is the ONLY way you can fight outnumbered. All the techniques that helped people fight outnumbered ( old NOS, ECM and dampeners on non dedicated ships, snipers (now easily probable) ) were all nerfed. The constant nerfing of force multipliers has relegated the game into a situation where you need to have more people than the enemy... or you must be faster (the only remaining way to fight outnumbered). That is something CCP must keep in mind. Keep making so that only dedicated ships can use force multipliers effectively and you will continue to hurt more and more all the chances of small scale warfare . That is what makes speed so important. Well, I'd say not the nerfing of force multipliers themsevles, but rather re-assigning these to dedicated ships perfectly suitable for creating one-sided ganks in favor of those with superior numbers. Non-bonused EW is really weak and sometimes next to useless (jammers, anyone?), while a dedicated boat renders any opposing ship of choice plain defenceless. Sure thing, the only thing that might get you some chances is mobility, but how is that wrong? What else could you bring in? My campaign for CSM 8 |
amurder Hakomairos
Fellowship Of Lost Souls Rebel Alliance of New Eden
38
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 12:30:00 -
[346] - Quote
I have an idea for you Fozzie, why not just give all races the exact same ships/weapons/modules, and only one ship in each class. Then everything will be balanced and there will be no variety and you will have the plain vanilla generic spaceship game you seem to be looking for.
TE need a nerf like we need a kick in the nuts. I'm so sick of training months to get good skills in a ship just to find out that CCP is deciding to nerf it in the name of more blandness. And when you guys nerf something it's never at a reasonable level. Like we will give a 10% nerf this patch, then re-evaluate. Its always some over the top massive nerf and then you know you are stuck with it for years before they look at it again. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1799
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 12:31:00 -
[347] - Quote
Sparkus Volundar wrote: So whilst yes, the % changes are the same against all weapons, this proposed change will affect projectiles proportionately more than hybrids or energy weapons because the starting point is TEs offering more falloff than optimal.
Proportionally is exactly the wrong word here.
The effect on projectiles versus the effect on hybrids is larger in magnitude. But proportionally, the effect is the same. TE's give 33% less to everyone. Same proportion.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Random Woman
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 12:32:00 -
[348] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:I haven't seen this many tears since the HM nerf.
Aye.
Also, I dont see why TEs are so cheap right now, they seem to be the one module that keep eve running. |
Lithorn
The Dark Tribe
18
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 12:35:00 -
[349] - 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.
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%.
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!
The potential unintended consequences of this R.S.B/T.E. nerf will be that blasters now have even crappier optimal and fall off ratio, T.L.'s (tracking links) will be a practically required component of all fleets, ships using T.L.'s that have the bonus for it will now play an even bigger role in fleet set ups. T.L. boosting ships will be more expensive than before. (Oneiros/Scimitar)
Missile fleets will be more common perhaps, something CCP has been trying to discourage it seems.
E-War boosters will be seen more often, not necessarily a bad thing since there has been very little reason to ever put Gallente command ships as a priority in fleet setups over the other ships in a long time. (This is something you should look into, Gallente command bonuses don't see much action in fleets.)
Rsebo nerf, ok sure that's not so terrible I suppose..
Armor tanked ships with bad low slot/mid slot ratios will be impacted the most by the T.E. nerf, this will hit Gallente hybrids where it lives pretty badly. Please reconsider this rather unnecessary nerf, if your not willing to back off then you will be forced to REDO a lot of the ship balancing you guys have been doing lately to compensate for the imbalances this will create for ships that already had a built-in dis-advantage in that area.
P.S. 4 thins I have to say to Foz, 1. Blaster ammo for cruisers still has crappy range bonuses, rail guns on hybrids totally not worth using due to sad damage output, please fix? :) 2. Why has there never been a ship with R.S.B bonuses? 3. Dont break our T3.. 4. Thanks for the work you and the other guys put into eve, so long and thanks for the all fish! |
Rek Seven
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Polarized.
654
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 12:38:00 -
[350] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Rek Seven wrote: Oh wait, what's stopping these gate camping fleets from using more remote sebo's to compensate?
You're aware of stacking penalties right? You're aware that after 3 mods the diminishing return on investment makes it not REALLY worth it right? From 1-3 Rsebo's you get a noticeable difference, then from 4-6 you can't even reach the same boost as the first Rsebo that was applied.
I'm not familiar with how these insta-locking fleets are set up but effectively, what you guys are saying is that after these new changes are implemented, it will be IMPOSSIBLE to achieve the same scan resolution as these fleets have now because of stacking penalties...
If that's true then CCP has just removed a legitimate tactic from the game and if it's not true (i.e. you will be able to get the same scan res) then your reasoning, that stacking penalties somehow balance insta locking fleets, is flawed. Is my bitter vet membership card in the mail? |
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
21
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 12:44:00 -
[351] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Sparkus Volundar wrote: So whilst yes, the % changes are the same against all weapons, this proposed change will affect projectiles proportionately more than hybrids or energy weapons because the starting point is TEs offering more falloff than optimal.
Proportionally is exactly the wrong word here. The effect on projectiles versus the effect on hybrids is larger in magnitude. But proportionally, the effect is the same. TE's give 33% less to everyone. Same proportion.
For God 's sake peopel. These modules are not used only on minmatar ships Also on scorch boats. The changes must be EXACLTY as they are proposed otherwise they will hit more one side than the toher.
Fozzie thinked this very well and is 100% correct on how to implement it |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
21
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 12:45:00 -
[352] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Rek Seven wrote: Oh wait, what's stopping these gate camping fleets from using more remote sebo's to compensate?
You're aware of stacking penalties right? You're aware that after 3 mods the diminishing return on investment makes it not REALLY worth it right? From 1-3 Rsebo's you get a noticeable difference, then from 4-6 you can't even reach the same boost as the first Rsebo that was applied. I'm not familiar with how these insta-locking fleets are set up but effectively, what you guys are saying is that after these new changes are implemented, it will be IMPOSSIBLE to achieve the same scan resolution as these fleets have now because of stacking penalties... If that's true then CCP has just removed a legitimate tactic from the game and if it's not true (i.e. you will be able to get the same scan res) then your reasoning, that stacking penalties somehow balance insta locking fleets, is flawed.
Issue is, Insta lockign firgs are deemed undesirable gameplay by msot of community and CCP. They must be nerfed so that the balance of low se cprevails. Low sec was made to be a place where frigates can travel more or less freely and larger ships cannot. Insta lock gate camps broke that. |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 12:46:00 -
[353] - Quote
amurder Hakomairos wrote:I have an idea for you Fozzie, why not just give all races the exact same ships/weapons/modules, and only one ship in each class. Then everything will be balanced and there will be no variety and you will have the plain vanilla generic spaceship game you seem to be looking for.
TE need a nerf like we need a kick in the nuts. I'm so sick of training months to get good skills in a ship just to find out that CCP is deciding to nerf it in the name of more blandness. And when you guys nerf something it's never at a reasonable level. Like we will give a 10% nerf this patch, then re-evaluate. Its always some over the top massive nerf and then you know you are stuck with it for years before they look at it again.
I totally agree with you, simplifying everything and making everything similar in the name of "balance" seems to be the trend with everything these days and eve can't seem to avoid it either... |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
21
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 12:48:00 -
[354] - Quote
Lithorn 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.
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%.
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! The potential unintended consequences of this R.S.B/T.E. nerf will be that blasters now have even crappier optimal and fall off ratio, T.L.'s (tracking links) will be a practically required component of all fleets, ships using T.L.'s that have the bonus for it will now play an even bigger role in fleet set ups. T.L. boosting ships will be more expensive than before. (Oneiros/Scimitar) Missile fleets will be more common perhaps, something CCP has been trying to discourage it seems. E-War boosters will be seen more often, not necessarily a bad thing since there has been very little reason to ever put Gallente command ships as a priority in fleet setups over the other ships in a long time. (This is something you should look into, Gallente command bonuses don't see much action in fleets.) Rsebo nerf, ok sure that's not so terrible I suppose.. Armor tanked ships with bad low slot/mid slot ratios will be impacted the most by the T.E. nerf, this will hit Gallente hybrids where it lives pretty badly. Please reconsider this rather unnecessary nerf, if your not willing to back off then C.C.P will most likely be forced to REDO a lot of the ship balancing you guys have been doing lately to compensate for the imbalances this will create for ships that already had a built-in dis-advantage in that area. P.S. 4 things I have to say to Foz, 1. Blaster ammo for cruisers still has crappy range bonuses, rail guns on cruisers totally not worth using due to sad damage output, please fix? :) 2. Why has there never been a ship with R.S.B bonuses? 3. Dont break our T3.. 4. Thanks for the work you and the other guys put into eve, so long and thanks for the all fish!
NO. The effect will be much more prevalent in Barrage boats and Scorch boats. Blasters will suffer much less because the range reduciton can be covered in space movment in 1 second on their case. Scorch and barrage are made to kite or anti kite and the range changes need a more substantial adjustment of positioning, enough that the tactics will have to change a bit.
|
2manno Asp
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
179
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 12:50:00 -
[355] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:Sigras wrote:Casha Andven wrote: This. CCP you are dumbing down the game. May I ask why?
Just a question . . . if kiting is "uber 1337 PvP for the skilled players" then doesnt making kiting harder raise the skill required to pull it off? You can't kite if you can't project damage at all. Then it's just called "running away." with just some quick math, my cynabal will drop from 3.9 + 44 to 3.6 + 38 Oh no, now my guns will never do any damage :( EDIT: more quick math The above numbers mean that I drop from 379 at max long point range to 357 its a 5.81% decrease in DPS
awful that you'd use a cynabal to justify a TE nerf. awful. |
2manno Asp
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
179
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 12:55:00 -
[356] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Casha Andven wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:Hellakhanasos wrote:Venustas Blue wrote:If your fighting at 0, say in scram & Webb range to be doing affective damage, theres no way to disengage say if your off gate. Unless your ****** fit with stabs or possibly AB fit and able to burn out. The more powerful ship or better counter fit ship will always win. You will not have the ability granted to kiting ships to disengagde by either burning away, or causing the hostile to lose point by pulsing MWD on cross axis so they burn out of range & lose point, allowing you to warp out. There's little skill in fighting at 0 (scram/Webb) range, nerfing TEs kiting ability, wich is an art and skill its self would be yet another mistake by CCP, and a great loss as far as skill goes for the game. There is counters to kiting ships, & as far as minnie ships go, they have already been nerfed enough, dont ruin it by overstepping a reasonable current mark & success. This proposed change to TEs needs to be scrapped. All it would do is subject eve to yet a other nerf of making the game ever easier, this does not inspire anybody to become better within tactics and situational awareness, it only acts to dumb it down, even giving more reason to blob, and there should be no further reason given to blobbing WHAT SO EVER. Should be promoting skill and fun gfs instead. Sometimes it becomes very apparent CCP are out of touch with the game and its tactics, this is as good as any example. A resounding NO to TE nerf from me. After sifting through the turd of many prior posts over the last couple of pages. This is more of less spot on. Yeah basically this. This. CCP you are dumbing down the game. May I ask why? Just a question . . . if kiting is "uber 1337 PvP for the skilled players" then doesnt making kiting harder raise the skill required to pull it off? Doesnt that mean there is a clearer line between the "good PvPers who can kite" and the "bad PvPers who cant"? That being said, in small gangs, life is a function of speed + damage projection thats what makes the shield tanking required in small gangs, because they get speed from not having armor plates and damage projection because they have a TON of free low slots. This is now being brought into balance, so that armor tankers are now only down on one front not two.
wrong. it's like taking a 3 pt. shooter in basketball and moving him up to the free throw line. seems like an easier shot to make, until you realize his shots keep getting sent to section 127 in the upper deck in by the other teams 7 foot center.
not a case of better pvp, more like a case of no point. |
Lithorn
The Dark Tribe
18
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 12:55:00 -
[357] - Quote
amurder Hakomairos wrote:
C.C.P. deciding to nerf it in the name of more blandness. And when you guys nerf something it's never at a reasonable level. Like we will give a 10% nerf this patch, then re-evaluate.
10 percent more bland-ness per a level now that is a skill change I could get behind!
|
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
236
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 12:59:00 -
[358] - Quote
Lithorn 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.
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%.
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! The potential unintended consequences of this R.S.B/T.E. nerf will be that blasters now have even crappier optimal and fall off ratio, T.L.'s (tracking links) will be a practically required component of all fleets, ships using T.L.'s that have the bonus for it will now play an even bigger role in fleet set ups. T.L. boosting ships will be more expensive than before. (Oneiros/Scimitar) Missile fleets will be more common perhaps, something CCP has been trying to discourage it seems. E-War boosters will be seen more often, not necessarily a bad thing since there has been very little reason to ever put Gallente command ships as a priority in fleet setups over the other ships in a long time. (This is something you should look into, Gallente command bonuses don't see much action in fleets.) Rsebo nerf, ok sure that's not so terrible I suppose.. Armor tanked ships with bad low slot/mid slot ratios will be impacted the most by the T.E. nerf, this will hit Gallente hybrids where it lives pretty badly. Please reconsider this rather unnecessary nerf, if your not willing to back off then C.C.P will most likely be forced to REDO a lot of the ship balancing you guys have been doing lately to compensate for the imbalances this will create for ships that already had a built-in dis-advantage in that area. P.S. 4 things I have to say to Foz, 1. Blaster ammo for cruisers still has crappy range bonuses, rail guns on cruisers totally not worth using due to sad damage output, please fix? :) 2. Why has there never been a ship with R.S.B bonuses? 3. Dont break our T3.. 4. Thanks for the work you and the other guys put into eve, so long and thanks for the all fish! theorycraf online , you sir playing the wrong game
|
Miaaaw
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 12:59:00 -
[359] - Quote
Yeah you guys at CCP should nerf small gang warfare even more so blobbing remain the only way to play this game... Nano ships allow small entities to fight outnumbered and by nerfing TE you'll nerf nano gangs.
Bref... |
2manno Asp
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
180
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 13:00:00 -
[360] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Vaju Enki wrote:stagz wrote:The TE nerf is to much This damages small gang and skirmish play style far to much
Because small gang and skirmish play equals nano faceroll. Yeah! Death to kiting! All ships should brawl at < 10 km! Yeah! Nano ships should "brawl at 20 km" will doing the huge dps that real brawlling ships should do, all of this will going at 2500km/s. Some of you guys are bias as hell, Nano ships are broken beyond belief, making most ships of the game useless, armor tanking useless, etc. I can't wait for this patch.
or you could fit a mwd to your brawler, then scram and web the kiter.
ohh... wait. that would require skill. |
|
2manno Asp
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
180
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 13:05:00 -
[361] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Except several of us are also discussing ships e.g. the SFI that lose about 30-40 DPS in their standard operating regime, where they don't have all that much DPS to begin with. The ship goes from being just barely viable as a kiter to being completely useless because its DPS and tank are too weak to brawl with and it can't kite because its DPS is easy to shrug off.
And you're all wrong, the amount of range you'll lose is vastly exaggerated in this thread. The actual loss is very small. Heres an example, the standard PL Blaster Rokh fit that uses 2 TE's: 24.6+28.7 before the nerf, to 22.6+24.6 after the nerf. LOOK AT THAT MASSIVE RANGE CHANGE THERE OH MAN. Thas on a battleship, where the TE range boost is much more obvious. On smaller ships the change will be significantly lower.
wrong, on smaller ships the change will be considerably more noticeable.
|
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
43
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 13:08:00 -
[362] - Quote
CCP Fozzie any plans to sort out the mess of having 10 different mods to do the same thing to slightly different levels half being meta 0 and any plans on tierciding mods/giving them roles that ships have so benefited from?. 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium |
Lithorn
The Dark Tribe
18
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 13:11:00 -
[363] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:
woooa assuring that ruptures are mostly shield tank is a bit far fetched. You can be sure a VERY large ammount of them are armor tanked.
nah that would make his datas far fetched and highly questionable, and we dont want that do we ?:O btw shield tanking arent that good , in eve speed/agility matters too much ,no wonder ppl want to use the tools wich gives them the most Mobility should matter much, just like IRL, otherwise the game is really dumb. And it's not like you can get double or tripple speed in comparison to conventional setups, like it used to be before the Great Nano Fix. I do not disagree at all with you. Problem is not that speed is too valuable. Problem is that currently due to the increasing focus on larger number of ships, speed is the ONLY way you can fight outnumbered. All the techniques that helped people fight outnumbered ( old NOS, ECM and dampeners on non dedicated ships, snipers (now easily probable) ) were all nerfed. The constant nerfing of force multipliers has relegated the game into a situation where you need to have more people than the enemy... or you must be faster (the only remaining way to fight outnumbered). That is something CCP must keep in mind. Keep making so that only dedicated ships can use force multipliers effectively and you will continue to hurt more and more all the chances of small scale warfare . That is what makes speed so important. Peopel, please I urge you. Stop trying to focus on modules and the layouts and think more about the current metagame and combat situations. There you will find the real culprints. And a lot of to blame are in the last years of nerfing of all force multipliers and area of effect (in the case of 0.0).
This has merit, the need to blob to compensate for the "balances" being made seems to increase.. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1362
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 13:13:00 -
[364] - Quote
2manno Asp wrote: wrong, on smaller ships the change will be considerably more noticeable.
On a battleship you lose 10km in fall off, on a cruiser you lose about 3km fall off, on a frigate you lose about 1km fall off.
So again, you'll notice those range differences more on larger hulls, thanks for playing along from home.
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1362
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 13:15:00 -
[365] - Quote
Lithorn wrote:
This has merit, the need to blob to compensate for the "balances" being made seems to increase..
Tell me more about how losing 3km in fall off from a cruiser makes you need to blob up.
|
Musashibou Benkei
Combined Imperial Fleet JIHADASQUAD
8
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 13:16:00 -
[366] - Quote
While I welcome the TE changes, I do not agree the remote sebo changes were necessary.
Leave it to CCP to fix a "problem" without first thinking why they are so popular for gate camps. Given that CCP still hasn't addressed the age-old problem of the cloak-mwd trick (initiating a mod AFTER you've cloaked? please) it leaves the gate campers no choice but to maximise their lock time. Also, remote sebo's need locking of the target ship for it to activate much like projected ECCM.
Since the most logical ship to remote sebo for such gate camps are hic's, with their infinite point to catch those super-stabbed geddons or other battleships, it should be fairly obvious that the remote sebo'ing will turn off after the hic initiates its infinite point.
Remote sebo's encourage team uniformity unlike local sebo's do and should be rewarded as such. |
Nomispanco
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
23
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 13:17:00 -
[367] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Lithorn wrote:
This has merit, the need to blob to compensate for the "balances" being made seems to increase..
Tell me more about how losing 3km in fall off from a cruiser makes you need to blob up.
Loosing 3KM only ? Actually if its true, we loose about 33% or the range on each TE ? So what will be the range exemple for a zealot with scorch which is shooting now at 54km with falloff and with this nerf ?
Since missiles blob bot will shoot a approx 70km even if you have the flight time to have missiles damages..
Next update NANO from 2k ms to 1k only coz nano is evil i guess.. |
2manno Asp
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
180
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 13:20:00 -
[368] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Kaal Redrum wrote:
Lol, you're very passionate about this - do explain why exactly this change is needed. I'm a pirate, who flies pretty much all sub-Bs ships, I'll just enjoy my time in another hull/fit, but am very curious where this change comes from.
Finally, the 22km range used is an approximation - ofcourse you'll swing between 20-24km. Irrespective it's still a 15ish % nerf to applied dps. Why are you PL boys so bothered about the 22km number.
Use your 200 vs 250dps number, are you telling me that a 20% applied dps nerf isn't 'really that big a difference?' how much premium are people paying for 5-10% increases using faction/deadspace mods and implants?
I'm passionate because your argument doesn't seem to be based on facts. You said you like to hang around 22-24km. Whats the major difference if you can manage that kind of control to hanging between 17-19km? No new module has any effect at that range. As to the DPS change, your words, not mine, yours, were that this change makes the ship fits "dead". You're over exaggerating so much that according to you this change kills the fits of about 8 or 9 ships. Dead. Non viable in any way. That's not even close to accurate, because as I've shown with real live numbers, the difference after this change is fairly minimal, and shouldn't have any bearing on your playstyle if you're into kiting. You simply need to make a very VERY minor adjustment.
because one does not simply control range at 17-19km without an adversely high risk of being scrammed.
even if it were a straight line increase in risk, which it isn't (that is to say the closer you get to the scramming ship, the risk of being scrammed not only increases, but accelerates), you're talking about a 15% greater chance of being scrammed.
now i have heard ogb are incoming, but for now at least, 1 o/h boosted scram will scram out to 16km. one o/h boosted web will web out to 19km.
if you think that's a minimal increase in risk, think again. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
43
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 13:22:00 -
[369] - Quote
And how about adding the missile change with them and TD's etc? 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium |
Casha Andven
the undivided Negative Ten.
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 13:23:00 -
[370] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Kaal Redrum wrote:
Lol, you're very passionate about this - do explain why exactly this change is needed. I'm a pirate, who flies pretty much all sub-Bs ships, I'll just enjoy my time in another hull/fit, but am very curious where this change comes from.
Finally, the 22km range used is an approximation - ofcourse you'll swing between 20-24km. Irrespective it's still a 15ish % nerf to applied dps. Why are you PL boys so bothered about the 22km number.
Use your 200 vs 250dps number, are you telling me that a 20% applied dps nerf isn't 'really that big a difference?' how much premium are people paying for 5-10% increases using faction/deadspace mods and implants?
I'm passionate because your argument doesn't seem to be based on facts. You said you like to hang around 22-24km. Whats the major difference if you can manage that kind of control to hanging between 17-19km? No new module has any effect at that range. As to the DPS change, your words, not mine, yours, were that this change makes the ship fits "dead". You're over exaggerating so much that according to you this change kills the fits of about 8 or 9 ships. Dead. Non viable in any way. That's not even close to accurate, because as I've shown with real live numbers, the difference after this change is fairly minimal, and shouldn't have any bearing on your playstyle if you're into kiting. You simply need to make a very VERY minor adjustment.
For kiting setups with sub-par tanks that depend on speed for survival the difference between moving from 22km to 17km can be very critical. 17km is going very close to overloaded web range and any kiting setups once webbed is pretty much dead. Its interesting that you keep bringing up the example of the Machariel in an effort to downplay the effects of this nerf, when that billion isk ship already has a huge falloff. What about something like the Stabber, which is designed from the ground up to kite? Right now a Stabber fit like below can create about 120 dps at range of 19-20km. Post nerf it has to come closer to a range of 16km, dangerously close to overloaded boosted web range. It just makes kiting way harder, which is of course not a consequence to the players who never try it. To small gang/ solo pvp examples of which we have seen in numerous videos and blogs (Kil2 and Garmon's come to mind) it is an unnecessary nerf.
[Stabber, kiter] Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II
Medium Shield Extender II Medium Shield Extender II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 5W Infectious Power System Malfunction 50W Infectious Power System Malfunction
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
|
|
2manno Asp
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
180
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 13:29:00 -
[371] - Quote
Nikuno wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Kobea Thris wrote:Just to clarify, are you happy with the state of range scripted tracking computers? I don't see a dire need to change them. After this change TEs will give more range than an unscripted TC but less than a scripted one. I'd prefer to see TEs nerfed a bit more tbh. I'd prefer a situation where the TC (requiring more fitting and being an active module) sits equal with or slightly superior to the TE in it's unscripted form and then has the scripted alternative when needed. I don't see the sense of the TC becoming better by less than 100% of the TE with a script loaded since at that point it has lost either it's tracking or range benefits. On top of the tougher fitting needs. And the cap usage. Nerf TEs to 40-50% of current for me.
yea you'd prefer that until you realize many ships, namlely amarr and gallente, have a crushing lack of mid slots, with the slicer, retri, and coercer having only 2.
maybe the TC should be boosted to make it worth using a mid for. but nerfing the TE? come on man. |
Lelob
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
115
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 13:43:00 -
[372] - Quote
Why am I not surprised that it's the usual blobbing suspects that are rejoicing in this proposed change.
Just like the hml nerf, this is too heavy. People kept saying oh look, hml nerf won't be so bad, you'll still be ok! Turns out, nope, the hml nerf has made tengu fleets all but obsolete, drakes are practically ******* useless and people actively look for ways not to use hml's. Don't make the same mistake of obsoleting whole classes of ships because you totally nerfed one thing.
This is something that will have serious affects, both on the small gang side and large gang. As usual however, it feels like you have completely neglected the small-gang side of the issue, instead considering how it will affect fleet fights.
If anything this feels more like a heavy-handed nerf intended to hit t3 bc's, but one that will completely invalidate a huge number of fun, nano shield-ships that are not t3 bc's. Personally, I cannot think of any ship currently using te's on it that needs to be nerfed that is not a t3 bc. Please, if you do care just fix the t3 bc hulls and don't go through with this heavy-handed nerf that will drive so many fun ships into the ground. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1368
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 13:45:00 -
[373] - Quote
Nomispanco wrote: Loosing 3KM only ? Actually if its true, we loose about 33% or the range on each TE ? So what will be the range exemple for a zealot with scorch which is shooting now at 54km with falloff and with this nerf ?.
Well assuming you're currently running a 3 t2 TE set up on your zealot your number should look something like this:
48+9.6
Post change:
43+7.8
A collective loss of 5km optimal and 1.8km fall off, no major hit at that range anyway, you literally won't notice, and will still likely be trying to keep your target over 40km, so net change to your playstyle: none.
2manno Asp wrote: now i have heard ogb are incoming, but for now at least, 1 o/h boosted scram will scram out to 16km. one o/h boosted web will web out to 19km. .
Look at the bigger picture bro, they've outright stated that the 5% boosts are going away, and that the 3% will return to being the peak command ship boost.
The time line for this was "likely this summer", which would be this release here. Instead of focusing on one single change try to keep the collected lot of them in mind when viewing something. They've said theres a technical bottleneck around removing off grid boosting, but that nuking the t3 cruiser command ship bonuses was 100% coming, the more specialized command ships will get their role back while the jack of all trades t3's will be exactly that, more options on boosting at a weaker power level.
In other words you wont be dealing with scrams and webs at that range unless they're faction, and to be honest you have to deal with faction webs and scrams at the ranges you're operating at now.
|
Katsami
Sancta Terra
14
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 13:46:00 -
[374] - Quote
Lelob wrote:Why am I not surprised that it's the usual blobbing suspects that are rejoicing in this proposed change.
Just like the hml nerf, this is too heavy. People kept saying oh look, hml nerf won't be so bad, you'll still be ok! Turns out, nope, the hml nerf has made tengu fleets all but obsolete, drakes are practically ******* useless and people actively look for ways not to use hml's. Don't make the same mistake of obsoleting whole classes of ships because you totally nerfed one thing.
If anything this feels more like a heavy-handed nerf intended to hit t3 bc's, but one that will completely invalidate a huge number of fun, nano shield-ships that are not t3 bc's. Personally, I cannot think of any ship currently using te's on it that needs to be nerfed that is not a t3 bc. Please, if you do care just fix the t3 bc hulls and don't go through with this heavy-handed nerf that will drive so many fun ships into the ground.
How else would CCP get it's daily amount of pissing off the majority of the playerbase in? |
Zenith Gravit
LionGate Enterprises Care Factor
3
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 13:47:00 -
[375] - Quote
2manno Asp wrote:[quote=Nikuno] yea you'd prefer that until you realize many ships, namlely amarr and gallente, have a crushing lack of mid slots, with the slicer, retri, and coercer having only 2.
maybe the TC should be boosted to make it worth using a mid for. but nerfing the TE? come on man.
I support this! |
Meditril
T.R.I.A.D
248
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 13:52:00 -
[376] - Quote
Whow... another nerf to Minmatar ships.
And on the other side of the coin it is a hidden boost to already OP caldari missile spammers. |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
72
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 13:53:00 -
[377] - Quote
I thought the stabber fit linked about would be an interesting point of reference for the TE changes so I was just fiddling with it a little bit and the results are at the bottom. I think its likely that you will feel this effect (usually between a 5% and 15% Im guessing) at typical engagement ranges for kiting ships like the stabber or the talos - but it seems unlikely that the role of the ship will be compromised to an extent that they would be abandoned. More likely, there will just be some extra room for ships like armor harb or armor brutix to have a role.
The fundamental ability to engage large groups with small ones won't change at all. It may take slightly more time to wear down ships that you isolate, depending on relative ranges, and there may be slightly more flexibility for tackling frigs to be on grid for longer, but overall this change shouldn't shift the meta much.
[Stabber, kiter] Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II
Medium Shield Extender II Medium Shield Extender II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 5W Infectious Power System Malfunction 50W Infectious Power System Malfunction
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
BARRAGE 6.5% dps drop at 20k 3.51+37.2 with the old TE 187dps@20km 3.23+32 with new TE 175dps@20km RF EMP - 18% dps drop at 20km 1.75+24.8 with old TE 170dps@20km 1.61+21.3 with new TE 140dps@20km
|
|
OldWolf69
IR0N. SpaceMonkey's Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 13:55:00 -
[378] - Quote
Too many specs. Why, in all the world would be the NERF be a answer to all the problems? Once again: this used to be a awesome game, with awesome starships and awesome weapons. Nerf proves nothing else than lacking imagination, and, more than that, lacking capacity in finding lucrative solutions. What will follow in a year or more: weapons shooting backwards to punish the user and pilots trolling other pilots to death because there's nothing left to kill with? This happening in stations, because there will be no ships worth flying? Too many isk in this game? Then admit it, and act accordingly. Removing fun means removing game. Stop ******* aroung with **** like " there's too many people doing the same thing in this game". Maybe they do it because there are just few fun things to do? Get content. Stop explaining broken tools are cool, because those aren't cool. One can scratch his left ear with his right foot, but this not cool, is just stupid. Sorry, mr. Fozzy. I can't agree with the fact that breaking the game actually improves it. And you guys should focus on getting new things to game. NEW THINGS, not new NERFS. |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
72
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 13:57:00 -
[379] - Quote
Small addition -
Obviously many of you seem frustrated that X Y or Z ship that used shields and TEs is getting nerfed, how many ships that don't use TEs are picking up that slack to punish you for this change? HAM caracals maybe? Not drakes right because they just got a big change as well...
I'm genuinely asking because the only space I see being created is for armor based ships that already needed the lows for their tanks - and I don't see those ships becoming stronger than skirmishers based on this change. Am I wrong? |
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
144
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 13:58:00 -
[380] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I thought the stabber fit linked about would be an interesting point of reference for the TE changes so I was just fiddling with it a little bit and the results are at the bottom. I think its likely that you will feel this effect (usually between a 5% and 15% Im guessing) at typical engagement ranges for kiting ships like the stabber or the talos - but it seems unlikely that the role of the ship will be compromised to an extent that they would be abandoned. More likely, there will just be some extra room for ships like armor harb or armor brutix to have a role.
The fundamental ability to engage large groups with small ones won't change at all. It may take slightly more time to wear down ships that you isolate, depending on relative ranges, and there may be slightly more flexibility for tackling frigs to be on grid for longer, but overall this change shouldn't shift the meta much.
[Stabber, kiter] Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II
Medium Shield Extender II Medium Shield Extender II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 5W Infectious Power System Malfunction 50W Infectious Power System Malfunction
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
BARRAGE 6.5% dps drop at 20k
3.51+37.2 with the old TE 187dps@20km 3.23+32 with new TE 175dps@20km RF EMP - 18% dps drop at 20km 1.75+24.8 with old TE 170dps@20km 1.61+21.3 with new TE 140dps@20km
rofl medium extender |
|
darkness reins
The Church of Awesome Caldari State Capturing
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 13:58:00 -
[381] - Quote
TE nerf. Mehh gonna kill off kiting frigs with that great idea. My executioner with max skills optimal abt 16km falloff abt 3 k with one tracking enhancer. Looks like im gonna have to scrap all my ships. Not unless u plan on giving the executioner an optimal and falloff bonus. Whichvim sure you wont. |
2manno Asp
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
180
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:00:00 -
[382] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:Mobility should matter much, just like IRL, otherwise the game is really dumb.
qft |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
43
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:00:00 -
[383] - Quote
i do think webs and links need a nerf to control the excessive range and strength of the mods. 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium |
MainDrain
7th Deepari Defence Armada
166
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:00:00 -
[384] - Quote
OldWolf69 wrote: Too many specs. Why, in all the world would be the NERF be a answer to all the problems? Once again: this used to be a awesome game, with awesome starships and awesome weapons. Nerf proves nothing else than lacking imagination, and, more than that, lacking capacity in finding lucrative solutions. What will follow in a year or more: weapons shooting backwards to punish the user and pilots trolling other pilots to death because there's nothing left to kill with? This happening in stations, because there will be no ships worth flying? Too many isk in this game? Then admit it, and act accordingly. Removing fun means removing game. Stop ******* aroung with **** like " there's too many people doing the same thing in this game". Maybe they do it because there are just few fun things to do? Get content. Stop explaining broken tools are cool, because those aren't cool. One can scratch his left ear with his right foot, but this not cool, is just stupid. Sorry, mr. Fozzy. I can't agree with the fact that breaking the game actually improves it. And you guys should focus on getting new things to game. NEW THINGS, not new NERFS.
So your answer is to ignore things considered broken (like meta levels not working as they should) and instead just fire in a load of new modules so people have something new and shiny to play with ...
Im of the mindset that fixing things that are broken is better. They cant just buff everything else to try and make those few broken modules come into line. Its easier to go to the source of the problem, and bring it down to the level it should have been originally. |
Sparkus Volundar
Applied Creations The Fendahlian Collective
29
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:01:00 -
[385] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Sparkus Volundar wrote: Since Falloff mechanics incorporate damage reduction with range, I donGÇÖt personally think that a baseline of TEs offering a larger bonus to falloff than optimal is a problem incidentally
I already posted math evidence of why fallof bonus must be exaclty double the range bonus. Go check it. That was discussed beyond any thinkable limits years ago when the changes were implemented.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
War Kitten wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: This change affects falloff and optimal bonuses equally, so it doesn't decrease Minmatar falloff relative to any other ship that fits TEs. Minmatar feel the pain mainly because they have a lot of ships that shield tank and use extra lows for TEs.
Sparkus Volundar wrote: Minmatar might feel pain because they can shield tank with more low slots but there is also the fundamental aspect that Minmatar weapons are biased towards a greater proportion of falloff relative to optimal.
So whilst yes, the % changes are the same against all weapons, this proposed change will affect projectiles proportionately more than hybrids or energy weapons because the starting point is TEs offering more falloff than optimal. Since Falloff mechanics incorporate damage reduction with range, I donGÇÖt personally think that a baseline of TEs offering a larger bonus to falloff than optimal is a problem incidentally (but others could disagree).
Proportionally is exactly the wrong word here. The effect on projectiles versus the effect on hybrids is larger in magnitude. But proportionally, the effect is the same. TE's give 33% less to everyone. Same proportion.
No, because you are talking about different things to what I talked about.
The effect on optimal and falloff is the same regardless of what turret but that does not mean that the effect on projectiles is the same as on other types of turrets (due to falloff damage reduction mechanics). Applied Creations is recruiting. Mystic Volundar says, "It could be you! " |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1369
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:01:00 -
[386] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I thought the stabber fit linked about would be an interesting point of reference for the TE changes so I was just fiddling with it a little bit and the results are at the bottom. I think its likely that you will feel this effect (usually between a 5% and 15% Im guessing) at typical engagement ranges for kiting ships like the stabber or the talos - but it seems unlikely that the role of the ship will be compromised to an extent that they would be abandoned. More likely, there will just be some extra room for ships like armor harb or armor brutix to have a role.
The fundamental ability to engage large groups with small ones won't change at all. It may take slightly more time to wear down ships that you isolate, depending on relative ranges, and there may be slightly more flexibility for tackling frigs to be on grid for longer, but overall this change shouldn't shift the meta much.
[Stabber, kiter] Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II
Medium Shield Extender II Medium Shield Extender II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 5W Infectious Power System Malfunction 50W Infectious Power System Malfunction
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
BARRAGE 6.5% dps drop at 20k
3.51+37.2 with the old TE 187dps@20km 3.23+32 with new TE 175dps@20km RF EMP - 18% dps drop at 20km 1.75+24.8 with old TE 170dps@20km 1.61+21.3 with new TE 140dps@20km
You should be careful making sense like this, they have a box of tissues out and Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants loaded up and they know what to do with it
|
Lyron-Baktos
Selective Pressure Rote Kapelle
416
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:02:00 -
[387] - Quote
have I missed the tears from the hi-sec gate camping faggots, i mean pirates? How the **** do you remove a signature? |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
236
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:03:00 -
[388] - Quote
Meditril wrote:Whow... another nerf to Minmatar ships. And on the other side of the coin it is a hidden boost to already OP caldari missile spammers. heh? what another nerf? there was no matar nerf ever yeah op missiles are so op less and less people use them each day |
2manno Asp
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
180
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:03:00 -
[389] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:2manno Asp wrote: wrong, on smaller ships the change will be considerably more noticeable.
On a battleship you lose 10km in fall off, on a cruiser you lose about 3km fall off, on a frigate you lose about 1km fall off. So again, you'll notice those range differences more on larger hulls, thanks for playing along from home.
you're not getting it. it's not a matter of absolute figures. anyone can point to a large # and say it's a larger number than a smaller one.
the effect will be felt much more on smaller ships, as the margins they play with are much smaller.
and no, thank you for playing along from home. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
491
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:06:00 -
[390] - Quote
Kil2 approves of the changes. /thread guys. You are all bad and should feel bad |
|
Katsami
Sancta Terra
14
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:06:00 -
[391] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Small addition -
Obviously many of you seem frustrated that X Y or Z ship that used shields and TEs is getting nerfed, how many ships that don't use TEs are picking up that slack to punish you for this change? HAM caracals maybe? Not drakes right because they just got a big change as well...
I'm genuinely asking because the only space I see being created is for armor based ships that already needed the lows for their tanks - and I don't see those ships becoming stronger than skirmishers based on this change. Am I wrong?
My biggest objection is simply that it is a blanket nerf. You can't even begin to predict what the meta is going to look like when you adjust a major stim by 33%. |
OldWolf69
IR0N. SpaceMonkey's Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:07:00 -
[392] - Quote
@MainDrain: Ofc, fixing things is good. There's a ton of things that need more fix than weapons and ships. BTW, with the actual weapons ansd ships people did play just fine, in same time with having some eternal **** when using other modules or a POS. ...whatever. A game presumes it's fun to play it. Not screwing around with ways to go around things and make them usefull. I don't play the best EVE player, because i'm not. I just say that there's a lot of things wich could improve this game , not the Great Nerf, given as a answer to all the problems. It's just the easy way to get rid of a problem. Not necesarely solve the problem. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
348
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:07:00 -
[393] - Quote
This is a huge buff to tacklers and armor ships which will be good for the metagaming in Eve. |
2manno Asp
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
180
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:08:00 -
[394] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Nomispanco wrote: Loosing 3KM only ? Actually if its true, we loose about 33% or the range on each TE ? So what will be the range exemple for a zealot with scorch which is shooting now at 54km with falloff and with this nerf ?.
Well assuming you're currently running a 3 t2 TE set up on your zealot your number should look something like this: 48+9.6 Post change: 43+7.8 A collective loss of 5km optimal and 1.8km fall off, no major hit at that range anyway, you literally won't notice, and will still likely be trying to keep your target over 40km, so net change to your playstyle: none. 2manno Asp wrote: now i have heard ogb are incoming, but for now at least, 1 o/h boosted scram will scram out to 16km. one o/h boosted web will web out to 19km. .
Look at the bigger picture bro, they've outright stated that the 5% boosts are going away, and that the 3% will return to being the peak command ship boost. The time line for this was "likely this summer", which would be this release here. Instead of focusing on one single change try to keep the collected lot of them in mind when viewing something. They've said theres a technical bottleneck around removing off grid boosting, but that nuking the t3 cruiser command ship bonuses was 100% coming, the more specialized command ships will get their role back while the jack of all trades t3's will be exactly that, more options on boosting at a weaker power level. In other words you wont be dealing with scrams and webs at that range unless they're faction, and to be honest you have to deal with faction webs and scrams at the ranges you're operating at now.
then you're making my point. unless you can explain how moving a ranged ship closer is a good idea? |
Sentient Blade
Walk It Off
869
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:12:00 -
[395] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I'm genuinely asking because the only space I see being created is for armor based ships that already needed the lows for their tanks - and I don't see those ships becoming stronger than skirmishers based on this change. Am I wrong?
The closer you push the ships together, the more it favours armour IMO. Close range implies a lesser need for manoeuvrability and more need for straight out EHP and Ewar, which armour ships excel at. Once you've been landed with a scram and web then you're just going to get pummelled if you're trying to skirmish, and these changes force skirmishes closer to the close-range ewar which will kill them. |
darkness reins
The Church of Awesome Caldari State Capturing
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:13:00 -
[396] - Quote
Can someone please show how this will affect kiting frig fits for the atron/slasher abd executioner |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1799
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:13:00 -
[397] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I thought the stabber fit linked about would be an interesting point of reference for the TE changes so I was just fiddling with it a little bit and the results are at the bottom. I think its likely that you will feel this effect (usually between a 5% and 15% Im guessing) at typical engagement ranges for kiting ships like the stabber or the talos - but it seems unlikely that the role of the ship will be compromised to an extent that they would be abandoned. More likely, there will just be some extra room for ships like armor harb or armor brutix to have a role.
The fundamental ability to engage large groups with small ones won't change at all. It may take slightly more time to wear down ships that you isolate, depending on relative ranges, and there may be slightly more flexibility for tackling frigs to be on grid for longer, but overall this change shouldn't shift the meta much.
[Stabber, kiter] Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II
Medium Shield Extender II Medium Shield Extender II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 5W Infectious Power System Malfunction 50W Infectious Power System Malfunction
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
BARRAGE 6.5% dps drop at 20k
3.51+37.2 with the old TE 187dps@20km 3.23+32 with new TE 175dps@20km RF EMP - 18% dps drop at 20km 1.75+24.8 with old TE 170dps@20km 1.61+21.3 with new TE 140dps@20km
Oh look, someone from CCP who plays the game. A LOT. As a kiter and solo/small gang pilot.
Huh.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Lelob
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
116
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:14:00 -
[398] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Small addition -
Obviously many of you seem frustrated that X Y or Z ship that used shields and TEs is getting nerfed, how many ships that don't use TEs are picking up that slack to punish you for this change? HAM caracals maybe? Not drakes right because they just got a big change as well...
I'm genuinely asking because the only space I see being created is for armor based ships that already needed the lows for their tanks - and I don't see those ships becoming stronger than skirmishers based on this change. Am I wrong?
Simply put, nobody is going to fly an armour harbinger or brutix in small gang situations unless they have a death-wish. What this change will do is force kiters closer in to hostile gangs and closer to their force multipliers: notably their huggins/lokis and lachs/proteus. It reduces small gang pvpers abilities to engage with larger hostile gangs, and will just force the kiters to run away instead of having a fun fight. Nobody in their right mind will suit up into armour though, simply because doing so means jumping into a slower, less agile ship that cannot kite and will simply be caught and utterly stomped on by any gang bigger then it.
For ships where a range nerf like t3 bc's is desperately needed, it won't be the end of the world, given that the hulls are completely broken atm. For something like a hurricane, however, a 5-15% dps reduction unless they brawl is a pretty big deal. All I see this doing is making it harder for small gangs to engage larger gangs. It will not fix t3 bc's, it certainly won't make armour even marginally palpable for small gang, and will probably just force people into more and more t3 bc's for kiting. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
266
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:14:00 -
[399] - Quote
2manno Asp wrote:then you're making the point. unless you can expalin how moving a ranged ship closer is a good idea again? Or the range ship will stay at the same distance than before and do a little less damage. But as 0 < some-but-a-little-less-than-before, you will still kill your target.
The problem can only come with ships already at their max possible range (usually not minmatar ship, because of the way falloff work). The change can put these ships in the "out of range" range ; but if this is the case, they were probably using a too short range weapon anyway.
IMO, this change will put some balance between short and long range weapons by making LR weapons more attractive at long short range. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1370
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:15:00 -
[400] - Quote
2manno Asp wrote: you're not getting it..
No its YOU who's not getting why the absolute numbers matter, the numbers on the frigates will be so small as to not really matter.
2manno Asp wrote: then you're making my point. unless you can explain how moving a ranged ship closer is a good idea?
You're moving 5km closer on a ship designed to operate out to 50km
Cry me a river.
|
|
Mord Raven
Phrike Squadron
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:19:00 -
[401] - Quote
As skirmish ships like the Vagabond will lose a lot of damage projection with anything else than barrage, will we simultaneously see buffs to these specialized ships? |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1800
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:20:00 -
[402] - Quote
Katsami wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Small addition -
Obviously many of you seem frustrated that X Y or Z ship that used shields and TEs is getting nerfed, how many ships that don't use TEs are picking up that slack to punish you for this change? HAM caracals maybe? Not drakes right because they just got a big change as well...
I'm genuinely asking because the only space I see being created is for armor based ships that already needed the lows for their tanks - and I don't see those ships becoming stronger than skirmishers based on this change. Am I wrong? My biggest objection is simply that it is a blanket nerf. You can't even begin to predict what the meta is going to look like when you adjust a major stim by 33%.
33% sounds like a big number all by itself.
But we're talking 33% of a 15%/30% bonus mod.
You're not losing 33% of your range, you're losing 5%/10% optimal/falloff. (With one TE)
It's not a big change.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
MainDrain
7th Deepari Defence Armada
166
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:20:00 -
[403] - Quote
OldWolf69 wrote:@MainDrain: Ofc, fixing things is good. There's a ton of things that need more fix than weapons and ships. BTW, with the actual weapons ansd ships people did play just fine, in same time with having some eternal **** when using other modules or a POS. ...whatever. A game presumes it's fun to play it. Not screwing around with ways to go around things and make them usefull. I don't play the best EVE player, because i'm not. I just say that there's a lot of things wich could improve this game , not the Great Nerf, given as a answer to all the problems. It's just the easy way to get rid of a problem. Not necesarely solve the problem.
Nerfing is far from the best solution to most problems. However it appears that a few modules where either initially designed flawed or due to other changes in mechanics have over time before far to useful, and as such need nerfing back in line.
for the person that complained that this is a bigger hit on the larger ships, we dont know fully what effect the re balancing on the BSs will have when linked with these changes.
@CCP Fozzie/Rise When will early versions of these changes, along with the new BS changes be available on the test server. i think people will be a able to give more informed feedback when they can actually see the changes in practice |
darkness reins
The Church of Awesome Caldari State Capturing
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:23:00 -
[404] - Quote
Personally i think ccp fozzie has taken far to many boosters and his mind has become slightly deranged.so possible fix nerf ccp they are far to overpowered in my opinion.lol |
Oxente
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
7
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:26:00 -
[405] - Quote
My CEO dunking on battleclinic eft warrior's in a 20 page posting marathon. SNIGG#1
EFT Warrioring will always fail vs actual flying of ships
Nerf more things please Raivi, this should only be the beginning. |
Sparkus Volundar
Applied Creations The Fendahlian Collective
29
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:28:00 -
[406] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Small addition -
Obviously many of you seem frustrated that X Y or Z ship that used shields and TEs is getting nerfed, how many ships that don't use TEs are picking up that slack to punish you for this change? HAM caracals maybe? Not drakes right because they just got a big change as well...
I'm genuinely asking because the only space I see being created is for armor based ships that already needed the lows for their tanks - and I don't see those ships becoming stronger than skirmishers based on this change. Am I wrong?
Projectile ships don't tend to have the most paper DPS in their class but they get useful damage selection like several missile ships. However, they are generally under-tanked compared to dedicated armour and shield ships due to slot layouts, which sub-capital projectile ships try to offset by leveraging a less worse damage drop-off through having relatively long falloff.
Nerffing TEs isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as it's done with consideration of the impact it will have on projectile weapon ships, which will be affected more so that hybrid and energy weapon ships (I describe why I think that is the case in my first reply to this thread). My concern here is that TEs seem to primarily be being balanced in relation to TCs, which are generally used with different ships and/or fitting doctrines.
CCP Fozzie referred to TEs giving a decent tracking boost alongside the same range bonus as a range-scripted TC. Whilst no one would really want to say GÇ£no thanksGÇ¥ to a tracking bonus, I think itGÇÖs really the range bonuses of a TE that are the reason for using one. How about renaming them Range Enhancers and just dropping the tracking bonus instead?
Applied Creations is recruiting. Mystic Volundar says, "It could be you! " |
darkness reins
The Church of Awesome Caldari State Capturing
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:32:00 -
[407] - Quote
We could always balance every ship and mod in eve until nothing is better than anything else, just so we all become bored and stop playing eve. |
Lee Janssen
Tr0pa de elite. Pandemic Legion
10
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:32:00 -
[408] - Quote
Pretty unnecessary nerf tbh.
OH WELLLP. -Gîíanssen |
darkness reins
The Church of Awesome Caldari State Capturing
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:37:00 -
[409] - Quote
Seems to me every nerf and every balance ccp make will bring eve to the inevitable pvp style of huge blob fleets and tge winner is the fleet with most ships. Smsll scale pvper is hard enough without ccp kicking small gang/solo pvpers in the teeth. The inpendind t3 booster nerf being one kick in the teeth. |
Roderick Grey
Broski North Black Legion.
292
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:38:00 -
[410] - Quote
Will this mean that armor blaster tengus will become more viable? GÇ£We could learn a lot from crayons; some are sharp, some are pretty, some are dull, while others bright, some have weird names, but they all have learned to live together in the same box.GÇ¥- Special needs division of Fcon. |
|
RudeX X
Shirak SkunkWorks Amarrian Commandos
10
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:38:00 -
[411] - Quote
ccp, please. why do u help the big corps and fleets AGAIN? the only way that small gangs can fight the blobs is sniper/kitter ships. now u will punish the small corps AGAIN with this TE nerf. there must be soo much whining about the kiters. there are lots of modules in the game which need rebalance, but not this one. this change force ppl to use short range ships, so in pvp the one, who has more friends or more armor going to win. what a fun! |
Alli Othman
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
47
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:40:00 -
[412] - Quote
Thank you CCP PL for your wonderful gift to your people.
Please unnerf titans next, tia. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
693
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:40:00 -
[413] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Small addition -
Obviously many of you seem frustrated that X Y or Z ship that used shields and TEs is getting nerfed, how many ships that don't use TEs are picking up that slack to punish you for this change? HAM caracals maybe? Not drakes right because they just got a big change as well...
I'm genuinely asking because the only space I see being created is for armor based ships that already needed the lows for their tanks - and I don't see those ships becoming stronger than skirmishers based on this change. Am I wrong?
HAM caracal is the best kiter by far...
Except it can't shoot frigs. BYDI (Shadow cartel) Recruitment open!
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
22
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:44:00 -
[414] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I thought the stabber fit linked about would be an interesting point of reference for the TE changes so I was just fiddling with it a little bit and the results are at the bottom. I think its likely that you will feel this effect (usually between a 5% and 15% Im guessing) at typical engagement ranges for kiting ships like the stabber or the talos - but it seems unlikely that the role of the ship will be compromised to an extent that they would be abandoned. More likely, there will just be some extra room for ships like armor harb or armor brutix to have a role.
The fundamental ability to engage large groups with small ones won't change at all. It may take slightly more time to wear down ships that you isolate, depending on relative ranges, and there may be slightly more flexibility for tackling frigs to be on grid for longer, but overall this change shouldn't shift the meta much.
We do not want to imply that your changes are goign to diminish the value of mobility. Not at all. I kind of agree with some nerf of TE.
I think what we woudl all love you guys at CCP tackle is the annalysis of current metagame . Why certain fits are more prevalent or not. And the main reason somethign is used or not in a game is seldom related to being more powerful. I am a Magic The Gathering player for tons of years, and something that I learned very well there is that usage of something is direct product of the current metagame and not the relative capabilities of that card or strategy. Several times imrpessive cards are not used at all, because the current metagame presents no opportunities for those.
That is what I, and I am sure several others would love you guys to analyse and bring up on your discussions of game balance. The balance is much less about if module X or Y is strong, and much more about. Why in hell everyone NEEDS to use tactics Z or T in current metagame. As I brought up earlier, large armor buffered battleships were dominant in AoE doomsday days. Was it because they were superior to kiting ships being repaired by logistics? No! Was because the doomsday presence made that type of tactic necessary.
Summary: There is always too much talk about ships and modules and too few talk about the metagame and reasons why certain tactics are used or even overused.
Why people fit shield tankers with range and damage mods? My personal analysis points to the excessive specialization of ships where the mid slots are almost always very valuable only on a few specialized ships, relegating all the non specialized ships to focus on the firepower role. And the best way to increase firepower is shield tank. Obviously when you still have slots left in low slots, the best thing you can do is stick a few TE there.
Even simpler example. In ages past, Tempests would be armor tanked and the 5th mid would be used for an multi spec ECM . When ECM was made useless outside specialized ships, there was no advantage of having a free 5th mid. It clearly became much more inteligent to shield and gank the tempest and bring a dedicated tackler alongside.
I hope I was able to transmit my toughts and that they can be helpful. |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
74
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:46:00 -
[415] - Quote
I understand the allure of hyperbole related to the death of the small gang versus the blob - but this change should definitely be considered in the context of a game where a gang with some standard cruisers and BCs with a couple skirmish links can engage at almost any ratio of friend to foe.
Its fun to engage outnumbered (I've heard), but expecting a few extremely strong mods to do a large portion of the work for you seems a bit over the top.
It also seems important to me that since speed isn't actually being effected here, fast moving skirmish engagements will likely look very similar except that during critical moments there will be a slightly higher tendency to commit. This could mean more vulnerability for the awesome small gang of nano pilots, or it could also mean that your prey now has to venture closer to actually apply dps.
I like writing posts but I'm not sure its doing any good |
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
23
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:48:00 -
[416] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I understand the allure of hyperbole related to the death of the small gang versus the blob - but this change should definitely be considered in the context of a game where a gang with some standard cruisers and BCs with a couple skirmish links can engage at almost any ratio of friend to foe. Its fun to engage outnumbered (I've heard), but expecting a few extremely strong mods to do a large portion of the work for you seems a bit over the top. It also seems important to me that since speed isn't actually being effected here, fast moving skirmish engagements will likely look very similar except that during critical moments there will be a slightly higher tendency to commit. This could mean more vulnerability for the awesome small gang of nano pilots, or it could also mean that your prey now has to venture closer to actually apply dps. I like writing posts but I'm not sure its doing any good
It does a lot of good. communication cannot be done in one way only And without communication there is no understanding, and without understanding.. there is always frustration at the end of the path..
I think this change is correct. I just think we have seen not enough indications of analysis of why we got into a scenario where almost every ship uses TE :) |
Lee Janssen
Tr0pa de elite. Pandemic Legion
10
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:51:00 -
[417] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I understand the allure of hyperbole related to the death of the small gang versus the blob - but this change should definitely be considered in the context of a game where a gang with some standard cruisers and BCs with a couple skirmish links can engage at almost any ratio of friend to foe. Its fun to engage outnumbered (I've heard), but expecting a few extremely strong mods to do a large portion of the work for you seems a bit over the top. It also seems important to me that since speed isn't actually being effected here, fast moving skirmish engagements will likely look very similar except that during critical moments there will be a slightly higher tendency to commit. This could mean more vulnerability for the awesome small gang of nano pilots, or it could also mean that your prey now has to venture closer to actually apply dps. I like writing posts but I'm not sure its doing any good
Crucifier(s)
How do i use them. -Gîíanssen |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1371
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:51:00 -
[418] - Quote
RudeX X wrote:ccp, please. why do u help the big corps and fleets AGAIN? the only way that small gangs can fight the blobs is sniper/kitter ships. now u will punish the small corps AGAIN with this TE nerf. there must be soo much whining about the kiters. there are lots of modules in the game which need rebalance, but not this one. this change force ppl to use short range ships, so in pvp the one, who has more friends or more armor going to win. what a fun! please detail how you feel this forces you into short ranged ships.
Be specific, use numbers.
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
74
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:52:00 -
[419] - Quote
Quote:I hope I was able to transmit my toughts and that they can be helpful.
I really like the idea of looking at the meta rather than only picking at some flat idea of balance based purely on numerical comparison.
However, I think Eve's meta (or specific eve combat environment metas) is extremely complex, and it many cases is the result of a sum of many small, number based powerlevels. For instance I imagine that there's some threshold related to damage projection that makes kiting the preferred method of balancing damage output and survivability. If we can push the player decisions back towards the threshold instead of leaving everything way past it, we hopefully create more meaningful decisions for players to make. Sometimes a small numerical tweak like this might be the easiest path to creating more of those decisions.
Make any sense?
|
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1612
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:52:00 -
[420] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:This is a huge buff to tacklers and armor ships which will be good for the metagaming in Eve. its more a buff to missile boats than anything else. There are less and less reasons to fly ships like slicers if you can do almost the same in condors with a tenth of the isk investment. Sure the nerf "only" removes 800m optimal and 350m falloff from the slicer, but the ship already had a very popular direct counter: TD a eve-style bounty system (done)-á dust boarding parties You fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
144
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:55:00 -
[421] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I understand the allure of hyperbole related to the death of the small gang versus the blob - but this change should definitely be considered in the context of a game where a gang with some standard cruisers and BCs with a couple skirmish links can engage at almost any ratio of friend to foe. Its fun to engage outnumbered (I've heard), but expecting a few extremely strong mods to do a large portion of the work for you seems a bit over the top. It also seems important to me that since speed isn't actually being effected here, fast moving skirmish engagements will likely look very similar except that during critical moments there will be a slightly higher tendency to commit. This could mean more vulnerability for the awesome small gang of nano pilots, or it could also mean that your prey now has to venture closer to actually apply dps. I like writing posts but I'm not sure its doing any good
You're going to nerf those links, right? |
Tsubutai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
174
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:56:00 -
[422] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:The fundamental ability to engage large groups with small ones won't change at all. It may take slightly more time to wear down ships that you isolate, depending on relative ranges, and there may be slightly more flexibility for tackling frigs to be on grid for longer, but overall this change shouldn't shift the meta much.
[Stabber, kiter]
(fit snipped)
BARRAGE 6.5% dps drop at 20k
3.51+37.2 with the old TE 187dps@20km 3.23+32 with new TE 175dps@20km RF EMP - 18% dps drop at 20km 1.75+24.8 with old TE 170dps@20km 1.61+21.3 with new TE 140dps@20km
You're right that by itself, this change isn't huge - it slightly reduces the effectiveness of all kitey shield tanking turret ships. The problem is that the general usefulness and power of those ships ranges hugely, from utterly non-existent (such as that stabber - a cruiser with less dps at its working range than you get out of a well-fit t1 frigate) to extremely high (talos, cynabal, machariel). I think a lot of people would happily agree that ships in the latter category could stand to be toned down a little, but many of the ships affected by the nerf are just mediocre and somewhat underwhelming like shield canes, OK but unspectacular like arty ruptures, or straight up bad (hi stabber). I can certainly get behind a reduction to the power of kiting tier 3s and the like - if anything, they probably need more adjustment - but I don't see why it's necessary to whack a whole bunch of lesser ships at the same time. |
Krell Kroenen
Miner Intimidation
128
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:59:00 -
[423] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: Not drakes right because they just got a big change as well...
Just going to point out that in my opinion the drake changes weren't really big changes and it will still retain it's BC crown unless there is another rebalancing pass in the works for it. As for the the changes being discussed in this thread, I am rather sure that this will decrease the use and popularity of some kitting ships. But I don't believe by much, there are many people that favor that style of play and are very proficient at it. CCP has the numbers on ships used and how popular and successful they are so I guess they don't like what they are seeing and want to change it some.
On that note I hope the new fleet cane coming is more brawler/armor friendly *smirks*
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
23
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:00:00 -
[424] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:I hope I was able to transmit my toughts and that they can be helpful. I really like the idea of looking at the meta rather than only picking at some flat idea of balance based purely on numerical comparison. However, I think Eve's meta (or specific eve combat environment metas) is extremely complex, and it many cases is the result of a sum of many small, number based powerlevels. For instance I imagine that there's some threshold related to damage projection that makes kiting the preferred method of balancing damage output and survivability. If we can push the player decisions back towards the threshold instead of leaving everything way past it, we hopefully create more meaningful decisions for players to make. Sometimes a small numerical tweak like this might be the easiest path to creating more of those decisions. Make any sense?
It can make sense, when its brought together with the analysis of the metagame. Sometimes that changes will be enough because you can identify that threshold you speak of. Sometimes things cannot be qualified (as my example of why buffered armor battleships were predominant in the AoE doomsday days).
I will give you another example of why people try so hard to keep SO MUCH range nowadays. MWD overheat bonus is too huge. How that relates? When you are mid of a MWD cycle you cannot react fast enough to your target overheating its MWD if you are just 2-3 km outside their best range. What can you do? You need to increase your range buffer so that when the target overheat the MWD that doe snot mean that all your range control approach fall into pieces. Reduce the MWD overheat bonus and you reduce ONE (not all, only ONE) of the reasons why you need SO MUCH range to kite effectively nowadays (and I do not need to explain how the need of range favors massive usage of TE on falloff bonus ships and range bonuses ships )
And that goes exactly alongside your lines of bringing the threshold closer! MWD overheat bonus is one example of issues that force the player to go WAY over on that threshold limit. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
1529
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:01:00 -
[425] - Quote
My only comment about the TE nerf is this. Before going ahead with the Mach nerf mentioned elsewhere, anayluse mach performance after this TF nerf.
in other words, don't DOUBLE nerf the Mach and Cynabal into uselessness as had be done with other ships. |
sabre906
Old Spice Syndicate Sailors of the Sacred Spice
903
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:03:00 -
[426] - Quote
It was never about the range, or Caldari would've been top of the hill for the past few years.
It was always about the speed - kite something forever until it dies, if not, gtfo. What took over since the nano nerf? Oh yeah, the next fastest thing.
TE nerf hits all turret boats, especially the blasterboats that don't need a nerf.
Minmatar falloff should be increased, and their speed decreased to below shorter range boats, so you get to do a mental calculation: Can I whittle away enough of this thing's hp before it catches up to win the dps race? Standings Improvement Service https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=19454 |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
23
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:07:00 -
[427] - Quote
sabre906 wrote:It was never about the range, or Caldari would've been top of the hill for the past few years. It was always about the speed - kite something forever until it dies, if not, gtfo. What took over since the nano nerf? Oh yeah, the next fastest thing. TE nerf hits all turret boats, especially the blasterboats that don't need a nerf. Minmatar falloff should be increased, and their speed decreased to below shorter range boats, so you get to do a mental calculation: Can I whittle away enough of this thing's hp before it catches up to win the dps race?
Speed does not kill anyone without range. And caldari have been the king on larger scale warfare for quite some time. That is why heavy Missiles were nerfed.
Minmatar concept is speed. They have less EHP, capacitor, sensors etc. They cannot defeat other races on direct confrontation, you cannot expect them to do anything but kite. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1377
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:09:00 -
[428] - Quote
sabre906 wrote:
Minmatar falloff should be increased, and their speed decreased to below shorter range boats, so you get to do a mental calculation: Can I whittle away enough of this thing's hp before it catches up to win the dps race?
This is a terrible idea and you should be ashamed.
|
Kaal Redrum
The Tuskers
17
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:10:00 -
[429] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:CCP Rise wrote:The fundamental ability to engage large groups with small ones won't change at all. It may take slightly more time to wear down ships that you isolate, depending on relative ranges, and there may be slightly more flexibility for tackling frigs to be on grid for longer, but overall this change shouldn't shift the meta much.
[Stabber, kiter]
(fit snipped)
BARRAGE 6.5% dps drop at 20k
3.51+37.2 with the old TE 187dps@20km 3.23+32 with new TE 175dps@20km RF EMP - 18% dps drop at 20km 1.75+24.8 with old TE 170dps@20km 1.61+21.3 with new TE 140dps@20km
You're right that by itself, this change isn't huge - it slightly reduces the effectiveness of all kitey shield tanking turret ships. The problem is that the general usefulness and power of those ships ranges hugely, from utterly non-existent (such as that stabber - a cruiser with less dps at its working range than you get out of a well-fit t1 frigate) to extremely high (talos, cynabal, machariel). I think a lot of people would happily agree that ships in the latter category could stand to be toned down a little, but many of the ships affected by the nerf are just mediocre and somewhat underwhelming like shield canes, OK but unspectacular like arty ruptures, or straight up bad (hi stabber). I can certainly get behind a reduction to the power of kiting tier 3s and the like - if anything, they probably need more adjustment - but I don't see why it's necessary to whack a whole bunch of lesser ships at the same time.
No no no - you don't get it, it's a very very very small adjustment that us plebs will hardly notice - its been said so 'honestly' by Mr. Panda leg , so it MUST be true, especially since all his acolytes are also repeating the same 'brilliant' math - its not about a ~15% nerf to applied dps of already sub-standard ships, noooooo it's about a very very very small adjustment in your range. PL says so, you're wrong, he's right ... Okie ?
See Mach and Cynabal - so stronk - nerf TEs!
*Sarcasm off* |
monkfish2345
D'reg The Methodical Alliance
50
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:10:00 -
[430] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:I hope I was able to transmit my toughts and that they can be helpful. I really like the idea of looking at the meta rather than only picking at some flat idea of balance based purely on numerical comparison. However, I think Eve's meta (or specific eve combat environment metas) is extremely complex, and it many cases is the result of a sum of many small, number based powerlevels. For instance I imagine that there's some threshold related to damage projection that makes kiting the preferred method of balancing damage output and survivability. If we can push the player decisions back towards the threshold instead of leaving everything way past it, we hopefully create more meaningful decisions for players to make. Sometimes a small numerical tweak like this might be the easiest path to creating more of those decisions. Make any sense?
Couldn't agree more, it is so important the players have to make decisions and compromises within EVE. as soon as you fall into the situation where something is a must have or a cookie cutter fit, the amount of skill and experience a player can add is last. not to mention the mistakes that can be made.
the people that bemoan changes like these are the ones not willing to think and innovate. they just want to fly around in whatever the fotm ship is knowing that they have the best of all worlds.
EVE is hard, let's keep pushing to make sure it stays that way.
|
|
seth Hendar
I love you miners
26
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:10:00 -
[431] - Quote
well done, after nerfing the cane, making the cyclone useless, now you just kill the whole matar race viability
it will be soooo coool to run sanshas sites in projectile fit, or to pvp with them or to...oh wait, nevemind, projectile are useless anyway....
a plan to refound all the matar / projectile SP now?
matar capitals suck, but they had great subcaps, but now, well, they suck everywhere.
good job! |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
224
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:14:00 -
[432] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote: You're right that by itself, this change isn't huge - it slightly reduces the effectiveness of all kitey shield tanking turret ships. The problem is that the general usefulness and power of those ships ranges hugely, from utterly non-existent (such as that stabber - a cruiser with less dps at its working range than you get out of a well-fit t1 frigate) to extremely high (talos, cynabal, machariel). I think a lot of people would happily agree that ships in the latter category could stand to be toned down a little, but many of the ships affected by the nerf are just mediocre and somewhat underwhelming like shield canes, OK but unspectacular like arty ruptures, or straight up bad (hi stabber). I can certainly get behind a reduction to the power of kiting tier 3s and the like - if anything, they probably need more adjustment - but I don't see why it's necessary to whack a whole bunch of lesser ships at the same time.
This is the problem for every ship that actually warrants the change theres another ship/doctrine/fitting thats going to be hit hard by it - I'm not sure what the solution is without ugly special casing it but indiscrimnatly knocking a significant chunk off TEs IMO is somewhat heavy handed. |
amurder Hakomairos
Fellowship Of Lost Souls Rebel Alliance of New Eden
41
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:17:00 -
[433] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:
BARRAGE 6.5% dps drop at 20k
3.51+37.2 with the old TE 187dps@20km 3.23+32 with new TE 175dps@20km RF EMP - 18% dps drop at 20km 1.75+24.8 with old TE 170dps@20km 1.61+21.3 with new TE 140dps@20km
If this change is so "small" and "minor" then why is it even necessary in the first place? Just quit with the damn nerfing of everything already. All ships and modules shouldn't be completely balanced, the game is very boring that way. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1801
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:18:00 -
[434] - Quote
Kaal Redrum wrote: No no no - you don't get it, it's a very very very small adjustment that us plebs will hardly notice - its been said so 'honestly' by Mr. Panda leg , so it MUST be true, especially since all his acolytes are also repeating the same 'brilliant' math - its not about a ~15% nerf to applied dps of already sub-standard ships, noooooo it's about a very very very small adjustment in your range. PL says so, you're wrong, he's right ... Okie ?
See Mach and Cynabal - so stronk - nerf TEs!
*Sarcasm off*
Already sub-standard? Winmatar?
Right.
Why do you fly them then, for the challenge?
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance 24eme Legion Etrangere
54
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:19:00 -
[435] - Quote
Sigras wrote:I was just thinking of writing a treatise on why low slots are more valuable than mid slots in a PvP ship.
Many people get this backwards because there are two modules that are basically required in PvP that are mid slot items(prop mod and point), while there are basically no "required" low slot items, but I say that low slots are more valuable because every other mid slot module provides only slight bonuses in combat while you can add 6-8 low slot modules which all really effect how well the ship performs.
This is evidenced in most popular fits, and is probably most clear in the battlecruiser lineup. The hurricane is most commonly a shield tanking ship, despite its 7/4/6 slot configuration, This is because it uses all of its low slots for non tank applications and still gets to fit the 2 "required" mid slots. Nobody in their right mind would armor tank a ship with a 7/6/4 slot configuration unless they had bonused mid slots or a special role like the falcon, and even if you could fit a good tank with four slots, what would you put in the 4 free mids? a cap booster is probably the third most useful mid, and then what? two random jammers? maybe a web if you need to/can get that close?
even the Brutix and the Hyperion, both of which have armor tanking bonuses, commonly field a shield tank + damage mods. I even have a dominix shield fit because it does insanity damage, but nobody would ever think of armor tanking a Maelstrom.
This is a problem for small gang PvPers, but scales up even worse. In large fleets, you have dedicated tackle and dedicated e-war reducing the need for tackle mods in your general fleet.
TL;DR lows are more valuable than mids because there are more combat effecting low slot modules; the TE nerf changes that.
Try brawling with 2-3 mids and with guns that use cap.
Also...
Dual prop Web Tracking Disruptor ECCM(twice as powerful as a lowslot) ASBs Injector
The classic holy trinity of midslots for brawling pvp is mwd + injector + point + web. Practically any ship with less than the 4 mids would be improved by the addition of an additional midslot up until it gets 4. 5 would still be pretty useful for the eccm/ab/td/additional webs.
I counter that lowslots are underpowered.
Example:
Would you rather have a ship with zero mids and 30 lowslots, or a ship with zero lowslots and 25 mids?
|
Zilero
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
59
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:19:00 -
[436] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I understand the allure of hyperbole related to the death of the small gang versus the blob - but this change should definitely be considered in the context of a game where a gang with some standard cruisers and BCs with a couple skirmish links can engage at almost any ratio of friend to foe. Its fun to engage outnumbered (I've heard), but expecting a few extremely strong mods to do a large portion of the work for you seems a bit over the top. It also seems important to me that since speed isn't actually being effected here, fast moving skirmish engagements will likely look very similar except that during critical moments there will be a slightly higher tendency to commit. This could mean more vulnerability for the awesome small gang of nano pilots, or it could also mean that your prey now has to venture closer to actually apply dps. I like writing posts but I'm not sure its doing any good
Don't nerf off grid links then. |
MainDrain
7th Deepari Defence Armada
166
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:20:00 -
[437] - Quote
amurder Hakomairos wrote:CCP Rise wrote:
BARRAGE 6.5% dps drop at 20k
3.51+37.2 with the old TE 187dps@20km 3.23+32 with new TE 175dps@20km RF EMP - 18% dps drop at 20km 1.75+24.8 with old TE 170dps@20km 1.61+21.3 with new TE 140dps@20km
If this change is so "small" and "minor" then why is it even necessary in the first place? Just quit with the damn nerfing of everything already. All ships and modules shouldn't be completely balanced, the game is very boring that way.
Ever module shouldn't be balanced, but neither should one module make such a massive difference that it becomes the defacto option for a low slot.
It's a minor change because it only majorly impacts a few different playstyles rather than the entire game. |
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
63
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:21:00 -
[438] - Quote
Ouch!!
I guess this is it for long range kiting using short range guns....time to check the options on table again. Probably moving on to bellicose or trying some arty fits.
Was good while it lasted. On to next meta.
Speaking of arties, can you buff their rof and tracking a bit please. As they are now, they are kinda useless if your ship does not have double damage bonus. All our t1 frigs are single damage bonused. Only double bonused ship is rupture, which has one less turret and could use some help after the recent patch. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
144
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:22:00 -
[439] - Quote
Kaal Redrum wrote:Tsubutai wrote:CCP Rise wrote:The fundamental ability to engage large groups with small ones won't change at all. It may take slightly more time to wear down ships that you isolate, depending on relative ranges, and there may be slightly more flexibility for tackling frigs to be on grid for longer, but overall this change shouldn't shift the meta much.
[Stabber, kiter]
(fit snipped)
BARRAGE 6.5% dps drop at 20k
3.51+37.2 with the old TE 187dps@20km 3.23+32 with new TE 175dps@20km RF EMP - 18% dps drop at 20km 1.75+24.8 with old TE 170dps@20km 1.61+21.3 with new TE 140dps@20km
You're right that by itself, this change isn't huge - it slightly reduces the effectiveness of all kitey shield tanking turret ships. The problem is that the general usefulness and power of those ships ranges hugely, from utterly non-existent (such as that stabber - a cruiser with less dps at its working range than you get out of a well-fit t1 frigate) to extremely high (talos, cynabal, machariel). I think a lot of people would happily agree that ships in the latter category could stand to be toned down a little, but many of the ships affected by the nerf are just mediocre and somewhat underwhelming like shield canes, OK but unspectacular like arty ruptures, or straight up bad (hi stabber). I can certainly get behind a reduction to the power of kiting tier 3s and the like - if anything, they probably need more adjustment - but I don't see why it's necessary to whack a whole bunch of lesser ships at the same time. No no no - you don't get it, it's a very very very small adjustment that us plebs will hardly notice - its been said so 'honestly' by Mr. Panda leg , so it MUST be true, especially since all his acolytes are also repeating the same 'brilliant' math - its not about a ~15% nerf to applied dps of already sub-standard ships, noooooo it's about a very very very small adjustment in your range. PL says so, you're wrong, he's right ... Okie ? See Mach and Cynabal - so stronk - nerf TEs! *Sarcasm off*
Stabbers are awful either way, and making AC shield canes slightly worse is fine by me - 720s fit just fine and are better. Stabber needs a new bonus and a load more powergrid so it can do armour, not better AC kiting ability, imo. AC kiting is dumb. |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
525
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:27:00 -
[440] - Quote
Dez Affinity wrote:People are overreacting this isn't the death of blasters~ kiters~ anything but missiles~ but this does seem to be an unnecessary or misdirected nerf.
Like I said, its gonna make nano blaster cruisers depressingly bad (they're already really far into their falloff at ~24km as it is) and autocannon ships will just lose a little more of their already-mediocre damage at range.
Any range decreases will hit blaster cruisers way more severely than other ships because of the shape of their DPS/range curves. Which is funny, because non-brawling blaster cruisers are already rare as **** and not overpowered at all.
Also someone asked why people don't just fit railguns instead of blasters-- it's because railguns are (this is a technical term) ****.
Also, sigras-- the biggest reason people fit shield canes instead of armor canes has nothing to do with the benefits of getting your tracking/range mods from lowslots or high slots, it's that armor fits in general are bad for skirmishing because they're inflexible fits that require you to fully commit to basically any fight due to your lack of mobility. Shields (while providing a smaller overall tank and eating up the mids you'd ideally want to use for tracking computers, scrams, webs, sebos etc) aren't all-in setups, while armor ones are. That's why you see most people flying fits that are "inferior" in terms of on-paper tank, ewar and dps stats. |
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1379
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:30:00 -
[441] - Quote
Kaal Redrum wrote:Tsubutai wrote:CCP Rise wrote:The fundamental ability to engage large groups with small ones won't change at all. It may take slightly more time to wear down ships that you isolate, depending on relative ranges, and there may be slightly more flexibility for tackling frigs to be on grid for longer, but overall this change shouldn't shift the meta much.
[Stabber, kiter]
(fit snipped)
BARRAGE 6.5% dps drop at 20k
3.51+37.2 with the old TE 187dps@20km 3.23+32 with new TE 175dps@20km RF EMP - 18% dps drop at 20km 1.75+24.8 with old TE 170dps@20km 1.61+21.3 with new TE 140dps@20km
You're right that by itself, this change isn't huge - it slightly reduces the effectiveness of all kitey shield tanking turret ships. The problem is that the general usefulness and power of those ships ranges hugely, from utterly non-existent (such as that stabber - a cruiser with less dps at its working range than you get out of a well-fit t1 frigate) to extremely high (talos, cynabal, machariel). I think a lot of people would happily agree that ships in the latter category could stand to be toned down a little, but many of the ships affected by the nerf are just mediocre and somewhat underwhelming like shield canes, OK but unspectacular like arty ruptures, or straight up bad (hi stabber). I can certainly get behind a reduction to the power of kiting tier 3s and the like - if anything, they probably need more adjustment - but I don't see why it's necessary to whack a whole bunch of lesser ships at the same time. No no no - you don't get it, it's a very very very small adjustment that us plebs will hardly notice - its been said so 'honestly' by Mr. Panda leg , so it MUST be true, especially since all his acolytes are also repeating the same 'brilliant' math - its not about a ~15% nerf to applied dps of already sub-standard ships, noooooo it's about a very very very small adjustment in your range. PL says so, you're wrong, he's right ... Okie ? See Mach and Cynabal - so stronk - nerf TEs! *Sarcasm off*
You're aware he's showing you that the change isn't that small.
If you look what he's actually showing you (I know, facts and the truth aren't welcome in your world) is that with long range ammo (you know, what you should be forced to use for kiting) you'll lose a total of TWELVE dps.
Twelve.
Shut down the servers, game over man, game over.
Oh whats that? You lose more DPS on short ranged ammo? Well whatever in the world made you think it was OK that you could kite like that with short ranged ammo? Do people kite with MF? Or Void? Or CN Antimatter?
Oh no they dont? So what you're saying is that the minmatar ships will retain the ability to do something nobody else can do by applying damage AT ALL with short ranged ammo, something every other weapon system is incapable of doing while kiting?
I mean its almost like he was showing you that you're whining about literally nothing.
Never turn the sarcasm off, thats probably why you didn't get the point he was making.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
24
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:30:00 -
[442] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Kaal Redrum wrote: No no no - you don't get it, it's a very very very small adjustment that us plebs will hardly notice - its been said so 'honestly' by Mr. Panda leg , so it MUST be true, especially since all his acolytes are also repeating the same 'brilliant' math - its not about a ~15% nerf to applied dps of already sub-standard ships, noooooo it's about a very very very small adjustment in your range. PL says so, you're wrong, he's right ... Okie ?
See Mach and Cynabal - so stronk - nerf TEs!
*Sarcasm off*
Already sub-standard? Winmatar? Right. Why do you fly them then, for the challenge?
You know that during 2/3 of eve history minmatar was known as "Play eve in the Hard mode"?
As I pointed several times, its not that minmatar became too powerful. Its that the metagame evolved into a scenario that minmatar advantages (that previously were irrelevant) became VERY VERY important.
I repeat, stop trying to find culprints in the race or modules only and look a bit more on the meta changes that made a tactic become so powerful! When minmatar got the falloff changes amarr were considered overpowered beyond belief!! They changed nothing on amarr, but do anyone say they are overpowered nowadays? NO. Because the change was in the METAGAME!!! STOP LOOKING AT THE SHIPS AND MODULES ONLY! |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
24
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:32:00 -
[443] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Kaal Redrum wrote:Tsubutai wrote:CCP Rise wrote:The fundamental ability to engage large groups with small ones won't change at all. It may take slightly more time to wear down ships that you isolate, depending on relative ranges, and there may be slightly more flexibility for tackling frigs to be on grid for longer, but overall this change shouldn't shift the meta much.
[Stabber, kiter]
(fit snipped)
BARRAGE 6.5% dps drop at 20k
3.51+37.2 with the old TE 187dps@20km 3.23+32 with new TE 175dps@20km RF EMP - 18% dps drop at 20km 1.75+24.8 with old TE 170dps@20km 1.61+21.3 with new TE 140dps@20km
You're right that by itself, this change isn't huge - it slightly reduces the effectiveness of all kitey shield tanking turret ships. The problem is that the general usefulness and power of those ships ranges hugely, from utterly non-existent (such as that stabber - a cruiser with less dps at its working range than you get out of a well-fit t1 frigate) to extremely high (talos, cynabal, machariel). I think a lot of people would happily agree that ships in the latter category could stand to be toned down a little, but many of the ships affected by the nerf are just mediocre and somewhat underwhelming like shield canes, OK but unspectacular like arty ruptures, or straight up bad (hi stabber). I can certainly get behind a reduction to the power of kiting tier 3s and the like - if anything, they probably need more adjustment - but I don't see why it's necessary to whack a whole bunch of lesser ships at the same time. No no no - you don't get it, it's a very very very small adjustment that us plebs will hardly notice - its been said so 'honestly' by Mr. Panda leg , so it MUST be true, especially since all his acolytes are also repeating the same 'brilliant' math - its not about a ~15% nerf to applied dps of already sub-standard ships, noooooo it's about a very very very small adjustment in your range. PL says so, you're wrong, he's right ... Okie ? See Mach and Cynabal - so stronk - nerf TEs! *Sarcasm off* You're aware he's showing you that the change isn't that small. If you look what he's actually showing you (I know, facts and the truth aren't welcome in your world) is that with long range ammo (you know, what you should be forced to use for kiting) you'll lose a total of TWELVE dps. Twelve. Shut down the servers, game over man, game over. Oh whats that? You lose more DPS on short ranged ammo? Well whatever in the world made you think it was OK that you could kite like that with short ranged ammo? Do people kite with MF? Or Void? Or CN Antimatter? Oh no they dont? So what you're saying is that the minmatar ships will retain the ability to do something nobody else can do by applying damage AT ALL with short ranged ammo, something every other weapon system is incapable of doing while kiting? I mean its almost like he was showing you that you're whining about literally nothing. Never turn the sarcasm off, thats probably why you didn't get the point he was making.
Just pointing a flaw on your argument. Its called SCORCH. Scorch still is far superior on applying damage while kiting. But the metagame is not composed ONLY of the range or speed, or tank type, but the combination of all of those. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
145
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:33:00 -
[444] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote: You know that during 2/3 of eve history minmatar was known as "Play eve in the Hard mode"?
That was always bullshit. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
1955
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:34:00 -
[445] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Dez Affinity wrote:People are overreacting this isn't the death of blasters~ kiters~ anything but missiles~ but this does seem to be an unnecessary or misdirected nerf. Like I said, its gonna make nano blaster cruisers depressingly bad (they're already really far into their falloff at ~24km as it is) and autocannon ships will just lose a little more of their already-mediocre damage at range. Any range decreases will hit blaster cruisers way more severely than other ships because of the shape of their DPS/range curves. Which is funny, because non-brawling blaster cruisers are already rare as **** and not overpowered at all. Also someone asked why people don't just fit railguns instead of blasters-- it's because railguns are (this is a technical term) ****. Also, sigras-- the biggest reason people fit shield canes instead of armor canes has nothing to do with the benefits of getting your tracking/range mods from lowslots or high slots, it's that armor fits in general are bad for skirmishing because they're inflexible fits that require you to fully commit to basically any fight due to your lack of mobility. Shields (while providing a smaller overall tank and eating up the mids you'd ideally want to use for tracking computers, scrams, webs, sebos etc) aren't all-in setups, while armor ones are. That's why you see most people flying fits that are "inferior" in terms of on-paper tank, ewar and dps stats.
Perhaps the middle ground is to change the Optimal-Falloffl range split....
Rather than 10-20... perhaps they should be 15-15... (granted, that would be a direct nerf to auto-cannons) |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
24
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:34:00 -
[446] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Dez Affinity wrote:People are overreacting this isn't the death of blasters~ kiters~ anything but missiles~ but this does seem to be an unnecessary or misdirected nerf. Like I said, its gonna make nano blaster cruisers depressingly bad (they're already really far into their falloff at ~24km as it is) and autocannon ships will just lose a little more of their already-mediocre damage at range. Any range decreases will hit blaster cruisers way more severely than other ships because of the shape of their DPS/range curves. Which is funny, because non-brawling blaster cruisers are already rare as **** and not overpowered at all. Also someone asked why people don't just fit railguns instead of blasters-- it's because railguns are (this is a technical term) ****. Also, sigras-- the biggest reason people fit shield canes instead of armor canes has nothing to do with the benefits of getting your tracking/range mods from lowslots or high slots, it's that armor fits in general are bad for skirmishing because they're inflexible fits that require you to fully commit to basically any fight due to your lack of mobility. Shields (while providing a smaller overall tank and eating up the mids you'd ideally want to use for tracking computers, scrams, webs, sebos etc) aren't all-in setups, while armor ones are. That's why you see most people flying fits that are "inferior" in terms of on-paper tank, ewar and dps stats.
As I tried to explain earlier, when blasters are used in the role of brawling not kiting (That was supposed to be their role) they loose almost nothing, only 1 extra second of travel to the target on the cruiser scale up to 4-5 seconds on a battleship. Not the end of the world, its a nerf , but not a CRIPPLING NERF |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
526
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:38:00 -
[447] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote: As I tried to explain earlier, when blasters are used in the role of brawling not kiting (That was supposed to be their role) they loose almost nothing, only 1 extra second of travel to the target on the cruiser scale up to 4-5 seconds on a battleship. Not the end of the world, its a nerf , but not a CRIPPLING NERF
I've read this sentence a couple of times and I'm still not quite sure what it means? |
Bloodpetal
Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal The Mockers AO
1247
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:38:00 -
[448] - Quote
The major issue at hand here is that I think all the Turret weapons need a review of their ranges and tracking.
For example, when the Heavy Missile Launcher nerf came for range, it was a good thing in my opinion, but at the same time the whole purpose was predicated on the idea that they were matching the long range turrets ranges (around 30kms ish).
I am sure it's not an easy task at all, and honestly probably don't expect the balancing team to go ahead and do it, but that's the fundamental issue at hand I see at the heart of the Tracking Enhancer nerf. It's not actually the module that's the issue, it's that all the weapons systems are the SAME stats from almost 10 years ago, and meanwhile so much of the rest of the game has changed, so many "meta" combat styles have come and gone.
The balance between long range weapons fitting requirements vs short range weapons requirements, along with all the other factors of the actual ranges that combat happens at, etc, really leaves the situation at a crux that you need tackle the heart of the issue, the weapons themselves.
Where I am. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
24
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:39:00 -
[449] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:Dez Affinity wrote:People are overreacting this isn't the death of blasters~ kiters~ anything but missiles~ but this does seem to be an unnecessary or misdirected nerf. Like I said, its gonna make nano blaster cruisers depressingly bad (they're already really far into their falloff at ~24km as it is) and autocannon ships will just lose a little more of their already-mediocre damage at range. Any range decreases will hit blaster cruisers way more severely than other ships because of the shape of their DPS/range curves. Which is funny, because non-brawling blaster cruisers are already rare as **** and not overpowered at all. Also someone asked why people don't just fit railguns instead of blasters-- it's because railguns are (this is a technical term) ****. Also, sigras-- the biggest reason people fit shield canes instead of armor canes has nothing to do with the benefits of getting your tracking/range mods from lowslots or high slots, it's that armor fits in general are bad for skirmishing because they're inflexible fits that require you to fully commit to basically any fight due to your lack of mobility. Shields (while providing a smaller overall tank and eating up the mids you'd ideally want to use for tracking computers, scrams, webs, sebos etc) aren't all-in setups, while armor ones are. That's why you see most people flying fits that are "inferior" in terms of on-paper tank, ewar and dps stats. Perhaps the middle ground is to change the Optimal-Falloffl range split.... Rather than 10-20... perhaps they should be 15-15... (granted, that would be a direct nerf to auto-cannons)
Nope, there is already mathemathical proof that double bouns to falloff is what gives the EXACT same final result as the single bonus to range. These values are not random, they were calculated several years ago in an epic thread of 170 pages. |
Christine Peeveepeeski
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
263
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:41:00 -
[450] - Quote
Wow....
Well, I do like caldari ships but I didn't really want to be a 100% missile pilot. Guess I will be now. ROLL ON CARACALS! Oh.... didn't you know, the caldari small ship line up was already borderline OP in at least the current FW meta. Now it turns out they are a requirement if you want to kite.
|
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
24
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:43:00 -
[451] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote: As I tried to explain earlier, when blasters are used in the role of brawling not kiting (That was supposed to be their role) they loose almost nothing, only 1 extra second of travel to the target on the cruiser scale up to 4-5 seconds on a battleship. Not the end of the world, its a nerf , but not a CRIPPLING NERF
I've read this sentence a couple of times and I'm still not quite sure what it means?
it measn that when eve was created blasters were not conceptualized as something you use to kite. You should rush into the opponent, grab him at very close range and over helm him if your superior dps.
If you are trying to do that, the nerf of 1km of effective range of a Thorax for example, means just that you will need to keep approaching your enemy for 1 second more before you reach your optimal range. You are NOT SUPPOSED to fight with blasters at border of range + falloff. You are supposed to start firing at taht distance and continue closing into optimal range.
Blasters are not going to defeat any other weapon on range, so there is no real reason why they should even worry with blasters trying to kite (when approaching is the theoretical focus of blasters). |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
526
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:43:00 -
[452] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Perhaps the middle ground is to change the Optimal-Falloffl range split....
Rather than 10-20... perhaps they should be 15-15... (granted, that would be a direct nerf to auto-cannons)
I'm personally just really confused about the purpose of this nerf in general-- if the problem is not that shield / kiting ships are "too good" but that they're "too good relative to armor tanked ships," why not buff tracking computers so that ships without tracking enhancers can project damage better?
Alternatively, they could just nerf autocannons directly if that's what they're so concerned about. v0v |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box
34
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:43:00 -
[453] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:
Your solution involves bringing a unique person to a camp who can't do anything but mill about hoping for one of these idiots to jump in. Why not fix the issue at the core here? You want to move your (expensive) ship, get an escort or a courier, or face death. There's no reason a lumbering battleship should escape certain death in the face of overwhelming odds.
Seeing as it's a successful tactic, they're not idiots for using it. You're the idiot for being unprepared and instead choosing to complain about it. Silly me, trying to argue with ex-northern coalition members. No, silly you for demanding that another player do something (escort, courrier or die) while in the same breath refusing to simply have a ship around to de cloak people. Not sure when you turned into a ninny Grarr but it actually happened.
Don't forget to take your chill pill for today, Grath. You're not exactly the youngest anymore!
The same guy I replied to later endorsed a rage post against the RSB nerf complaining about how 'forgiving' the game is getting. Talk about sticking to your guns. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1380
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:43:00 -
[454] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Just pointing a flaw on your argument. Its called SCORCH. Scorch still is far superior on applying damage while kiting. But the metagame is not composed ONLY of the range or speed, or tank type, but the combination of all of those.
Scorch is really good at applying DPS at range, only most, and i do say most (Slicer being the notable exception) of the Amarrian ships are crap at keeping range when compared to other kiters like most minnie ships, so its fairly easy to disengage or even worse go right up close and brawl with the scorch ship.
I mean you guys should try to get on the same page, theres another guy in this thread crying about the loss of range on his scorch and how its the death knell of a kiting zealot.
I personally think you're all over reacting like you're fresh off an episode of jersey shore.
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1380
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:45:00 -
[455] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:
The same guy I replied to later endorsed a rage post against the RSB nerf complaining about how 'forgiving' the game is getting. Talk about sticking to your guns.
Grarr old boy the people in this thread are actually more emotional than a menopausal woman, and about as in touch with reality.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
24
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:46:00 -
[456] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote: You know that during 2/3 of eve history minmatar was known as "Play eve in the Hard mode"?
That was always bullshit.
You realize back then was no way to increase range of minmatar weapons (no bonus to falloff), AC did less damage than ALL other weapon systems, that was impossible for arti boats reach the 160 km that was standard optimal range for fleets? The reduced EHP made harder than any other race to tank doomsdays? In the past things were very different...
|
2manno Asp
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
180
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:46:00 -
[457] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:2manno Asp wrote: you're not getting it..
No its YOU who's not getting why the absolute numbers matter, the numbers on the frigates will be so small as to not really matter. 2manno Asp wrote: then you're making my point. unless you can explain how moving a ranged ship closer is a good idea?
You're moving 5km closer on a ship designed to operate out to 50km Cry me a river.
dude, there's no reason to get all mad and butthurt. it's just a game and this is just a discussion. relax.
the #'s on frigates absolutely do matter. i'm not complaining. and i'm not talking about a change from 50km to 45km. i'd agree that's relatively inconsequential. i'm talking about a change from 20km to 18km. which is a huge difference if you've ever flown a skirmish frigate.
a 2 TE slicer for instance, at lvl 5 goes from 22+4.1 to 20+3.5. ask any slicer pilot, that's a big difference.
i don't know why it's hard for you to understand that sometimes a 2km change can make a bigger difference than a 5km change. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
24
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:47:00 -
[458] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:
Just pointing a flaw on your argument. Its called SCORCH. Scorch still is far superior on applying damage while kiting. But the metagame is not composed ONLY of the range or speed, or tank type, but the combination of all of those.
Scorch is really good at applying DPS at range, only most, and i do say most (Slicer being the notable exception) of the Amarrian ships are crap at keeping range when compared to other kiters like most minnie ships, so its fairly easy to disengage or even worse go right up close and brawl with the scorch ship. I mean you guys should try to get on the same page, theres another guy in this thread crying about the loss of range on his scorch and how its the death knell of a kiting zealot. I personally think you're all over reacting like you're fresh off an episode of jersey shore.
Do you realize that I am supportign the changes in all my posts? I am just attackign flawed arguments alongside it. taking a position in the balance issue should not make me blind to fallacies. I am impartial. what I think of the TE nerf does not change my perceived appreciation of the in game truths. |
Takumiro
7
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:49:00 -
[459] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:
I'm personally just really confused about the purpose of this nerf in general-- if the problem is not that shield / kiting ships are "too good" but that they're "too good relative to armor tanked ships," why not buff tracking computers so that ships without tracking enhancers can project damage better?
Alternatively, they could just nerf autocannons directly if that's what they're so concerned about. v0v
Too much work, they can't go past the deadline. |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
527
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:49:00 -
[460] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote: it measn that when eve was created blasters were not conceptualized as something you use to kite. You should rush into the opponent, grab him at very close range and over helm him if your superior dps.
I mean ok, that's what CCP assumed when they dreamt up the weapon category, but then nobody used them outside lowsec gate-brawling BC/BS fits because for 90% of engagements the whole idea of point blank weapons on slow armor bricks is a terrible idea.
I still contend that what CCP need to do to give Gallente a viable niche is to drop blaster range, re-orient their ships towards either shield tanking or armor tanking with a bonus that ~*completely*~ offsets the penalties of armor plates (either a bonus that does that explicitly or simply through great base speed / agility stats) and add a bonus to afterburner speed bonuses that lets them use an AB to hit MWD-like speeds.
Point-blank weapons wouldn't be a massive problem if there was some possibility of disengaging. If you're just going to get scrammed and killed like any other chucklefuck though, then blasters are gonna need to be set up to be used like an autocannon-- from outside hard-tackle range-- if you want to see them used. |
|
seth Hendar
I love you miners
26
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:53:00 -
[461] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Perhaps the middle ground is to change the Optimal-Falloffl range split....
Rather than 10-20... perhaps they should be 15-15... (granted, that would be a direct nerf to auto-cannons)
I'm personally just really confused about the purpose of this nerf in general-- if the problem is not that shield / kiting ships are "too good" but that they're "too good relative to armor tanked ships," why not buff tracking computers so that ships without tracking enhancers can project damage better? Alternatively, they could just nerf autocannons directly if that's what they're so concerned about. v0v check the last few updates, they have done 2 things:
nerf the drake a bit, nerf all the matar ships, introduce bazillions of bugs.
to ccp: stop nerfing, focus on fixing what is really broken, and actually, there are many things in both pvp and pve mechanic that are broken.
5 sec delay to lock upon landing (5 sec from the moment your ship stop displaying "warping" and you can initiate lock, logis love this so much!) point sometimes being not applied (pointed pod which warp out, point doesn't start, pointed cruiser warp out while being pointed by hictor) ship fully aligned that refuse to warp (a 20+ fleet of nano vaga aligned , wing warped, half of them needed 5 extra second to initiate warp!) ewar to powerfull on some mission
all this started since last summer patch, gettin worse every patch, especially since dust bunnies joined us.
all those have been reported / bug tracked for long time to no solution, enought is enought, fix your game, hen we will talk about resuming balancing! |
amurder Hakomairos
Fellowship Of Lost Souls Rebel Alliance of New Eden
41
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:56:00 -
[462] - Quote
seth Hendar wrote: check the last few updates, they have done 2 things:
nerf the drake a bit, nerf all the matar ships, introduce bazillions of bugs.
to ccp: stop nerfing, focus on fixing what is really broken, and actually, there are many things in both pvp and pve mechanic that are broken.
5 sec delay to lock upon landing (5 sec from the moment your ship stop displaying "warping" and you can initiate lock, logis love this so much!) point sometimes being not applied (pointed pod which warp out, point doesn't start, pointed cruiser warp out while being pointed by hictor) ship fully aligned that refuse to warp (a 20+ fleet of nano vaga aligned , wing warped, half of them needed 5 extra second to initiate warp!) ewar to powerfull on some mission
all this started since last summer patch, gettin worse every patch, especially since dust bunnies joined us.
all those have been reported / bug tracked for long time to no solution, enought is enought, fix your game, hen we will talk about resuming balancing!
100% agree with this. fix broken sh*t first, then lets talk about pointless unneeded nerfs |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1381
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:59:00 -
[463] - Quote
2manno Asp wrote:
a 2 TE slicer for instance, at lvl 5 goes from 22+4.1 to 20+3.5. ask any slicer pilot, that's a big difference.
i don't know why it's hard for you to understand that sometimes a 2km change can make a bigger difference than a 5km change.
I am a slicer pilot, and I'm telling you that 2km doesn't really matter because its generally out of point range since most slicers are forced to fit a faint warp disruptor and fight right around 18km, give or take.
The 2km difference means nothing.
|
Vulfen
Hax. Game Over.
7
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 16:03:00 -
[464] - Quote
Dear CCP so lets sumerise what this does.
Tier3s
Naga - nerfed taking 10% of range away.... not really a big deal. Talos - nerfed now if you wan to use a blaster kite fit you have to go in too close Oracle - nerfed to hell when people who are scrubs want to use this like the naga cuz they cant fly one themselves they will now have a much shorter range as they have no real mid slots to be able to fit TCs Nado - not much change if you need range you still have enough mid slots to spare one for a TC.
Hacs/t1 cruisers
Vaga/Stabber - nerfed Zealot/Omen - stays the same unless you want to bring back the old nano shield beam fits lol Moa/Eagle - lets face it only pro people who were up for a laugh used these so no one really cares if they get nerfed, but CCP are making these almost useless ships even worse off give yourself a pat of the back for ballance! Thorax/Deimos - no change just like the zealot/omen
Missile boats still unaffected by TE/TC/TD so all shield missile ships are effectively better off compared to the gun boats now
BS for this you nerf 2 ships and the rest remain unchanged, are these 2 ships really in need of nerfing compared to the armour counterparts that much i dont think so... Abaddon/mega vs Rokh barely any difference as it is so why change it. rokh/maelstrom vs apoc not much difference here either. So i ask again really how is this change making a positive impact?
this change does nothing to shake up the world or gang pvp. people will still use ahacs in the same way, ranged bs will now be more armour based and slower, and LR tier 3s will become almost exclusively nados again.
Well done CCP in rolling back the past 3-4 months work of doctrines people came up with to use something other than PulseLasers/Basters/Arty. People over the past 3-4 months have used more alternate gun types than ever before. so by making 1 mod less use full you will directly changing the way people use these guns if they now use them at all.
|
Blackhole's Revenge
Hoogalish Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 16:09:00 -
[465] - Quote
This is fckin stupid, stop taking away from the game. How about you add to it instead. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
898
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 16:09:00 -
[466] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I understand the allure of hyperbole related to the death of the small gang versus the blob - but this change should definitely be considered in the context of a game where a gang with some standard cruisers and BCs with a couple skirmish links can engage at almost any ratio of friend to foe. Its fun to engage outnumbered (I've heard), but expecting a few extremely strong mods to do a large portion of the work for you seems a bit over the top. It also seems important to me that since speed isn't actually being effected here, fast moving skirmish engagements will likely look very similar except that during critical moments there will be a slightly higher tendency to commit. This could mean more vulnerability for the awesome small gang of nano pilots, or it could also mean that your prey now has to venture closer to actually apply dps. I like writing posts but I'm not sure its doing any good
i would not fret too much... just get this stuff on sisi and let us play around with it...
peoples spreadsheets just got shat over and some are upset is all... Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Suyer
Explorer Corps Polarized.
5
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 16:11:00 -
[467] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:I hope I was able to transmit my toughts and that they can be helpful. I really like the idea of looking at the meta rather than only picking at some flat idea of balance based purely on numerical comparison. However, I think Eve's meta (or specific eve combat environment metas) is extremely complex, and it many cases is the result of a sum of many small, number based powerlevels. For instance I imagine that there's some threshold related to damage projection that makes kiting the preferred method of balancing damage output and survivability. If we can push the player decisions back towards the threshold instead of leaving everything way past it, we hopefully create more meaningful decisions for players to make. Sometimes a small numerical tweak like this might be the easiest path to creating more of those decisions. Make any sense?
Except that the threshold will ALWAYS favor the kiting setup, simply becuase you can actually escape when you are in a kiting setup, as opposed to a brawl setup where if you can't kill your target, you are going to die.
The key difference is the lack of mobility within scram range outside of edge-case scenarios like the 100mn AB tengu (and is part of the reason that it is so strong, along with sig tanking). The fact of the matter is that in ships like the talos, range is king and the point is to abuse YOUR long range to avoid their damage. Nerfing TE's simply makes the ship more vulnerable, rather than making your target more vulnerable.
The second thing to consider is that this doesn't impact all fights the same way. I agree that this change will likely have very little impact on 1v1 fights, simply because you can adjust your range more or less accordingly. Unfortunately it seems like this is what you're attempting to balance around, saying that "shield kiting is too strong, so lets bring the ships closer to their targets so more dps can be applied to them". But this is wrong. It works in practice in 1v1 fights, but in 2v1 or larger, what happens is that the shield kiting ships must now attempt to keep range at 20km instead of 24km. Now, keeping range on one ship is easy, but attempting to keep range on 3 ships while keeping your target within 24km is much harder. This TE nerf effectively nerfs the range of damage application that ships such as the talos/vaga/cynabal have, so that essentially people in larger gangs are now safer if they burn around such that I have to circle around in my talos. The range is what secures me kills--even when they start to burn away in fights, I can still kill them because I have a lot of falloff.
If you felt that shield ships were too strong because of the damage/range threshold, you should have buffed the range projection of brawling ships. I have no problem with this. Nerfing kiting ships into scram range is dumb though, you're basically forcing the meta of all ships to fight between 0-20km in most cases when really the ideal case is to have a meta where we have ships that engage at all ranges between about 0-50km. (Which is why I think that long point range should be buffed personally, and why I think loki links are imperative--they secure kills by allowing you to abuse longer range weapon systems such as large pulses on the orcale, the talos, etc... and also use a long point at that rnage ~40km).
This is a bad change and was not considered fully enough, it will have little impact on blob pvp, little impact on solo pvp, but will have significant impact on small scale nano pvp, making it harder to engage larger groups of players by abusing speed and range. This area of the game did not need a nerf. Instead, brawling ships need a buff to bring their survivability (read: escape ability) on par with shield ships, or, at the very least, significantly better.
I think that AB's of all sizes should be significantly buffed |
Blackhole's Revenge
Hoogalish Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 16:16:00 -
[468] - Quote
If you wasted half as much time as you did nerfing-adding to the game and fixing bugs man this game might be more popular. But instead lets make a stupid deal with sony for a FPS that only has an impact on the lamest part of the game people use to farm isk cause you guys keep nerfing and increasing inflation.
you should be asking your self, how does what I'm doing help improve the game.
Cause what youre talking about here doesnt and dust sure the hell didnt. and a whole host of other changes i don't get paid to tell you what they are.
Balancing the ships great idea. Changing the way mods work HORRIBLE idea. Adding new mods great idea. Get the picture? |
Streya Jormagdnir
Alexylva Paradox
163
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 16:17:00 -
[469] - Quote
Have the rebalancing team ever actually flown Minmatar ships in falloff? You should know full well that the on-paper EFT DPS that ships such as the Wolf or Stabber get is actually NEVER applied, due to how falloff works. I do not understand what you mean by "Minmatar dominance" when these days all I see are the other races floating about; in my roams across lowsec (most of lowsec even, since I live in a wormhole system with a lowsec static), I have seen many Moas and very few Stabbers for example.
Minmatar NEED falloff in order to pair it with their high speeds in order to kite. Why are people only kiting with missile and railgun boats? Does CCP just not want Minmatar pilots to kite unless they use missiles?
There are only two or three ways this can go down without completely nerfing Minmatar into the ground.
- Hand Minmatar ships increased falloff bonuses, or increase the base falloff of autocannons by a good percentage.
- Increase tracking and lower powergrid needs for artillery considerably so that Minmatar pilots can kite, but only with artillery
- Buff ambit extension rigs considerably. This would lower the flexibility of Minmatar kite fits and thus keep them from doing too many things at once.
I'm very disappointed in these changes as they are proposed now, CCP. I do not know why you want only three out of four races to kite and Minmatar to be forced up close when their speed and agility are so well suited for kiting (and their lower tank as compared to other races encourages them to do so). I am also a human, straggling between the present world... and our future. I am a regulator, a coordinator, one who is meant to guide the way. |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
27
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 16:18:00 -
[470] - Quote
Streya Jormagdnir wrote:Have the rebalancing team ever actually flown Minmatar ships in falloff? You should know full well that the on-paper EFT DPS that ships such as the Wolf or Stabber get is actually NEVER applied, due to how falloff works. I do not understand what you mean by "Minmatar dominance" when these days all I see are the other races floating about; in my roams across lowsec (most of lowsec even, since I live in a wormhole system with a lowsec static), I have seen many Moas and very few Stabbers for example. Minmatar NEED falloff in order to pair it with their high speeds in order to kite. Why are people only kiting with missile and railgun boats? Does CCP just not want Minmatar pilots to kite unless they use missiles? There are only two or three ways this can go down without completely nerfing Minmatar into the ground.
- Hand Minmatar ships increased falloff bonuses, or increase the base falloff of autocannons by a good percentage.
- Increase tracking and lower powergrid needs for artillery considerably so that Minmatar pilots can kite, but only with artillery
- Buff ambit extension rigs considerably. This would lower the flexibility of Minmatar kite fits and thus keep them from doing too many things at once.
I'm very disappointed in these changes as they are proposed now, CCP. I do not know why you want only three out of four races to kite and Minmatar to be forced up close when their speed and agility are so well suited for kiting (and their lower tank as compared to other races encourages them to do so). +1, minmatar ship are ALWAYS fitting in falloff |
|
El 'Terrible
The Scope Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 16:22:00 -
[471] - Quote
A blanket nerf to TE is very lazy and inconsiderate. How about looking individually at what needs rebalancing rather than trying to rush half thought ideas out? |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
26
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 16:22:00 -
[472] - Quote
Suyer wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Quote:I hope I was able to transmit my toughts and that they can be helpful. I really like the idea of looking at the meta rather than only picking at some flat idea of balance based purely on numerical comparison. However, I think Eve's meta (or specific eve combat environment metas) is extremely complex, and it many cases is the result of a sum of many small, number based powerlevels. For instance I imagine that there's some threshold related to damage projection that makes kiting the preferred method of balancing damage output and survivability. If we can push the player decisions back towards the threshold instead of leaving everything way past it, we hopefully create more meaningful decisions for players to make. Sometimes a small numerical tweak like this might be the easiest path to creating more of those decisions. Make any sense? Except that the threshold will ALWAYS favor the kiting setup, simply becuase you can actually escape when you are in a kiting setup, as opposed to a brawl setup where if you can't kill your target, you are going to die. The key difference is the lack of mobility within scram range outside of edge-case scenarios like the 100mn AB tengu (and is part of the reason that it is so strong, along with sig tanking). The fact of the matter is that in ships like the talos, range is king and the point is to abuse YOUR long range to avoid their damage. Nerfing TE's simply makes the ship more vulnerable, rather than making your target more vulnerable. The second thing to consider is that this doesn't impact all fights the same way. I agree that this change will likely have very little impact on 1v1 fights, simply because you can adjust your range more or less accordingly. Unfortunately it seems like this is what you're attempting to balance around, saying that "shield kiting is too strong, so lets bring the ships closer to their targets so more dps can be applied to them". But this is wrong. It works in practice in 1v1 fights, but in 2v1 or larger, what happens is that the shield kiting ships must now attempt to keep range at 20km instead of 24km. Now, keeping range on one ship is easy, but attempting to keep range on 3 ships while keeping your target within 24km is much harder. This TE nerf effectively nerfs the range of damage application that ships such as the talos/vaga/cynabal have, so that essentially people in larger gangs are now safer if they burn around such that I have to circle around in my talos. The range is what secures me kills--even when they start to burn away in fights, I can still kill them because I have a lot of falloff. If you felt that shield ships were too strong because of the damage/range threshold, you should have buffed the range projection of brawling ships. I have no problem with this. Nerfing kiting ships into scram range is dumb though, you're basically forcing the meta of all ships to fight between 0-20km in most cases when really the ideal case is to have a meta where we have ships that engage at all ranges between about 0-50km. (Which is why I think that long point range should be buffed personally, and why I think loki links are imperative--they secure kills by allowing you to abuse longer range weapon systems such as large pulses on the orcale, the talos, etc... and also use a long point at that rnage ~40km). This is a bad change and was not considered fully enough, it will have little impact on blob pvp, little impact on solo pvp (read 1v1's), but will have significant impact on small scale nano pvp, making it harder to engage larger groups of players by abusing speed and range. This area of the game did not need a nerf. Instead, brawling ships need a buff to bring their survivability (read: escape ability) on par with shield ships, or, at the very least, significantly better. I think that AB's of all sizes should be significantly buffed
Most of the times a ship with active tank can tank a kiting ship almost forever. Or at least long enough for it to return to gate and jump. That has always been the balancing. And that is why nerfing TE helps. The dps will be a bit lower, so easier to tank.
Now if people do not want to use active tank.. that its their problem, or better and entirely different problem that arises due to different issues.
|
Suyer
Explorer Corps Polarized.
6
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 16:27:00 -
[473] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Most of the times a ship with active tank can tank a kiting ship almost forever. Or at least long enough for it to return to gate and jump. That has always been the balancing. And that is why nerfing TE helps. The dps will be a bit lower, so easier to tank.
Now if people do not want to use active tank.. that its their problem, or better and entirely different problem that arises due to different issues.
All fights don't happen on gates. Engaging a kiting ship in a ship that is slower than it and doesn't have an ability to catch it is a terrible idea unless you know you can escape.
What is your point? That for active tanked setups close to a gate that can tank a talos for one minute to deaggro this change is benefical? We're talking about a whole range of ships here, not just edge cases. Plus, tbh if you were in a myrm trying to deaggress on a gate all I have to do is sit at 17km and shoot you. TE or not that doesn't change. I already mentioned in my previous post how this is does very little to effect 1v1 scenarios, as range control versus one person is very easy. So your point is moot.
|
Streya Jormagdnir
Alexylva Paradox
163
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 16:33:00 -
[474] - Quote
Sorry for the double-post, but I really do feel I have to rant about this. As someone who has been roaming more or less non-stop in the past few months I've not noticed Minmatar dominance, but rather Caldari dominance. Missiles cannot be tracking disrupted and always apply their on-paper DPS provided the target is moving slow enough and has a large enough signature radius. So that's two factors to account for: speed and signature radius. So long as the target is in range, one need not consider range. Additionally, missile users may select a damage type to deal 100% of.
Turrets, particularly turrets that rely on falloff (read: autocannons and sometimes blasters) need to contend with speed and signature for tracking purposes, as well as range in order to apply full DPS (no one wants to fight at the edge of falloff, where you'd be dealing pretty heavily reduced DPS). In other words, 3km optimal + 15km falloff is NOT the same as 18km missile range and is in fact considerably weaker. TEs extend falloff, placing the turret-using ship a little bit higher on the DPS curve at the same range. Additionally, turret users may select their damage type only partially (lasers will always deal EM/therm, hybrids will always deal kin/therm, and projectiles will always deal some degree of kinetic and typically some explosive as well), which is less flexible than missiles.
If you don't believe me Fozzie, simply open up EFT and look at a DPS graph for something like an autocannon kite Stabber at 25km and compare it with the DPS of the similarly range-bonused HAM Caracal.
Down with this sort of thing. Minmatar ships are already hurting as you lot attempt to give them missiles and shield bonuses (which race are we talking about again?) rather than expand on their natural strengths of falloff kiting (their ONLY viable form of kiting currently available to Minmatar pilots) and high base speed.
In short, Minmatar is increasingly becoming a "one trick pony" race, and you're about to club the dead horse further. I am also a human, straggling between the present world... and our future. I am a regulator, a coordinator, one who is meant to guide the way. |
IWolfMasterI
Dark Wolf Incarnates Criminal Minds
26
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 16:37:00 -
[475] - Quote
why you no like minmatar ccp, your **** us so hard the past year |
sabre906
Old Spice Syndicate Sailors of the Sacred Spice
909
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 16:40:00 -
[476] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:sabre906 wrote:It was never about the range, or Caldari would've been top of the hill for the past few years. It was always about the speed - kite something forever until it dies, if not, gtfo. What took over since the nano nerf? Oh yeah, the next fastest thing. TE nerf hits all turret boats, especially the blasterboats that don't need a nerf. Minmatar falloff should be increased, and their speed decreased to below shorter range boats, so you get to do a mental calculation: Can I whittle away enough of this thing's hp before it catches up to win the dps race? Speed does not kill anyone without range. And caldari have been the king on larger scale warfare for quite some time. That is why heavy Missiles were nerfed. Minmatar concept is speed. They have less EHP, capacitor, sensors etc. They cannot defeat other races on direct confrontation, you cannot expect them to do anything but kite. I repeat MINMATAR CONCEPT IS SPEED. gallente Concept is firepower. Caldari concept is range and Ammarr concept is endurance. DO not try to make races equal...
tl;dr: Winmatar's "concept" is to win?
I decree you the boss of what Eve should be. Your "concept," however flawed and unbalancing, shall be.
When you can just "gtfo" at will, nothing else (especially ehp) matters. Nothing will be balanced until "gtfo" speed is balanced. Period.
TE nerf hit all turrets, include blasters that don't need a nerf. All races get their gun range nerfed except... rats. Balance is pvp. It's a meaningless pve nerf that does nothing. Standings Improvement Service https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=19454 |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
737
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 16:40:00 -
[477] - Quote
IWolfMasterI wrote:why you no like minmatar ccp, your **** us so hard the past year Maybe CCP sees the problem with Winmatar and is starting to cut them down making fleet doctrines with other ships, let alone give players the option to fly what they want and not what the top ship is. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Streya Jormagdnir
Alexylva Paradox
163
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 16:40:00 -
[478] - Quote
Suyer wrote:
This is a bad change and was not considered fully enough, it will have little impact on blob pvp, little impact on solo pvp (read 1v1's), but will have significant impact on small scale nano pvp, making it harder to engage larger groups of players by abusing speed and range. This area of the game did not need a nerf. Instead, brawling ships need a buff to bring their survivability (read: escape ability) on par with shield ships, or, at the very least, significantly better.
I think that AB's of all sizes should be significantly buffed
I agree with this, particularly an AB buff. If CCP wants to close the gap between brawl vs nano/kite, simply make afterburners more effective so that brawlers may slingshot kiters or slip outside of their warp disruptor range in order to escape. I am also a human, straggling between the present world... and our future. I am a regulator, a coordinator, one who is meant to guide the way. |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
27
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 16:40:00 -
[479] - Quote
Streya Jormagdnir wrote:Sorry for the double-post, but I really do feel I have to rant about this. As someone who has been roaming more or less non-stop in the past few months I've not noticed Minmatar dominance, but rather Caldari dominance. Missiles cannot be tracking disrupted and always apply their on-paper DPS provided the target is moving slow enough and has a large enough signature radius. So that's two factors to account for: speed and signature radius. So long as the target is in range, one need not consider range. Additionally, missile users may select a damage type to deal 100% of. Turrets, particularly turrets that rely on falloff (read: autocannons and sometimes blasters) need to contend with speed and signature for tracking purposes, as well as range in order to apply full DPS (no one wants to fight at the edge of falloff, where you'd be dealing pretty heavily reduced DPS). In other words, 3km optimal + 15km falloff is NOT the same as 18km missile range and is in fact considerably weaker. TEs extend falloff, placing the turret-using ship a little bit higher on the DPS curve at the same range. Additionally, turret users may select their damage type only partially (lasers will always deal EM/therm, hybrids will always deal kin/therm, and projectiles will always deal some degree of kinetic and typically some explosive as well), which is less flexible than missiles. If you don't believe me Fozzie, simply open up EFT and look at a DPS graph for something like an autocannon kite Stabber at 25km and compare it with the DPS of the similarly range-bonused HAM Caracal. Down with this sort of thing. Minmatar ships are already hurting as you lot attempt to give them missiles and shield bonuses ( which race are we talking about again?) rather than expand on their natural strengths of falloff kiting (their ONLY viable form of kiting currently available to Minmatar pilots) and high base speed. In short, Minmatar is increasingly becoming a "one trick pony" race, and you're about to club the dead horse further. ^^ this ^^
what about playing the game before proposing changes, rather that doing it based on spreadsheets calculations?
because, while in some case, EFT give a good idea, it doesn't do anything, an damage appliance ingame and in EFT are so far from each other....
what you are actually doing here with TE, is AGAIN giving missiles boat an edge VS the others, while you were on a good path bringing them in line.
caldari missiles boats are dominating, a bit less since last update, but still. and now, they will be again.... |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
27
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 16:42:00 -
[480] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:IWolfMasterI wrote:why you no like minmatar ccp, your **** us so hard the past year Maybe CCP sees the problem with Winmatar and is starting to cut them down making fleet doctrines with other ships, let alone give players the option to fly what they want and not what the top ship is. yea, matar ships are so "i win" that the drake is STILL the most flawn ship.... |
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
26
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 16:42:00 -
[481] - Quote
Suyer wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:
Most of the times a ship with active tank can tank a kiting ship almost forever. Or at least long enough for it to return to gate and jump. That has always been the balancing. And that is why nerfing TE helps. The dps will be a bit lower, so easier to tank.
Now if people do not want to use active tank.. that its their problem, or better and entirely different problem that arises due to different issues.
All fights don't happen on gates. Engaging a kiting ship in a ship that is slower than it and doesn't have an ability to catch it is a terrible idea unless you know you can escape. What is your point? That for active tanked setups close to a gate that can tank a talos for one minute to deaggro this change is benefical? We're talking about a whole range of ships here, not just edge cases. Plus, tbh if you were in a myrm trying to deaggress on a gate all I have to do is sit at 17km and shoot you. TE or not that doesn't change. I already mentioned in my previous post how this is does very little to effect 1v1 scenarios, as range control versus one person is very easy. So your point is moot.
Just pointing that range control is not the end of the world on most scenarios. Range control is exaclty somethign that demands you to not be alone when fighting a ship that can kite you. Those ships are weaker and you ahve 2 options. Boating back or bring help to kill them. That is balance. If minmatar ships could not kite then they would be FAR inferior.
If there should be no kiting at all. Why ships must move then? Why don' t we start the fight all at station undock?
Just trying to point that things are not simply black or white. |
Blackhole's Revenge
Hoogalish Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 16:43:00 -
[482] - Quote
El 'Terrible wrote:A blanket nerf to TE is very lazy and inconsiderate. How about looking individually at what needs rebalancing rather than trying to rush half thought ideas out?
Because they don't care. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
1955
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 16:44:00 -
[483] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Perhaps the middle ground is to change the Optimal-Falloffl range split....
Rather than 10-20... perhaps they should be 15-15... (granted, that would be a direct nerf to auto-cannons)
I'm personally just really confused about the purpose of this nerf in general-- if the problem is not that shield / kiting ships are "too good" but that they're "too good relative to armor tanked ships," why not buff tracking computers so that ships without tracking enhancers can project damage better? Alternatively, they could just nerf autocannons directly if that's what they're so concerned about. v0v
Kiting is about flying in the zone where you can stay out of your enemies (often overwhelming) firepower, while still dealing enough damage to take them down.
This change just narrows that zone, making kiting a bit more difficult so more people will get their throats cut when dancing on the razor's edge. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
27
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 16:47:00 -
[484] - Quote
sabre906 wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:sabre906 wrote:It was never about the range, or Caldari would've been top of the hill for the past few years. It was always about the speed - kite something forever until it dies, if not, gtfo. What took over since the nano nerf? Oh yeah, the next fastest thing. TE nerf hits all turret boats, especially the blasterboats that don't need a nerf. Minmatar falloff should be increased, and their speed decreased to below shorter range boats, so you get to do a mental calculation: Can I whittle away enough of this thing's hp before it catches up to win the dps race? Speed does not kill anyone without range. And caldari have been the king on larger scale warfare for quite some time. That is why heavy Missiles were nerfed. Minmatar concept is speed. They have less EHP, capacitor, sensors etc. They cannot defeat other races on direct confrontation, you cannot expect them to do anything but kite. I repeat MINMATAR CONCEPT IS SPEED. gallente Concept is firepower. Caldari concept is range and Ammarr concept is endurance. DO not try to make races equal... tl;dr: Winmatar's "concept" is to win? I decree you the boss of what Eve should be. Your "concept," however flawed and unbalancing, shall be. When you can just "gtfo" at will, nothing else (especially ehp) matters. Nothing will be balanced until "gtfo" speed is balanced. Period. TE nerf hit all turrets, include blasters that don't need a nerf. All races get their gun range nerfed except... rats. Balance is pvp. It's a meaningless pve nerf that does nothing.
if you could gtfo at will then no or almost no minmatar ships would die. But that is not true! You could for example use brains, use a smaller ship to tackle then bring that blaster boat in a warp to zero and TOAST the MUCH less sturdy minmatar ship.
What I could agree is that in eve we lack reasons why someone should STAY and fight. There are not enough fighting conditions that a force that stay and control a specific point wins. Well.. those exist, in blob warfare and are called POS. But we could use something in smaller scale, where for example the staying power of amarr would be rewarded.
I remember in past, when we had to scout freighters trough low sec and 0.0 (no jumping freighters) that the defending force would not have won at all if they disengaged and warped off just because they were faster.... Well this is just a mini rant of how much I hate what jump freighters made to the game. |
Meditril
T.R.I.A.D
249
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 16:49:00 -
[485] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:[quote=Ganthrithor] Kiting is about flying in the zone where you can stay out of your enemies (often overwhelming) firepower, while still dealing enough damage to take them down.
This change just narrows that zone, making kiting a bit more difficult so more people will get their throats cut when dancing on the razor's edge.
But this will only affect turret based kiting. Best frigate kiters currently are Caldari missile spammers and they don't get affected by this at all... together with their spare slots for TD they even get improved by the TE nerv. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
27
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 16:50:00 -
[486] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote: it measn that when eve was created blasters were not conceptualized as something you use to kite. You should rush into the opponent, grab him at very close range and over helm him if your superior dps.
I mean ok, that's what CCP assumed when they dreamt up the weapon category, but then nobody used them outside lowsec gate-brawling BC/BS fits because for 90% of engagements the whole idea of point blank weapons on slow armor bricks is a terrible idea. I still contend that what CCP need to do to give Gallente a viable niche is to drop blaster range, re-orient their ships towards either shield tanking or armor tanking with a bonus that ~*completely*~ offsets the penalties of armor plates (either a bonus that does that explicitly or simply through great base speed / agility stats) and add a bonus to afterburner speed bonuses that lets them use an AB to hit MWD-like speeds. Point-blank weapons wouldn't be a massive problem if there was some possibility of disengaging. If you're just going to get scrammed and killed like any other chucklefuck though, then blasters are gonna need to be set up to be used like an autocannon-- from outside hard-tackle range-- if you want to see them used.
Do not disagree that there are issues. See my previous post. I think the overvalue of gtfo card comes from the fact that there are not anymore combat scenarios where its more important to stay and fight, than to kill somethign and GTFO. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1387
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 16:51:00 -
[487] - Quote
Haha, man, this thread is great, i think more people should ask CCP Fozzie and CCP Rise if they've ever played the game, or flown minnie ships, or kiting ships.
You couldn't script this if you tried. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1387
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 16:52:00 -
[488] - Quote
Meditril wrote: Best frigate kiters currently are Caldari missile spammers and they don't get affected by this at all... together with their spare slots for TD they even get improved by the TE nerv.
Yea so if you read they've already stated that this is being looked at
|
FireusI
Famz Corp.
7
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 16:54:00 -
[489] - Quote
Is nice to see these numbers
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
But please leave spaces gaps make it much more easyer to read them insteand of bunching the whole dam thing up
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
898
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 16:58:00 -
[490] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Haha, man, this thread is great, i think more people should ask CCP Fozzie and CCP Rise if they've ever played the game, or flown minnie ships, or kiting ships.
You couldn't script this if you tried.
grath i am slowing starting to like you bro! Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
898
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 16:59:00 -
[491] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Meditril wrote: Best frigate kiters currently are Caldari missile spammers and they don't get affected by this at all... together with their spare slots for TD they even get improved by the TE nerv. Yea so if you read they've already stated that this is being looked at
fingers crossed for td's affecting missiles... Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Casha Andven
the undivided Negative Ten.
4
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 17:04:00 -
[492] - Quote
Let me look at a classic kiting Talos fit:
[Talos, KIter] Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Null L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
I will assume you want to shoot from optimal + falloff/2 for most effective applied DPS while staying safe from a larger gang.
Effective range before pre-nerf: 16 + 28/2 = 30 kms
Effective range before post-nerf: 15 + 24/2 = 27 kms
So when it comes to ships like Talos, Cynabal and Mach, yes the difference is not that much and can be worked around. So I will agree with CCP Rise and Grath Telkin on that. However what riles so many players with this is what is the necessity of this change? Is it to feature more armor ships as part of nano gangs? Because the answer is NO, as so many users have pointed out, armor ships will not feature in small gangs as they require full commitment when fighting and will never make out alive when caught by a bigger gang.
One scenario that this changes is in a 1v1 with an armor ship, yes the kiting ship has to come a bit closer, but in that case why not buff the range on unscripted Tracking Computers as so many have already pointed out?
Meanwhile smaller ships like the Stabber, nano frigates using turrets lose 1-2 kms of precious range that is required to keep out of overloaded webs/scrams. Overall of course this change will not break nano-kiting and small gang meta it will just make it harder but the question remains why, when you could have buffed armor tanking ships (increase in range of unscripted TC) without effecting this. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1389
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 17:13:00 -
[493] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Haha, man, this thread is great, i think more people should ask CCP Fozzie and CCP Rise if they've ever played the game, or flown minnie ships, or kiting ships.
You couldn't script this if you tried. grath i am slowing starting to like you bro!
I grow on you.
Like fungus.
|
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
527
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 17:15:00 -
[494] - Quote
Its just kind of silly to look at the game and say "kiting ships are super prevalent, it must be because they do too much damage" when the real reason has a lot more to do with how tackling works than kiting ships' amazing dps output (hint: it's pretty mediocre except for the Talos).
I assume CCP Rise must be kil2? The fact that kil2 of all people would be pushing kiting nerfs just blows my mind... you'd think someone who'd had so many extremely close fights while flying kiting ships would appreciate how little room there is for error as it is. |
Mariner6
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
111
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 17:16:00 -
[495] - Quote
@CCP Rise: Don't get frustrated. A lot of people are comfortable in what they know and have come to enjoy it. Change can be painful for anyone. Just pull the salient points when they are made. That said.....
So why kiting and thus all the complaints? I'm tracking on the frustration because having always been an armor brawler I recently have started trying it out because frankly I was getting tired of losing ships particularly when the gang is bigger, and if your armor you either win or lose. Rarely is there a GTFO option. And when roaming in Null its fun to be able to engage some groups even if they are bigger, particularly when your in a small corp. But the only way you can attack a big group is via kiting or very shiny ships, maybe bombs but you all get the point.
So I started flying this Omen that one of my Corps mates recommended, at first I was very skeptical as it has only hull tank 10K EHP, but goes 2500m/s and puts out 343 DPS at 29+8.2 with lolscorch (perfect skills, no implants, no boosts.)
[Omen, Man Tank] Damage Control II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Overdrive Injector System II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II Small Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 400
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Scorch M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Scorch M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Scorch M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Scorch M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Scorch M
Medium Polycarbon Engine Housing I Medium Energy Collision Accelerator I Medium Auxiliary Thrusters I
Hornet EC-300 x5
And you know what's funny, this cruiser with the least tank I've flow has been the most survivable ship I've ever flow. Now I've been into structure nearly every fight but I've killed plenty with it, attacked a wide range of targets and sized groups, and amazingly this gets out of more "should have died" events than I can believe. Its absolutely a blast. So not as good as Cynabal mind you, but pretty damn cheap to fly so you don't care if you lose it. And I find you really have to work on your manual piloting, manage your cap, stay in tune to everything going on. So its fun and can be used over a broader envelope of engagements you might find where as in most of my armor boats I have to be more choosy about what fights I take or not.
So my point is that it makes some sense that CCP would want to tone this down some because it does seem a bit lop sided when an amarr kiting cruiser with zero tank outperforms an amarr armor cruiser for so many types of uses. Now that doesn't say there are not times and places where I still prefer armor depending on what your doing and what kind of fleet but for small gang work....well kiting is hard to beat.
Summary: I guess the nerf is needed, but your going to get some tears CCP. I also think you'll need to take a look at ships now across the board that become now unbalanced due to this (ie the missle boats, definitely the Caracal) and maybe some gun boats that tend to kite will need a look at (like can they kill anything at all with lower dps defore they run out of CAP?) Even with the Nerf though, I guess my Favorite Omen will still be good.
|
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
527
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 17:21:00 -
[496] - Quote
Mariner6 wrote:@CCP Rise: Don't get frustrated. A lot of people are comfortable in what they know and have come to enjoy it. Change can be painful for anyone. Just pull the salient points when they are made. That said.....
So why kiting and thus all the complaints? I'm tracking on the frustration because having always been an armor brawler I recently have started trying it out because frankly I was getting tired of losing ships particularly when the gang is bigger, and if your armor you either win or lose. Rarely is there a GTFO option. And when roaming in Null its fun to be able to engage some groups even if they are bigger, particularly when your in a small corp. But the only way you can attack a big group is via kiting or very shiny ships, maybe bombs but you all get the point.
So I started flying this Omen that one of my Corps mates recommended, at first I was very skeptical as it has only hull tank 10K EHP, but goes 2500m/s and puts out 343 DPS at 29+8.2 with lolscorch (perfect skills, no implants, no boosts.)
[Omen, Man Tank] Damage Control II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Overdrive Injector System II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II Small Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 400
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Scorch M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Scorch M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Scorch M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Scorch M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Scorch M
Medium Polycarbon Engine Housing I Medium Energy Collision Accelerator I Medium Auxiliary Thrusters I
Hornet EC-300 x5
And you know what's funny, this cruiser with the least tank I've flow has been the most survivable ship I've ever flow. Now I've been into structure nearly every fight but I've killed plenty with it, attacked a wide range of targets and sized groups, and amazingly this gets out of more "should have died" events than I can believe. Its absolutely a blast. So not as good as Cynabal mind you, but pretty damn cheap to fly so you don't care if you lose it. And I find you really have to work on your manual piloting, manage your cap, stay in tune to everything going on. So its fun and can be used over a broader envelope of engagements you might find where as in most of my armor boats I have to be more choosy about what fights I take or not.
So my point is that it makes some sense that CCP would want to tone this down some because it does seem a bit lop sided when an amarr kiting cruiser with zero tank outperforms an amarr armor cruiser for so many types of uses. Now that doesn't say there are not times and places where I still prefer armor depending on what your doing and what kind of fleet but for small gang work....well kiting is hard to beat.
Summary: I guess the nerf is needed, but your going to get some tears CCP. I also think you'll need to take a look at ships now across the board that become now unbalanced due to this (ie the missle boats, definitely the Caracal) and maybe some gun boats that tend to kite will need a look at (like can they kill anything at all with lower dps defore they run out of CAP?) Even with the Nerf though, I guess my Favorite Omen will still be good.
So tl;dr: kiting is an extremely engaging, tricky, and fun style of gameplay, while brawling is simplistic, deterministic, and frustrating. And your recommendation is that they nerf the fun thing so its not as viable of an option. Because more people should do the annoying, frustrating thing instead?
Ok... |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1801
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 17:22:00 -
[497] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Haha, man, this thread is great, i think more people should ask CCP Fozzie and CCP Rise if they've ever played the game, or flown minnie ships, or kiting ships.
You couldn't script this if you tried.
I know, right?
It's further laden with the irony that they're whining about flying versus EFT warrioring changes that they themselves cannot fly and at best can only do seat of the pants EFT warrioring about.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Mariner6
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
111
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 17:31:00 -
[498] - Quote
[/quote]
So tl;dr: kiting is an extremely engaging, tricky, and fun style of gameplay, while brawling is simplistic, deterministic, and frustrating. And your recommendation is that they nerf the fun thing so its not as viable of an option. Because more people should do the annoying, frustrating thing instead?
Ok...[/quote]
I hear you man...Like I said I'm a bit ambivalent but I can see the need to bring the two a bit closer vice being miles apart. And even with these changes, I don't think its kills kiting. It just won't be quite as lopsided as it is now. I mean to be honest, it needs to hit sisi and test it some. But of course I've noticed that rarely does anything get put into sisi and despite thousands of suggestions does it result in anything, you know like medium rails. |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
527
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 17:34:00 -
[499] - Quote
Mariner6 wrote:
I hear you man...Like I said I'm a bit ambivalent but I can see the need to bring the two a bit closer vice being miles apart. And even with these changes, I don't think its kills kiting. It just won't be quite as lopsided as it is now. I mean to be honest, it needs to hit sisi and test it some. But of course I've noticed that rarely does anything get put into sisi and despite thousands of suggestions does it result in anything, you know like medium rails.
SiSi isn't for testing, its for familiarizing yourself with impending changes :\
Also most fighting on SiSi just isn't useful for evaluation unless you put together your own group of players for testing. Otherwise its just faggots sitting on the combat beacons with their faction battleships / gimmick fits waiting for you to engage them so they can warp in a a few carriers and kill you. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1389
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 17:35:00 -
[500] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:
So tl;dr: kiting is an extremely engaging, tricky, and fun style of gameplay, while brawling is simplistic, deterministic, and frustrating. And your recommendation is that they nerf the fun thing so its not as viable of an option. Because more people should do the annoying, frustrating thing instead?
Ok...
How very dramatic of you.
Its hilarious to watch your posting sperge about how they're removing kiting set ups when thats not even close to whats happening.
Do carry on though.
|
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
899
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 17:36:00 -
[501] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Mariner6 wrote:
I hear you man...Like I said I'm a bit ambivalent but I can see the need to bring the two a bit closer vice being miles apart. And even with these changes, I don't think its kills kiting. It just won't be quite as lopsided as it is now. I mean to be honest, it needs to hit sisi and test it some. But of course I've noticed that rarely does anything get put into sisi and despite thousands of suggestions does it result in anything, you know like medium rails.
SiSi isn't for testing, its for familiarizing yourself with impending changes :\ Also most fighting on SiSi just isn't useful for evaluation unless you put together your own group of players for testing. Otherwise its just faggots sitting on the combat beacons with their faction battleships / gimmick fits waiting for you to engage them so they can warp in a a few carriers and kill you.
you do know there is more then CA1-3 right? try the others or a next door system if you want to test actual pvp.
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
2manno Asp
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
182
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 17:38:00 -
[502] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Mariner6 wrote:@CCP Rise: Don't get frustrated. A lot of people are comfortable in what they know and have come to enjoy it. Change can be painful for anyone. Just pull the salient points when they are made. That said.....
So why kiting and thus all the complaints? I'm tracking on the frustration because having always been an armor brawler I recently have started trying it out because frankly I was getting tired of losing ships particularly when the gang is bigger, and if your armor you either win or lose. Rarely is there a GTFO option. And when roaming in Null its fun to be able to engage some groups even if they are bigger, particularly when your in a small corp. But the only way you can attack a big group is via kiting or very shiny ships, maybe bombs but you all get the point.
So I started flying this Omen that one of my Corps mates recommended, at first I was very skeptical as it has only hull tank 10K EHP, but goes 2500m/s and puts out 343 DPS at 29+8.2 with lolscorch (perfect skills, no implants, no boosts.)
[Omen, Man Tank] Damage Control II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Overdrive Injector System II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II Small Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 400
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Scorch M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Scorch M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Scorch M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Scorch M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Scorch M
Medium Polycarbon Engine Housing I Medium Energy Collision Accelerator I Medium Auxiliary Thrusters I
Hornet EC-300 x5
And you know what's funny, this cruiser with the least tank I've flow has been the most survivable ship I've ever flow. Now I've been into structure nearly every fight but I've killed plenty with it, attacked a wide range of targets and sized groups, and amazingly this gets out of more "should have died" events than I can believe. Its absolutely a blast. So not as good as Cynabal mind you, but pretty damn cheap to fly so you don't care if you lose it. And I find you really have to work on your manual piloting, manage your cap, stay in tune to everything going on. So its fun and can be used over a broader envelope of engagements you might find where as in most of my armor boats I have to be more choosy about what fights I take or not.
So my point is that it makes some sense that CCP would want to tone this down some because it does seem a bit lop sided when an amarr kiting cruiser with zero tank outperforms an amarr armor cruiser for so many types of uses. Now that doesn't say there are not times and places where I still prefer armor depending on what your doing and what kind of fleet but for small gang work....well kiting is hard to beat.
Summary: I guess the nerf is needed, but your going to get some tears CCP. I also think you'll need to take a look at ships now across the board that become now unbalanced due to this (ie the missle boats, definitely the Caracal) and maybe some gun boats that tend to kite will need a look at (like can they kill anything at all with lower dps defore they run out of CAP?) Even with the Nerf though, I guess my Favorite Omen will still be good.
So tl;dr: kiting is an extremely engaging, tricky, and fun style of gameplay, while brawling is simplistic, deterministic, and frustrating. And your recommendation is that they nerf the fun thing so its not as viable of an option. Because more people should do the annoying, frustrating thing instead? Ok...
lawl! that's exactly how i read it. |
2manno Asp
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
182
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 17:39:00 -
[503] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:2manno Asp wrote:
a 2 TE slicer for instance, at lvl 5 goes from 22+4.1 to 20+3.5. ask any slicer pilot, that's a big difference.
i don't know why it's hard for you to understand that sometimes a 2km change can make a bigger difference than a 5km change.
I am a slicer pilot, and I'm telling you that 2km doesn't really matter because its generally out of point range since most slicers are forced to fit a faint warp disruptor and fight right around 18km, give or take. The 2km difference means nothing.
well that has all the makings of complete fabrication. it goes against my experience from fit to finish.
in all sincerity, would you care to share some of those mails in your t1 point slicer, unboosted, where you're not blobbing people to death?
i'd be genuinely interested. |
2manno Asp
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
182
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 17:41:00 -
[504] - Quote
dp sorry |
BigSako
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
12
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 17:42:00 -
[505] - Quote
1. I can absolutely see the point of remote sebos being nerfed (hopefully not below normal sebos), however, how about the ability to overheat sebos and remote sebos?
2. I can see the logic of changing TEs to move them somewhere inbetween scripted and unscripted tracking computer, however I am a bit unhappy with the change as it heavily nerfes smaller sniper doctrines (sniper-hacks, tier 3 snipers) for small gang warfare, as well as Cynabals / Vagabonds. But I guess it does make sense as the Minmatar gunnery system does have a superior position.
3. Same as 1, but for tracking computer (remote tracking computer) - how about overheating them? |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
527
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 17:49:00 -
[506] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:
So tl;dr: kiting is an extremely engaging, tricky, and fun style of gameplay, while brawling is simplistic, deterministic, and frustrating. And your recommendation is that they nerf the fun thing so its not as viable of an option. Because more people should do the annoying, frustrating thing instead?
Ok...
How very dramatic of you. Its hilarious to watch your posting sperge about how they're removing kiting set ups when thats not even close to whats happening. Do carry on though.
I do bereave I said "makie it less viable" not "remove it."
Which is exactly what they're doing. But please, continue to call me dramatic. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2365
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 17:53:00 -
[507] - Quote
So keeping range in a faster ship is "tricky", and trying to catch them with a slower ship is "simple"?
Ok.
Being able to engage larger gangs, get kills and not die is not OP?
Ok.
Nano kiting blasters ships are not broken by design?
Ok.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
505
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 18:01:00 -
[508] - Quote
And again, are TDs going to be adjusted to reflect the decreased ranges of all guns? |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
527
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 18:02:00 -
[509] - Quote
Roime wrote:So keeping range in a faster ship is "tricky", and trying to catch them with a slower ship is "simple"?
Ok.
Being able to engage larger gangs, get kills and not die is not OP?
Ok.
Nano kiting blasters ships are not broken by design?
Ok.
It's pretty straightforward when you're fighting one other ship, but have you ever tried maintaining range from a whole bunch of things at once when they're coming at you at different speeds and from different directions? It's not so easy!
Kiting ships are able to engage larger gangs, get kills and not die when the pilots in the opposing gang make mistakes. If they maneuver carefully / intelligently you can't really kill them. You have to let yourself be kited.
Nano kiting blaster ships are absolutely not broken, I don't even know what your'e talking about (coincidentally I don't think you know either!). Blaster setups are generally slower than Minmatar cruisers, do less damage at range and have inferior tracking, so I'm not really sure what you're on about. There's a reason the only commonly-seen blaster kiter is the nano Talos... |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1389
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 18:08:00 -
[510] - Quote
2manno Asp wrote:
in all sincerity, would you care to share some of those mails in your t1 point slicer, unboosted, where you're not blobbing people to death?
i'd be genuinely interested.
I don't use booster alts, sorry, its soft weakass game play that the young bucks in groups like Pizza can't play without.
https://www.pandemic-legion.com/killboard/view_kill.php?id=498675
Theres more, I haven't been flying them lately because slicers are fairly easy mode compared to flying some of the other frigates, especially when you actually roam pure solo.
|
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1389
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 18:10:00 -
[511] - Quote
Ok the goon kid is just making **** up now, I got nothing left for him since he stopped dealing in actual facts and is now just pulling random crap out of his ass. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
28
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 18:11:00 -
[512] - Quote
Roime wrote:So keeping range in a faster ship is "tricky", and trying to catch them with a slower ship is "simple"?
Ok. People say that its unfair that faster ships should be able to escape because they cannot overcome their speed. I can counter that with. Its completely unfair that ships with more damage should win a fight just because I cannot make more damage then they do!
The simple proposition that there is anything wrong with Kiting is beyond stupid! its just blindness! All and any argument you can make against kiting you can make against brute force combat. Always one side will loose! You need to find a way to counter the advantage of the enemy, that is the whole fun of the damm PVP!
If we cannot have kiting, then we cannot have ships with more damage then others. Also we cannot have ships with more hitpoitn or tank than others. Maybe we should all fly only mining barges!!!
|
Aglais
Liberation Army Li3 Federation
192
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 18:11:00 -
[513] - Quote
I notice that people are now whining that missiles are going to be OP because of range...?
Ok, there need to be benefits and drawbacks to each weapon system. Close range turrets vs. close range missiles. Missiles have longer range, but then have to deal with flight time and damage reduction based on target velocity and size.Turrets apply damage instantly, tend to do more damage if they hit, have a critical strike chance (which can really change the outcome of a fight if you're lucky; missiles do not ever hit critically), etc.
Basically what this is doing is further differentiating missiles and turrets as well. It also helps give Caldari back their 'damage projection over more impressive ranges' role that tends to exist within their combat philosophy.
I also will not miss the days of Minmatar PvP superiority and can't wait for these changes to come to pass. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
28
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 18:19:00 -
[514] - Quote
Aglais wrote:I
I also will not miss the days of Minmatar PvP superiority and can't wait for these changes to come to pass.
You realize there will never be a time where there not an underdog or a FOTM ?
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
28
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 18:23:00 -
[515] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:
It's pretty straightforward when you're fighting one other ship, but have you ever tried maintaining range from a whole bunch of things at once when they're coming at you at different speeds and from different directions? It's not so easy!
.
That part , I must grant has some truthful merit. its true that keeping range from several ships in a complex battle is more complicated than trying to approach an specific ship within that same battle.
|
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
150
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 18:34:00 -
[516] - Quote
Weasel Juice wrote:Rather than fancy EFT warrior skills, I present you with numbers about reality.
RankShipsKills 1Oracle54,779 Shield (primarily) 2Naga51,812 Shield 3Tornado50,412 Shield (primarily) 4Hurricane47,395 Shield (primarily) 5Loki 44,967 Armor (shield possible though) 6Talos44,429 Shield 7Rokh42,509 Shield 8Thrasher40,014 N/A 9Maelstrom34,905 Shield 10Zealot32,453 Armor 11Rupture32,351 Shield 12Caracal32,316 Shield (missiles) 13Sabre31,227 N/A 14Hound29,868 N/A 15Tempest Fleet Issue29,182 Shield 16Drake27,872 Shield 17Talwar25,621 N/A 18Cynabal25,341 Shield 19Stabber Fleet Issue24,882 Shield 20Proteus23,988 Armor
~725,000 in the top 20 ~100,000 on armor ships. ~125,000 on speed tanked ships ~500,000 kills on traditional shield ships. ~385,000 kills on shield ships that utilize TEs.
Now let's look at why this trend exists: * Mobility. Shields are faster, accelerate better, align faster. * Shield reps hit instantly and still rep for the same amount. * More base damage potential due to abundance of lowslots
Oracle/Naga/Tornado/Talos shouldn't count in your list because they are the most unbalanced ships in the game. They are faster than t1 cruisers and have ridiculous range, of course they are going to be shield fit.
Rokh is up there because of PL and resistance bonuses.
Maelstrom is because of artillery, not because of kiting.
Tempest Fleet Issue is actually armour and this is goons fit with TWO TRACKING COMPUTERS. get hazed.
Stabber Fleet Issue is usually armour too, either dual rep fit if you have links or plate and sig tank. If you are fitting shield you'd just get a cynabal because fleet stabber has horrible dps. |
2manno Asp
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
182
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 18:39:00 -
[517] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:2manno Asp wrote:
in all sincerity, would you care to share some of those mails in your t1 point slicer, unboosted, where you're not blobbing people to death?
i'd be genuinely interested.
I don't use booster alts, sorry, its soft weakass game play that the young bucks in groups like Pizza can't play without. https://www.pandemic-legion.com/killboard/view_kill.php?id=498675Theres more, I haven't been flying them lately because slicers are fairly easy mode compared to flying some of the other frigates, especially when you actually roam pure solo.
well... 1 kill against an ab frig from 2009 is hardly going to make the case. in looking at your kb, i'm not finding any solo kills for like, years. or any in frigates at all for that matter.
no offense, but i think you're a bit out of touch. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2366
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 18:44:00 -
[518] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote: It's pretty straightforward when you're fighting one other ship, but have you ever tried maintaining range from a whole bunch of things at once when they're coming at you at different speeds and from different directions? It's not so easy!
Kiting ships are able to engage larger gangs, get kills and not die when the pilots in the opposing gang make mistakes. If they maneuver carefully / intelligently you can't really kill them. You have to let yourself be kited.
Nano kiting blaster ships are absolutely not broken, I don't even know what your'e talking about (coincidentally I don't think you know either!). Blaster setups are generally slower than Minmatar cruisers, do less damage at range and have inferior tracking, so I'm not really sure what you're on about. There's a reason the only commonly-seen blaster kiter is the nano Talos...
If they were faster than you, it would be impossible.
I do agree that you need to be ******** to burn straight towards a faster ship with more range :D
I mean that the whole existence of nano kiting blaster ships is broken, and the single culprit is TE.
Yes, most ships are slower than the fastest cruisers in game, duh. However, post-Retribution Gallente blaster ships are very close in speed, and blasters have in fact the best tracking. This is even more prominent on tracking-bonused hulls.
I'd personally like to see close-range weapons disappear from all kiting ships, but this TE tweak is not that severe to accomplish that.
People currently think that medium LR turrets are bad, but fail to realize that one reason is the comparative goodness of close range turrets with TEs and T2 ammo.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
150
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 18:47:00 -
[519] - Quote
2manno Asp wrote: well... 1 kill against an ab frig from 2009 is hardly going to make the case. in looking at your kb, i'm not finding any solo kills for like, years. or any in frigates at all for that matter.
no offense, but i think you're a bit out of touch.
no mate ur right this whole TE NERF IS A TARGETED HIT AGAINST THE SLICER
i think its dumb that my slicer will have to engage under 22km :( :( :( |
Jaangel
Cloak and Badgers
24
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 18:47:00 -
[520] - 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.
Urm no they werent do you play eve?
All you have done is make small gang pvp less effective while having little affect on blob warefare.
Can you please explain your 'Vision' for pvp because as i see there is going to be flying t1 cruisers and there will be no shinney stuff worth flying. |
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2366
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 18:49:00 -
[521] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Roime wrote:So keeping range in a faster ship is "tricky", and trying to catch them with a slower ship is "simple"?
Ok. People say that its unfair that faster ships should be able to escape because they cannot overcome their speed. I can counter that with. Its completely unfair that ships with more damage should win a fight just because I cannot make more damage then they do! The simple proposition that there is anything wrong with Kiting is beyond stupid! its just blindness! All and any argument you can make against kiting you can make against brute force combat. Always one side will loose! You need to find a way to counter the advantage of the enemy, that is the whole fun of the damm PVP! If we cannot have kiting, then we cannot have ships with more damage then others. Also we cannot have ships with more hitpoitn or tank than others. Maybe we should all fly only mining barges!!!
My point was aimed at the fallacy of "kiting requires more skill", when in reality maintaining range is easier than closing range, I'm not saying speed is unfair.
Nerfing damage projection at long point range makes kiting require more actual skill instead of relying purely on speed advantage. It's evident in this thread that it terrifies many ~Elite PVPers~, just like the thought of OGB nerf.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
69
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 18:50:00 -
[522] - Quote
Laser ships are already widely used - from Navy Slicers to Abaddons, from Zealots to Revelations. On the other hand, rare and weak railguns will become even more weaker. |
Mord Raven
Phrike Squadron
3
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 18:51:00 -
[523] - Quote
Kiters (solo and small gang players most viable option to engage larger groups) want to keep the room for maneuverability they have. Nerfing TEs because they should be more in line with TCs will in turn nerf kiters damage projection which in turn will force them to move closer to their targets. Shield tanking means you have to make compromises in order to increase range and midslots are used for shield mods instead of ewar etc. If instead TCs are buffed the same compromises have to be made by armor tankers. Fit TCs to be able to hit kiters or fit some other mod?
So, why donGÇÖt buff TCs instead of nerfing TEs? Kiters will retain their precious maneuverability but will face another counter. Armor tankers are happy because they have another option in engaging kiters. Please donGÇÖt nerf solo and small gang play styles.. |
Weasel Juice
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
41
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 18:59:00 -
[524] - Quote
Quote:Oracle/Naga/Tornado/Talos shouldn't count in your list because they are the most unbalanced ships in the game. They are faster than t1 cruisers and have ridiculous range, of course they are going to be shield fit.
How does this anything but prove my point - the high damage/instant rep/high agility combination is powerful and armor is the opposite of that all.
Quote:Rokh is up there because of PL and resistance bonuses. So what happened to good old Hellcat Abaddons? Why is everyone flying Rokhs these days? Instant reps, better damage application and better agility is the answer.
Quote:Maelstrom is because of artillery, not because of kiting. So what's the advantage of artillery? Range dictation and alpha. And the reason people don't fly Arty Abaddons anymore is because they're just too slow and have too much problems actually appyling that damage. TEs
Quote:Tempest Fleet Issue is actually armour and this is goons fit with TWO TRACKING COMPUTERS. get hazed. That was my bad. For some reason I was thinking vanilla tempest here.
Quote:Stabber Fleet Issue is usually armour too, either dual rep fit if you have links or plate and sig tank. If you are fitting shield you'd just get a cynabal because fleet stabber has horrible dps. The Cynabal is a better version of an SFI either way. Reason why people fly SFI is because it's cheaper and lots of people have stockpiled them from the FW plexing days.
And they are shield fit often. Very often.
The whole point is that shield offers everything you want in one package. Superior damage, superior damage application, superior range dictation, superior agility, superior reps. Even in small scale range dictation is stronger than EW. There just is no trade off. And the TE fix is one more step in addressing this problem. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2366
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 18:59:00 -
[525] - Quote
Jaangel wrote: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. Urm no they werent do you play eve? All you have done is make small gang pvp less effective while having little affect on blob warefare. Can you please explain your 'Vision' for pvp because as i see there is going to be flying t1 cruisers and there will be no shinney stuff worth flying.
My 1.2 billion ISK LOLPLATE LOLBRICK LOLBLASTER LOLBRAWLER is still worth flying, just like it's been worth every 0.01 ISK from the first evening I bought one a year ago
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Pesadel0
the muppets DARKNESS.
66
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 19:00:00 -
[526] - Quote
Thank you for nerfing minies ships :D |
Casha Andven
the undivided Negative Ten.
4
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 19:05:00 -
[527] - Quote
Roime wrote:So keeping range in a faster ship is "tricky", and trying to catch them with a slower ship is "simple"?
Of course a faster ship will have it easier to control range, its called physics. That's why you need to give tankier ships longer range (Scorch). The TE nerf aims to do this, but also impacts negatively all forms of kiting scenarios. (See below)
Being able to engage larger gangs, get kills and not die is not OP?
How can it be OP, being able to do this is achieved by a lot of practice and development of manual piloting skills as well as small gang tactics. That's exactly why the eve-is-easy and kil2 videos are so awesome and so many pilots look to emulating elite pvp corps like Tuskers, Hydra, Verge etc. Did you want to nerf TIger Woods when he was at his best?
Nano kiting blasters ships are not broken by design? How are they broken? The Talos is an excellent solo/small gang ship.
|
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
505
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 19:11:00 -
[528] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:
So tl;dr: kiting is an extremely engaging, tricky, and fun style of gameplay, while brawling is simplistic, deterministic, and frustrating. And your recommendation is that they nerf the fun thing so its not as viable of an option. Because more people should do the annoying, frustrating thing instead?
Ok...
How very dramatic of you. Its hilarious to watch your posting sperge about how they're removing kiting set ups when thats not even close to whats happening. Do carry on though. I do bereave I said "makie it less viable" not "remove it." Which is exactly what they're doing. But please, continue to call me dramatic.
Its what they have been doing since tiericide started |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
343
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 19:20:00 -
[529] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Sizeof Void wrote: Why do both TCs and TEs give twice the bonus to falloff vs. optimal? Why isn't the bonus to optimal equal to the bonus for falloff?
Because falloff effectively is worth half. There was a looong mathemathical proof at the old super thread that generated the addition of falloff bonus into the modules. I'm familiar with the math, but but doing damage is only 1/2 of combat; avoiding taking damage is equally important.
In-game, using TC/TE modules effectively with projectile weapons means that you can consistently remain outside the range of your opponent's hybrids/lasers, esp. if you are flying Minmatar ships which tend to have a speed advantage. Sure, you are doing less damage, but less damage in extended falloff is still far superior to no damage outside of optimal. No one with a half a brain is going to fight within an opponent's optimal, if it isn't necessary to do so.
Why do you think that projectile-fit, TE-equipped Minmatar ships are so overly popular? |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
29
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 19:23:00 -
[530] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Sizeof Void wrote: Why do both TCs and TEs give twice the bonus to falloff vs. optimal? Why isn't the bonus to optimal equal to the bonus for falloff?
Because falloff effectively is worth half. There was a looong mathemathical proof at the old super thread that generated the addition of falloff bonus into the modules. I'm familiar with the math, but but doing damage is only 1/2 of combat; avoiding taking damage is equally important. In-game, using TC/TE modules effectively with projectile weapons means that you can consistently remain outside the range of your opponent's hybrids/lasers, esp. if you are flying Minmatar ships which tend to have a speed advantage. Sure, you are doing less damage, but less damage in extended falloff is still far superior to no damage outside of optimal. No one with a half a brain is going to fight within an opponent's optimal, if it isn't necessary to do so. Why do you think that projectile-fit, TE-equipped Minmatar ships are so overly popular?
Minmatar ships can never outrange scorch boats fielding the same number of range modules. In fact the scorch has MASSIVE advantage on most of the realistic envelopes of engagements. Hybrids are meant to be out ranged, thta is what they pay for havign massive damage advantage.
Projectiles are not massively superior on any area, they are popular because they have no severe weakness. They are a middle ground between the other 2 types of turrets. |
|
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate Samurai Pizza Cats
439
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 19:33:00 -
[531] - Quote
This is a pretty big nerf for amarr boats sub BS class. Things like the nano-omen, and the new navy omen will have their usefulness greatly reduced, essentially pushing them further into just fleet armor tankers instead of also having a niche as kiting boats with scorch.
If the intention is to nerf scorch and amarr boats, well mission accomplished. But if your intention was to decrease Minmatar's dominance (as well as things like the blaster talos with null) I suggest keeping the optimal bonus as is, but still reducing the falloff bonus.
This is also a blow to ships like the sniping cormorant (the brawling cormorant was already nerfed with the loss of a midslot, but the sniping corm was able to remain relatively unchanged using tracking enhancers). |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
29
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 19:36:00 -
[532] - Quote
Ok. Pay attention people. We have people complaining this is a heavy nerf to Amarr, other saying it will kill blasters, others saying it hits minmatar much more massively. Match this to the whining of heavy missile nerf and.... EVERYONE IS COMPLAINING
That pretty much means its balanced! Everyone is equally unhappy!
Congratulations CCP Fozzie and CCP Rise! |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
505
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 19:37:00 -
[533] - Quote
8 TEs bonus a ship less than a single unbonused TD disrupts it. |
Greenlock Beta
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 19:44:00 -
[534] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Ok. Pay attention people. We have people complaining this is a heavy nerf to Amarr, other saying it will kill blasters, others saying it hits minmatar much more massively. Match this to the whining of heavy missile nerf and.... EVERYONE IS COMPLAINING
That pretty much means its balanced! Everyone is equally unhappy!
Congratulations CCP Fozzie and CCP Rise! Ahem. Missiles, those pesky things with no tracking and loooong range. Not everyone's complaining. I'm not, not one bit. |
Lelob
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
117
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 19:51:00 -
[535] - Quote
Jaangel wrote: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. Urm no they werent do you play eve? All you have done is make small gang pvp less effective while having little affect on blob warefare. Can you please explain your 'Vision' for pvp because as i see there is going to be flying t1 cruisers and there will be no shinney stuff worth flying.
Raivi doesn't play eve unless its to tournament test, or orbit+f1. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
505
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 19:54:00 -
[536] - Quote
Lelob wrote:Jaangel wrote: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. Urm no they werent do you play eve? All you have done is make small gang pvp less effective while having little affect on blob warefare. Can you please explain your 'Vision' for pvp because as i see there is going to be flying t1 cruisers and there will be no shinney stuff worth flying. Raivi doesn't play eve unless its to tournament test, or orbit+f1.
Also approach, f1, pray in the honorable prom style of pvp |
Lelob
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
117
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 19:55:00 -
[537] - Quote
Hah, got the edit before your post :P |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
507
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 19:57:00 -
[538] - Quote
Orbit f1 is different from approach f1. Orbit f1 is stuff like double TD condors, which need a buff because its totally possible to counter TDs. |
Turgon Barash
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 19:59:00 -
[539] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:AWESOME! I'm really suprised it took you that long, though This. I remember my jaw dropping when TE's got boosted to the level they're at now and thinking it wouldn't be long until they got nerfed back into balance. That was what, about 4 years back when MINNIE GUNS SUCKED and overnight became Winmatar. I guess it was long in coming, but better late than never.
So you want minnie guns to suck againe.The whole point of minnie ACs and Artys IS WORKING IN FALLOFF thats what is all about for most minnie ships and in that falloff you already have diminished DPS whith this new nerf dps is just gona be even worse.This will most hurt frig and cruiser ACs and Artys where every km of range counts and where you dont have spare mid for TC most of the time...see wolf
|
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
527
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 20:04:00 -
[540] - Quote
I want to know what Kovorix thinks about this.
e: If he still plays this game :\ |
|
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
507
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 20:08:00 -
[541] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:I want to know what Kovorix thinks about this.
e: If he still plays this game :\
You know when a goon is saying a particular change makes small gang pvp too hard that something is really ****** up about said change |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
527
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 20:12:00 -
[542] - Quote
Also Grath you can suck mah dilz with your "It's only a three percent decrease in DPS" bullshit. I just compared my blaster Proteus fit to a version using T1 TEs in EFT and it's a 20% decrease in applied DPS at 24km using Null. On a ship that only hits for 263 dps at 24km as it is.
So yeah, the change does exactly what I was saying it would to kiting blaster cruisers-- totally eviscerates a ship that did mediocre damage to begin with. How ships like this are "problematic" under current mechanics is beyond me. |
Dead All Capitals
Kriegsmarinewerft Goonswarm Federation
58
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 20:14:00 -
[543] - Quote
Nerf Goons |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
507
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 20:15:00 -
[544] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Also Grath you can suck mah dilz with your "It's only a three percent decrease in DPS" bullshit. I just compared my blaster Proteus fit to a version using T1 TEs in EFT and it's a 20% decrease in applied DPS at 24km using Null. On a ship that only hits for 263 dps at 24km as it is.
So yeah, the change does exactly what I was saying it would to kiting blaster cruisers-- totally eviscerates a ship that did mediocre damage to begin with. How ships like this are "problematic" under current mechanics is beyond me. If you and Kil2 have a problem with the Talos (which is more understandable) then take it up with that hull. I'd prefer it if you'd leave the Deimos, Proteus, and Vigilant useable as shield ships.
Its even worse on amarr ships |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
579
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 20:15:00 -
[545] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Ok. Pay attention people. We have people complaining this is a heavy nerf to Amarr, other saying it will kill blasters, others saying it hits minmatar much more massively. Match this to the whining of heavy missile nerf and.... EVERYONE IS COMPLAINING
That pretty much means its balanced! Everyone is equally unhappy!
Congratulations CCP Fozzie and CCP Rise!
Proteus-boosted triple-TD Caracals for the State! |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
527
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 20:19:00 -
[546] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:Also Grath you can suck mah dilz with your "It's only a three percent decrease in DPS" bullshit. I just compared my blaster Proteus fit to a version using T1 TEs in EFT and it's a 20% decrease in applied DPS at 24km using Null. On a ship that only hits for 263 dps at 24km as it is.
So yeah, the change does exactly what I was saying it would to kiting blaster cruisers-- totally eviscerates a ship that did mediocre damage to begin with. How ships like this are "problematic" under current mechanics is beyond me. If you and Kil2 have a problem with the Talos (which is more understandable) then take it up with that hull. I'd prefer it if you'd leave the Deimos, Proteus, and Vigilant useable as shield ships. Its even worse on amarr ships
Ironically it's an indirect buff to Minmatar ships, since their overall longer range means a Cynabal fit only loses ~20 DPS at 24km. Good thing all these publords are so excited about them "nerfing Winmatar" lol. |
Violet Winters
Angelic Eclipse.
9
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 20:31:00 -
[547] - Quote
nooooooo my precious machurial!!!! Violet Winters, sister of Kahlia Winters.
|
Lelob
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
117
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 20:32:00 -
[548] - Quote
On a hurricane it's also about 22% lost dps at 20-25km. The affect of this nerf will be more and more people not flying tier 2 bc's in favor of t3 bc's, who will feel the effects of this nerf far less at kiting ranges. It's also worth asking people like Grath Telkin, who claims that 4km isn't a big deal about why do people:
a. not fit t1 tracking enhancers then, given that they have the same stats as the new proposed t2 te's b. why do people spend isk on faction mods that only provide small dps changes, far less then 22%. c. why do people train up skills that offer only 2% increases to falloff/optimal/tracking for 2 weeks at a time d. how much did you spent on hardwirings and faction/officer mods on your titan, to increase the range/dps/tracking?
The answer is simple. The changes and benefits these provide are huge. They are not small, they are not irrelevant and a te nerf, like all of the above, will have a very serious impact on the way the game is played and the way that ships can be handled. |
DR BiCarbonate
Basgerin Pirate SCUM.
55
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 20:37:00 -
[549] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I thought the stabber fit linked about would be an interesting point of reference for the TE changes so I was just fiddling with it a little bit and the results are at the bottom. I think its likely that you will feel this effect (usually between a 5% and 15% Im guessing) at typical engagement ranges for kiting ships like the stabber or the talos - but it seems unlikely that the role of the ship will be compromised to an extent that they would be abandoned. More likely, there will just be some extra room for ships like armor harb or armor brutix to have a role.
The fundamental ability to engage large groups with small ones won't change at all. It may take slightly more time to wear down ships that you isolate, depending on relative ranges, and there may be slightly more flexibility for tackling frigs to be on grid for longer, but overall this change shouldn't shift the meta much.
[Stabber, kiter] Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II
Medium Shield Extender II Medium Shield Extender II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 5W Infectious Power System Malfunction 50W Infectious Power System Malfunction
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
BARRAGE 6.5% dps drop at 20k
3.51+37.2 with the old TE 187dps@20km 3.23+32 with new TE 175dps@20km RF EMP - 18% dps drop at 20km 1.75+24.8 with old TE 170dps@20km 1.61+21.3 with new TE 140dps@20km
oh lawd.... what the ****, i was actually excited when you said you got a job at ccp, then i saw this. are you not allowed to fit oversize tank on ships over there at ccp? medium shield extender...? hope thats a typo, or you should probably quit eve. sorry man. **** fit is ****.
looks like fozzie abandoned his own thread too, i should probably join PL, would make this nerf less ****?
Sorry for all the hate, but these 'rebalancing' updates are ******* horrid. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1391
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 20:46:00 -
[550] - Quote
Lelob wrote:On a hurricane it's also about 22% lost dps at 20-25km. The affect of this nerf will be more and more people not flying tier 2 bc's in favor of t3 bc's, who will feel the effects of this nerf far less at kiting ranges. It's also worth asking people like Grath Telkin, who claims that 4km isn't a big deal about why do people:
a. not fit t1 tracking enhancers then, given that they have the same stats as the new proposed t2 te's b. why do people spend isk on faction mods that only provide small dps changes, far less then 22%. c. why do people train up skills that offer only 2% increases to falloff/optimal/tracking for 2 weeks at a time d. how much did you spent on hardwirings and faction/officer mods on your titan, to increase the range/dps/tracking?
The answer is simple. The changes and benefits these provide are huge. They are not small, they are not irrelevant and a te nerf, like all of the above, will have a very serious impact on the way the game is played and the way that ships can be handled.
3km change in fall off, better unplug the servers, games over man, no hope left. |
|
LeMorted'Authur
Federation of Free Miners Silver Dragonz
13
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 20:46:00 -
[551] - Quote
What this post needs is a " you are a ******" or "worst idea in the eve". one can push it and everyone sees that this post is a very bad change or suggestion for eve.
When I was a nooblet, we noobs could fit a fleet of rifters and place all different kinds of ecm in the mids, each ship a different kind. so eight of us noobs would have 2 sensor dampeners, 2 ecm, 2 tracking, 2 resebos. We go out and have fun. Force multipliers are important to eve and combat because some people hate large blob fights.
Kiting ships are sp equal kind of ships, yes a pilot who has the most sp has the better ship if in a equal fit, but most pilots are noobs in these kinds of ships so kiting is a very hard tactic of unskilled pilots to use, and by unskilled i am referring to the pilots skill of thinking and using a mouse, not ccp character skills.
These noob fleets I was once apart of is the reason why i am in eve still they were fun and I enjoyed eve never more than then. The Angry German only flies 6 accounts into HQ's sites not 16 accounts. I am sorry I was misinformed. DIN is a mutli box community which should not be allowed to have any say in high sec incursions. They have taken the most amount of MOM's then anyone.-á |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
527
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 20:48:00 -
[552] - Quote
Here's a thing: Three kiting cruisers using long range ammo, compared:
http://i.imgur.com/TSSEdNe.jpg
The two curves for each ship are current fit (T2 TE) vs post-nerf (simulated by substituting T2 TEs for T1).
The green bar represents typical kiting ranges (20km at the inboard, 36km (overheated faction point range) at the outboard).
Look how hard this nerf fucks blaster ships. Compared to any other turret setup. It's ridiculous. Scorch users lose nothing, AC fits lose ~6% dps, Heavy Neutrons + Null lose 20%... on the weapon system that did the least damage within this range envelope to begin with. The Proteus is worse off under current mechanics ANYWHERE outside 21km, and this nerf only increases the gap.
Keep in mind that the engagement envelope is a cold hard fact that is not negotiable-- any closer and you start straying into overheated web range (and exploding). Any farther and you lose points on your target and they just sort of wander off.
edit: None of those are outlandish / gimmick fits either. They're all things I currently have in my hangar and have flown personally. |
Lin Fatale
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 20:58:00 -
[553] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I understand the allure of hyperbole related to the death of the small gang versus the blob - but this change should definitely be considered in the context of a game where a gang with some standard cruisers and BCs with a couple skirmish links can engage at almost any ratio of friend to foe. Its fun to engage outnumbered (I've heard), but expecting a few extremely strong mods to do a large portion of the work for you seems a bit over the top. I like writing posts but I'm not sure its doing any good
dont focus on the "we really have to fix a module, just because its not 100% ballanced"
focus on the result and the result will be, that it will be harder for smaller groups to engage larger groups which will lead to less fights, force blops
it wont fix armor and any attempt to nerf shild kiting and hope ppl will roam with armor ships will fail
the priority should be, fix things which are really broken like the "here comes the daily naga fleet" or I can move my cap fleet around eve in 3 minutes
after that you can play around with little things like TE |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
562
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 20:58:00 -
[554] - Quote
Again, keep going strong with the great balance changes, you guys are making EvE a much better game. Players will actually use ships other than the few boring nano/shield ones.
The nano facerollers tears are normal, the some thing happend with the speed nerf a few years ago, the facerollers don't like balance. Just ignore them, they are bias as hell. |
Lelob
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
119
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 21:00:00 -
[555] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Lelob wrote:On a hurricane it's also about 22% lost dps at 20-25km. The affect of this nerf will be more and more people not flying tier 2 bc's in favor of t3 bc's, who will feel the effects of this nerf far less at kiting ranges. It's also worth asking people like Grath Telkin, who claims that 4km isn't a big deal about why do people:
a. not fit t1 tracking enhancers then, given that they have the same stats as the new proposed t2 te's b. why do people spend isk on faction mods that only provide small dps changes, far less then 22%. c. why do people train up skills that offer only 2% increases to falloff/optimal/tracking for 2 weeks at a time d. how much did you spent on hardwirings and faction/officer mods on your titan, to increase the range/dps/tracking?
The answer is simple. The changes and benefits these provide are huge. They are not small, they are not irrelevant and a te nerf, like all of the above, will have a very serious impact on the way the game is played and the way that ships can be handled. 3km change in fall off, better unplug the servers, games over man, no hope left.
How much did you spent on your titan hardwirings? |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
527
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 21:00:00 -
[556] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:Again, keep going strong with the great balance changes, you guys are making EvE a much better game. Players will actually use ships other than the few boring nano/shield ones.
The nano facerollers tears are normal, the some thing happend with the speed nerf a few years ago, the facerollers don't like balance. Just ignore them, they are bias as hell.
Yeah if only we could all honoure-duel on the 4-4 undock in our active tanked Vindicators like you no doubt do. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2371
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 21:04:00 -
[557] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Here's a thing: Three kiting cruisers using long range ammo, compared: http://i.imgur.com/TSSEdNe.jpgThe two curves for each ship are current fit (T2 TE) vs post-nerf (simulated by substituting T2 TEs for T1). The green bar represents typical kiting ranges (20km at the inboard, 36km (overheated faction point range) at the outboard). Look how hard this nerf fucks blaster ships. Compared to any other turret setup. It's ridiculous. Scorch users lose nothing, AC fits lose ~6% dps, Heavy Neutrons + Null lose 20%... on the weapon system that did the least damage within this range envelope to begin with. The Proteus is worse off under current mechanics ANYWHERE outside 21km, and this nerf only increases the gap. Keep in mind that the engagement envelope is a cold hard fact that is not negotiable-- any closer and you start straying into overheated web range (and exploding). Any farther and you lose points on your target and they just sort of wander off.
Kiting Proteus, that's cool. You fly it like the 1600mm plate torp Vaga?
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
LeMorted'Authur
Federation of Free Miners Silver Dragonz
13
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 21:06:00 -
[558] - Quote
Lin Fatale wrote:CCP Rise wrote:I understand the allure of hyperbole related to the death of the small gang versus the blob - but this change should definitely be considered in the context of a game where a gang with some standard cruisers and BCs with a couple skirmish links can engage at almost any ratio of friend to foe. Its fun to engage outnumbered (I've heard), but expecting a few extremely strong mods to do a large portion of the work for you seems a bit over the top. I like writing posts but I'm not sure its doing any good dont focus on the "we really have to fix a module, just because its not 100% ballanced" focus on the result and the result will be, that it will be harder for smaller groups to engage larger groups which will lead to less fights, force blops it wont fix armor and any attempt to nerf shild kiting and hope ppl will roam with armor ships will fail the priority should be, fix things which are really broken like the "here comes the daily naga fleet" or I can move my cap fleet around eve in 3 minutes after that you can play around with little things like TE
Armor ships are fine as they are used, to defend home systems. Because of the cap requirements of armor ships (GAL/AMR) Most people learned that armor in large numbers and roaming is not fun because when a fleet engages is not determined by its best use of cap. So people use armor ships to defend their wh's and low/null sec systems when they are on the defensive. Where speed to them does not matter or needed. I agree CCP needs to look not at the balance of a modules but how it will be applied to eve universe as a whole. This is also very bad for small gangs, I heard someone referring to small gangs now as being under a hundred; I was like a hundred is a small gang. He replied yes.
Stop eve pvp dying to the blobs and keep some solo pvp. The Angry German only flies 6 accounts into HQ's sites not 16 accounts. I am sorry I was misinformed. DIN is a mutli box community which should not be allowed to have any say in high sec incursions. They have taken the most amount of MOM's then anyone.-á |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
527
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 21:13:00 -
[559] - Quote
Roime wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:Here's a thing: Three kiting cruisers using long range ammo, compared: http://i.imgur.com/TSSEdNe.jpgThe two curves for each ship are current fit (T2 TE) vs post-nerf (simulated by substituting T2 TEs for T1). The green bar represents typical kiting ranges (20km at the inboard, 36km (overheated faction point range) at the outboard). Look how hard this nerf fucks blaster ships. Compared to any other turret setup. It's ridiculous. Scorch users lose nothing, AC fits lose ~6% dps, Heavy Neutrons + Null lose 20%... on the weapon system that did the least damage within this range envelope to begin with. The Proteus is worse off under current mechanics ANYWHERE outside 21km, and this nerf only increases the gap. Keep in mind that the engagement envelope is a cold hard fact that is not negotiable-- any closer and you start straying into overheated web range (and exploding). Any farther and you lose points on your target and they just sort of wander off. Kiting Proteus, that's cool. You fly it like the 1600mm plate torp Vaga?
Why don't you come find out? |
Lea Teisi
Wings of Independence SOLAR FLEET
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 21:19:00 -
[560] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Now for TEs. !
It is very sad if this is done. The percentage of ships that will be useless increase. |
|
Frost 3
Desertus Caterva The Interstellar Trade n Terror Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 21:24:00 -
[561] - Quote
Im just going to say this.. This didn't seem broken to begin with... you want broken try fixing armor tanking |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2372
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 21:28:00 -
[562] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote: Why don't you come find out?
With bonuses it goes almost 3km/s, aligns in 5.5 seconds with the MWD on and it scrams to 30km with heat. Feel free to tell me all about how this makes it a terrible kiting ship.
Medium blasters, and total reliance on hardwires and links. And dies to armor Proteus, which scrams as far but has a web and way more tank.
Happy?
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
562
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 21:29:00 -
[563] - Quote
Frost 3 wrote:Im just going to say this.. This didn't seem broken to begin with... you want broken try fixing armor tanking
The problem with armor tanking is the overpowered nano abuse, they are starting to fix it. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
507
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 21:31:00 -
[564] - Quote
I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes)
Quote:
We have not forgotten solo pilots, even though this ship class does make things somewhat harder for them.
Quote:I am aware that any expansion of logistics capability in eve makes things harder for solo players, and we are endeavoring to make sure that these frigates add options to combat instead of taking them away.
Quote:Improving solo options without either killing fun aspects of group play or making solo too easymode is definitely a goal of ours, but the solution there isn't to keep the learning cliff facing support pilots.
Quote:I understand how much solo players rely on killing key enemy ships fast and how anything that helps gangs keep their ships alive is going to make solo harder. In the end I believe that the stats on these ships will make them managable for solo and small gangs to face.
Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok" |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
527
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 21:36:00 -
[565] - Quote
Roime wrote:Ganthrithor wrote: Why don't you come find out?
With bonuses it goes almost 3km/s, aligns in 5.5 seconds with the MWD on and it scrams to 30km with heat. Feel free to tell me all about how this makes it a terrible kiting ship.
Medium blasters, and total reliance on hardwires and links. And dies to armor Proteus, which scrams as far but has a web and way more tank. Happy?
Wow you're right it's useless, why didn't I consider any of this? |
Alxea
Blood RaiderZ.
117
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 21:39:00 -
[566] - Quote
More face to face battles yay! I hate when people kite... Grow some balls and fight within scram web range I say! |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
527
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 21:41:00 -
[567] - Quote
Alxea wrote:More face to face battles yay! I hate when people kite... Grow some balls and fight within scram web range I say!
~*sigh*~ |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
511
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 21:48:00 -
[568] - Quote
Alxea wrote:More face to face battles yay! I hate when people kite... Grow some balls and fight within scram web range I say!
Your entire kb is camping gates and killing frigates with a sebo legion |
maCH'EttE
Mafia Redux Phobia.
21
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 21:56:00 -
[569] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes) Quote:
We have not forgotten solo pilots, even though this ship class does make things somewhat harder for them.
Quote:I am aware that any expansion of logistics capability in eve makes things harder for solo players, and we are endeavoring to make sure that these frigates add options to combat instead of taking them away. Quote:Improving solo options without either killing fun aspects of group play or making solo too easymode is definitely a goal of ours, but the solution there isn't to keep the learning cliff facing support pilots. Quote:I understand how much solo players rely on killing key enemy ships fast and how anything that helps gangs keep their ships alive is going to make solo harder. In the end I believe that the stats on these ships will make them managable for solo and small gangs to face. Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok" Baby run for CSM and you got my vote.
|
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
49
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 21:59:00 -
[570] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Alxea wrote:More face to face battles yay! I hate when people kite... Grow some balls and fight within scram web range I say! Your entire kb is camping gates and killing frigates with a sebo legion
Ohh snap! Shots fired.
|
|
Tawa Suyo
The Tuskers
72
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 22:06:00 -
[571] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes) Quote:
We have not forgotten solo pilots, even though this ship class does make things somewhat harder for them.
Quote:I am aware that any expansion of logistics capability in eve makes things harder for solo players, and we are endeavoring to make sure that these frigates add options to combat instead of taking them away. Quote:Improving solo options without either killing fun aspects of group play or making solo too easymode is definitely a goal of ours, but the solution there isn't to keep the learning cliff facing support pilots. Quote:I understand how much solo players rely on killing key enemy ships fast and how anything that helps gangs keep their ships alive is going to make solo harder. In the end I believe that the stats on these ships will make them managable for solo and small gangs to face. Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok"
|
Wei Poiin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 22:07:00 -
[572] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes) Quote:
We have not forgotten solo pilots, even though this ship class does make things somewhat harder for them.
Quote:I am aware that any expansion of logistics capability in eve makes things harder for solo players, and we are endeavoring to make sure that these frigates add options to combat instead of taking them away. Quote:Improving solo options without either killing fun aspects of group play or making solo too easymode is definitely a goal of ours, but the solution there isn't to keep the learning cliff facing support pilots. Quote:I understand how much solo players rely on killing key enemy ships fast and how anything that helps gangs keep their ships alive is going to make solo harder. In the end I believe that the stats on these ships will make them managable for solo and small gangs to face. Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok"
|
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
888
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 22:19:00 -
[573] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes) Quote:
We have not forgotten solo pilots, even though this ship class does make things somewhat harder for them.
Quote:I am aware that any expansion of logistics capability in eve makes things harder for solo players, and we are endeavoring to make sure that these frigates add options to combat instead of taking them away. Quote:Improving solo options without either killing fun aspects of group play or making solo too easymode is definitely a goal of ours, but the solution there isn't to keep the learning cliff facing support pilots. Quote:I understand how much solo players rely on killing key enemy ships fast and how anything that helps gangs keep their ships alive is going to make solo harder. In the end I believe that the stats on these ships will make them managable for solo and small gangs to face. Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok" activate the thermal hardeners! get the nanite paste!
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Kane Rizzel
NovaKane Incorporated You've got RED on you
68
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 22:35:00 -
[574] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes) Quote:
We have not forgotten solo pilots, even though this ship class does make things somewhat harder for them.
Quote:I am aware that any expansion of logistics capability in eve makes things harder for solo players, and we are endeavoring to make sure that these frigates add options to combat instead of taking them away. Quote:Improving solo options without either killing fun aspects of group play or making solo too easymode is definitely a goal of ours, but the solution there isn't to keep the learning cliff facing support pilots. Quote:I understand how much solo players rely on killing key enemy ships fast and how anything that helps gangs keep their ships alive is going to make solo harder. In the end I believe that the stats on these ships will make them managable for solo and small gangs to face. Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok"
A Pirate's Perspective Official EVE Online Fan Site |
Brute Willis
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 22:38:00 -
[575] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes) Quote:
We have not forgotten solo pilots, even though this ship class does make things somewhat harder for them.
Quote:I am aware that any expansion of logistics capability in eve makes things harder for solo players, and we are endeavoring to make sure that these frigates add options to combat instead of taking them away. Quote:Improving solo options without either killing fun aspects of group play or making solo too easymode is definitely a goal of ours, but the solution there isn't to keep the learning cliff facing support pilots. Quote:I understand how much solo players rely on killing key enemy ships fast and how anything that helps gangs keep their ships alive is going to make solo harder. In the end I believe that the stats on these ships will make them managable for solo and small gangs to face. Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok"
Go CSM8 |
Beliar Gray
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 22:38:00 -
[576] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes) Quote:
We have not forgotten solo pilots, even though this ship class does make things somewhat harder for them.
Quote:I am aware that any expansion of logistics capability in eve makes things harder for solo players, and we are endeavoring to make sure that these frigates add options to combat instead of taking them away. Quote:Improving solo options without either killing fun aspects of group play or making solo too easymode is definitely a goal of ours, but the solution there isn't to keep the learning cliff facing support pilots. Quote:I understand how much solo players rely on killing key enemy ships fast and how anything that helps gangs keep their ships alive is going to make solo harder. In the end I believe that the stats on these ships will make them managable for solo and small gangs to face. Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok"
So much this. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4456
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 22:44:00 -
[577] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:3km change in fall off, better unplug the servers, games over man, no hope left. Stop equating falloff with pure range. It doesn't work that way. Malcanis for CSM 8 Module activation timers are buggy - CCP please fix |
Pandorath
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 22:47:00 -
[578] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes) Quote:
We have not forgotten solo pilots, even though this ship class does make things somewhat harder for them.
Quote:I am aware that any expansion of logistics capability in eve makes things harder for solo players, and we are endeavoring to make sure that these frigates add options to combat instead of taking them away. Quote:Improving solo options without either killing fun aspects of group play or making solo too easymode is definitely a goal of ours, but the solution there isn't to keep the learning cliff facing support pilots. Quote:I understand how much solo players rely on killing key enemy ships fast and how anything that helps gangs keep their ships alive is going to make solo harder. In the end I believe that the stats on these ships will make them managable for solo and small gangs to face. Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok"
I want to say something really really nasty about Fozzie. Blob monger putting it mildly. |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
37
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 22:53:00 -
[579] - Quote
Lea Teisi wrote:It is very sad if this is done. The percentage of ships that will be useless increase. This means, the percentage of the ships, that will be useful, will increase as well. |
Ben Li
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 22:55:00 -
[580] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes) Quote:
We have not forgotten solo pilots, even though this ship class does make things somewhat harder for them.
Quote:I am aware that any expansion of logistics capability in eve makes things harder for solo players, and we are endeavoring to make sure that these frigates add options to combat instead of taking them away. Quote:Improving solo options without either killing fun aspects of group play or making solo too easymode is definitely a goal of ours, but the solution there isn't to keep the learning cliff facing support pilots. Quote:I understand how much solo players rely on killing key enemy ships fast and how anything that helps gangs keep their ships alive is going to make solo harder. In the end I believe that the stats on these ships will make them managable for solo and small gangs to face. Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok"
Fozzie doesn't care about good PVP he just wants CCP to make cash. Which is good I suppose, for CCP. |
|
Lelob
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
121
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 22:57:00 -
[581] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes) Quote:
We have not forgotten solo pilots, even though this ship class does make things somewhat harder for them.
Quote:I am aware that any expansion of logistics capability in eve makes things harder for solo players, and we are endeavoring to make sure that these frigates add options to combat instead of taking them away. Quote:Improving solo options without either killing fun aspects of group play or making solo too easymode is definitely a goal of ours, but the solution there isn't to keep the learning cliff facing support pilots. Quote:I understand how much solo players rely on killing key enemy ships fast and how anything that helps gangs keep their ships alive is going to make solo harder. In the end I believe that the stats on these ships will make them managable for solo and small gangs to face. Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok"
I would vote yes to Mr. M. Harari on a CSM ballet. |
Shipstorm
Vigilia Pretium Libertatis Interstellar Confederation
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 23:03:00 -
[582] - Quote
But my blasters D:
If you want me to get closer consider gimme more tracking! Moaaarrr!!! |
Kaena Stark
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 23:04:00 -
[583] - Quote
Caldari is the most commonly chosen race for players new to eve, if only CCP had some sort of motive for passing a favourable hand over Caldari patch after patch
Bitter vets will grumble, be bitter, but ultimately log in for their eve fix but nub nubs have little time investment tying them down.
Retention, retention, retention... Pure crack pot speculation of course, but its amusing to entertain, after all did CCP not encourage us to think outside the ever narrowing box |
Cage Man
180
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 23:07:00 -
[584] - Quote
So the plan is to make TE's less effective but nothing to change the Td'ing of npc. Seems missioning will be limited to missile and drone boats. Oh PLEASE!!! CCP Fozzie Can I haz a Navy moa....... |
Velia Canus
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 23:07:00 -
[585] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes) Quote:
We have not forgotten solo pilots, even though this ship class does make things somewhat harder for them.
Quote:I am aware that any expansion of logistics capability in eve makes things harder for solo players, and we are endeavoring to make sure that these frigates add options to combat instead of taking them away. Quote:Improving solo options without either killing fun aspects of group play or making solo too easymode is definitely a goal of ours, but the solution there isn't to keep the learning cliff facing support pilots. Quote:I understand how much solo players rely on killing key enemy ships fast and how anything that helps gangs keep their ships alive is going to make solo harder. In the end I believe that the stats on these ships will make them managable for solo and small gangs to face. Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok"
Run for CSM and you have my vote. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
34
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 23:20:00 -
[586] - Quote
Cage Man wrote:So the plan is to make TE's less effective but nothing to change the Td'ing of npc. Seems missioning will be limited to missile and drone boats.
People did missions with turrets way bofre the TE became so powerful. Its a nerf, but minor most of the time |
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
150
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 23:25:00 -
[587] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:Again, keep going strong with the great balance changes, you guys are making EvE a much better game. Players will actually use ships other than the few boring nano/shield ones.
The nano facerollers tears are normal, the some thing happend with the speed nerf a few years ago, the facerollers don't like balance. Just ignore them, they are bias as hell.
People don't use nano ships because they do the most DPS at range. They fly them so they can run away.
Even if they do 50 dps at 20km, they will still be sat at 20km because they are scared to lose their ship.
Nerfing their playstyle and subsequently other people's with misdirected changes like this isn't going to suddenly make them brave. They will be cowards after the TE change. EVE will be the same.
In fact it will just mean a few more people climbing into Talos Nagas Oracles and Tornados. |
Lina Halid
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 23:26:00 -
[588] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes) Quote:
We have not forgotten solo pilots, even though this ship class does make things somewhat harder for them.
Quote:I am aware that any expansion of logistics capability in eve makes things harder for solo players, and we are endeavoring to make sure that these frigates add options to combat instead of taking them away. Quote:Improving solo options without either killing fun aspects of group play or making solo too easymode is definitely a goal of ours, but the solution there isn't to keep the learning cliff facing support pilots. Quote:I understand how much solo players rely on killing key enemy ships fast and how anything that helps gangs keep their ships alive is going to make solo harder. In the end I believe that the stats on these ships will make them managable for solo and small gangs to face. Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok"
CCP needs more blobs, because they pay more money. That's it. |
Kleen Enkook
Mal Reynolds' Pool of Recruits
8
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 23:29:00 -
[589] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I thought the stabber fit linked about would be an interesting point of reference for the TE changes so I was just fiddling with it a little bit and the results are at the bottom. I think its likely that you will feel this effect (usually between a 5% and 15% Im guessing) at typical engagement ranges for kiting ships like the stabber or the talos - but it seems unlikely that the role of the ship will be compromised to an extent that they would be abandoned. More likely, there will just be some extra room for ships like armor harb or armor brutix to have a role.
The fundamental ability to engage large groups with small ones won't change at all. It may take slightly more time to wear down ships that you isolate, depending on relative ranges, and there may be slightly more flexibility for tackling frigs to be on grid for longer, but overall this change shouldn't shift the meta much.
[Stabber, kiter] Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II
Medium Shield Extender II Medium Shield Extender II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 5W Infectious Power System Malfunction 50W Infectious Power System Malfunction
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
BARRAGE 6.5% dps drop at 20k
3.51+37.2 with the old TE 187dps@20km 3.23+32 with new TE 175dps@20km RF EMP - 18% dps drop at 20km 1.75+24.8 with old TE 170dps@20km 1.61+21.3 with new TE 140dps@20km
sir, what do you expect to kill with this fit. i mean really... what? |
Kleen Enkook
Mal Reynolds' Pool of Recruits
8
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 23:32:00 -
[590] - Quote
let me rephrase that a bit. why on earth would you fly this instead of a caracal, and especially after the nerf? |
|
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
150
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 23:35:00 -
[591] - Quote
Kleen Enkook wrote:let me rephrase that a bit. why on earth would you fly this instead of a caracal, and especially after the nerf?
or a merlin lmao 170 dps not taking into account tracking rofl |
2D34DLY4U
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 23:37:00 -
[592] - Quote
Quote:
We have not forgotten solo pilots, even though this ship class does make things somewhat harder for them.
Quote:I am aware that any expansion of logistics capability in eve makes things harder for solo players, and we are endeavoring to make sure that these frigates add options to combat instead of taking them away.
Quote:Improving solo options without either killing fun aspects of group play or making solo too easymode is definitely a goal of ours, but the solution there isn't to keep the learning cliff facing support pilots.
Quote:I understand how much solo players rely on killing key enemy ships fast and how anything that helps gangs keep their ships alive is going to make solo harder. In the end I believe that the stats on these ships will make them managable for solo and small gangs to face.
Nerf something else if you want to fix the Talos or whatever you wanted to achieve when you came up with this TE idea. While you are at it please keep the SFI mass, thank you for the extra shield but no need, the SFI is also fun to use as it has it's own peculiar play style so why nerf it?
We have a game with many ships and people only fly a small number of them, we should try to be creative and make the less used ships more fun to fly and useful rather than nerfing the ships / play styles that are actually used and flown.
Please don't be afraid of asymmetries between ships, this is not a Tournament nor it was ever supposed to be balanced, your goal should be to get people to use as many different ships as possible (richer game) but not by creating a balanced competitive environment where everyone flies small variations of the same thing (poorer game).
Remember EVE PVP is about open world engagements and not an arena, if you make your ship design choices based on conceptualizing engagements on an arena environment you are constraining yourself, if you see engagements as happening on an open world of sandbox opportunities you are broadening your vision and should be able to make creative additions.
If a ship has some shortcoming versus some other of the same class, I wouldn't worry too much about it, this will be dynamically adjusted as players will incorporate this knowledge in their fleet compositions and engagement choices. What matters is if each ship presents a fun concept to fly with, if the ship "makes sense" by presenting each player with a set of things it can and things it cannot do that resonate with the player and allow him to spend a good time having fun while playing the game.
I still love you Fozzie, thanks for all the good work and the effort you put into making this game better! |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
551
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 23:51:00 -
[593] - Quote
Cage Man wrote:So the plan is to make TE's less effective but nothing to change the Td'ing of npc. Seems missioning will be limited to missile and drone boats. Already is unless you use a Mach .. Tachyon Paladin has a whopping 5-6km range most of the time in the larger Blood/Sansha rooms, it is so bad that you make better time/ISK running missions against Angels/Serpentis even though most of your damage is sucked up by resists
@Fozzie: Are there any talks about revising rigs beyond what was done the armour tanking pass? Was thinking that another 5% on the ambit/locus rigs would go long way towards alleviating some of the concerns people have with the TE rollback revision and offer a tangible alternative to the heaps of other useful rigs. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
27
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 00:03:00 -
[594] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:Beaver Retriever wrote:PinkKnife wrote:This hurts Minmatar more than Gallente because Gal almost always have the free mids to run a Tracking Computer, thus your Talos and Megathron will be fine assuming you aren't shield tanking them.
It's a nerf to shield ships with free lows, I.e. Canes, and it is ENTIRELY needed. Oh no Projectiles won't dominate in every single possible way anymore, they only get to still pick damage type, use no cap, and have the highest alpha of any turret. Yes, poor Projectiles.
The Blaster boats won't suffer, and the Minmatar's ability to kite at any distance and still be able to hit fully will be nerfed. It is about time. Thank you Fozzie.
The userbase can deal with flying ships with risk. Currently the same userbase flies almost exclusive caldari/minmatar because you can kite out, apply all your dps, and risk nothing in the engagement. See Drake, See Hurricane for further examples. Literally no one armor tanks their Talos. Which exactly proves my point, the reason being you HAVE to shield tank everything these days, and the current TE exacerbate this problem. You shouldn't get to have all of your tank, plus all of your gank. Trade offs and decisions, considerations, and drawbacks. The problem that you HAVE to shield tank a Talos, proves the issue. You have to be able to keep up/kite otherwise you lose, as Canes and other ships can apply their dps well within/outside scram range and there isn't **** you can do about it if you are slower than they are. It is a side buff to armor ships, and it is fantastic. If you're shield tanking your armor ships, you're gonna have a bad time. Well you should anyway. I don't know, I've had alot of fun with shield tanked armor ships in the right fleets before :P |
Lex Arson
Adversity. Rote Kapelle
340
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 00:27:00 -
[595] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes) Quote:
We have not forgotten solo pilots, even though this ship class does make things somewhat harder for them.
Quote:I am aware that any expansion of logistics capability in eve makes things harder for solo players, and we are endeavoring to make sure that these frigates add options to combat instead of taking them away. Quote:Improving solo options without either killing fun aspects of group play or making solo too easymode is definitely a goal of ours, but the solution there isn't to keep the learning cliff facing support pilots. Quote:I understand how much solo players rely on killing key enemy ships fast and how anything that helps gangs keep their ships alive is going to make solo harder. In the end I believe that the stats on these ships will make them managable for solo and small gangs to face. Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok" QFT There's no use crying after every mistake, you just keep on trying 'til you run out of cake. |
Gorski Car
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
56
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 01:13:00 -
[596] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes) Quote:
We have not forgotten solo pilots, even though this ship class does make things somewhat harder for them.
Quote:I am aware that any expansion of logistics capability in eve makes things harder for solo players, and we are endeavoring to make sure that these frigates add options to combat instead of taking them away. Quote:Improving solo options without either killing fun aspects of group play or making solo too easymode is definitely a goal of ours, but the solution there isn't to keep the learning cliff facing support pilots. Quote:I understand how much solo players rely on killing key enemy ships fast and how anything that helps gangs keep their ships alive is going to make solo harder. In the end I believe that the stats on these ships will make them managable for solo and small gangs to face. Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok"
|
ECM Buddah
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 01:14:00 -
[597] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes) Quote:
We have not forgotten solo pilots, even though this ship class does make things somewhat harder for them.
Quote:I am aware that any expansion of logistics capability in eve makes things harder for solo players, and we are endeavoring to make sure that these frigates add options to combat instead of taking them away. Quote:Improving solo options without either killing fun aspects of group play or making solo too easymode is definitely a goal of ours, but the solution there isn't to keep the learning cliff facing support pilots. Quote:I understand how much solo players rely on killing key enemy ships fast and how anything that helps gangs keep their ships alive is going to make solo harder. In the end I believe that the stats on these ships will make them managable for solo and small gangs to face. Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok"
|
D Nightklirik
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 01:15:00 -
[598] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes) Quote:
We have not forgotten solo pilots, even though this ship class does make things somewhat harder for them.
Quote:I am aware that any expansion of logistics capability in eve makes things harder for solo players, and we are endeavoring to make sure that these frigates add options to combat instead of taking them away. Quote:Improving solo options without either killing fun aspects of group play or making solo too easymode is definitely a goal of ours, but the solution there isn't to keep the learning cliff facing support pilots. Quote:I understand how much solo players rely on killing key enemy ships fast and how anything that helps gangs keep their ships alive is going to make solo harder. In the end I believe that the stats on these ships will make them managable for solo and small gangs to face. Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok"
|
|
ISD Flidais Asagiri
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
80
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 01:19:00 -
[599] - Quote
Greetings
This is an awesome discussion and want it to keep going, so this is the friendly reminder to keep it on topic and try and resist "quoting" everyone and there brother in one post as it does break the forum rules. Press on with the debate!
On On ISD Flidais Asagiri Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
27
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 01:19:00 -
[600] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
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.
to build abit upon this comment, I agree that lasers could use abit of love (I use projectile, missile, and lasers, btw) |
|
|
ISD Flidais Asagiri
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
80
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 01:22:00 -
[601] - Quote
601 Posts and still going.
Great debate! Let us keep the cross talk going by refraining from the gratuitous use of the Quote button and keeping reply's on topic.
On On ISD Flidais Asagiri Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Major Killz
158
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 01:22:00 -
[602] - Quote
Dez Affinity wrote:Vaju Enki wrote:Again, keep going strong with the great balance changes, you guys are making EvE a much better game. Players will actually use ships other than the few boring nano/shield ones.
The nano facerollers tears are normal, the some thing happend with the speed nerf a few years ago, the facerollers don't like balance. Just ignore them, they are bias as hell. People don't use nano ships because they do the most DPS at range. They fly them so they can run away. Even if they do 50 dps at 20km, they will still be sat at 20km because they are scared to lose their ship. Nerfing their playstyle and subsequently other people's with misdirected changes like this isn't going to suddenly make them brave. They will be cowards after the TE change. EVE will be the same. In fact it will just mean a few more people climbing into Talos Nagas Oracles and Tornados.
f*CK YEAH! COWARD NERF, BEST NERF! Hahaha. |
Joe D'Trader
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
167
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 01:24:00 -
[603] - Quote
Another 20 pages? This nerf is going places. |
Major Killz
158
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 01:27:00 -
[604] - Quote
Volstruis wrote:I seriously f'n hated reading this post.
It's not TE's that are the problem it's the kiting meta. And I'm sorry, but everytime you whack Minnie pilots in the face like this in the name of balance it actually hurts that I spent 30 days training falloff 5 because there is now no significant reason without TE's to even try fly like that.
In a fair and equal engagement pretty much every Minnie boat dies horrible deaths to Caldari boats. Every single one of em. If you keep going at this rate there will be no reason whatsoever to fly anything but Caldari in pvp.
Or is that the plan? All hail the DraekTengu OVerlords?
Hallowed be thy payload?
I mean how quickly can I sell my Wolves, Ruppies etc etc now.
Fozzie the idea is surely balance, not periodic promotion of one race significantly above others.
Hahaha. Cute! |
Major Killz
158
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 01:29:00 -
[605] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:whinematards :D so much butthurting qq goes on
btw now te will be balanced vs tc , and thats a good thing
Hahahaha. Biggest Minmatar troll comes out from under the bridge. THIS SHOULD BE GUUD. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
27
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 01:31:00 -
[606] - Quote
Venustas Blue wrote:If your fighting at 0, say in scram & Webb range to be doing affective damage, theres no way to disengage say if your off gate. Unless your ****** fit with stabs or possibly AB fit and able to burn out. The more powerful ship or better counter fit ship will always win. You will not have the ability granted to kiting ships to disengagde by either burning away, or causing the hostile to lose point by pulsing MWD on cross axis so they burn out of range & lose point, allowing you to warp out. There's little skill in fighting at 0 (scram/Webb) range, nerfing TEs kiting ability, wich is an art and skill its self would be yet another mistake by CCP, and a great loss as far as skill goes for the game. There is counters to kiting ships, & as far as minnie ships go, they have already been nerfed enough, dont ruin it by overstepping a reasonable current mark & success. This proposed change to TEs needs to be scrapped. All it would do is subject eve to yet a other nerf of making the game ever easier, this does not inspire anybody to become better within tactics and situational awareness, it only acts to dumb it down, even giving more reason to blob, and there should be no further reason given to blobbing WHAT SO EVER. Should be promoting skill and fun gfs instead. Sometimes it becomes very apparent CCP are out of touch with the game and its tactics, this is as good as any example. A resounding NO to TE nerf from me. Your forgetting that CCP has stated they like blob fleets. |
Alli Othman
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
47
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 01:33:00 -
[607] - Quote
2manno Asp wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:2manno Asp wrote:
in all sincerity, would you care to share some of those mails in your t1 point slicer, unboosted, where you're not blobbing people to death?
i'd be genuinely interested.
I don't use booster alts, sorry, its soft weakass game play that the young bucks in groups like Pizza can't play without. https://www.pandemic-legion.com/killboard/view_kill.php?id=498675Theres more, I haven't been flying them lately because slicers are fairly easy mode compared to flying some of the other frigates, especially when you actually roam pure solo. well... 1 kill against an ab frig from 2009 is hardly going to make the case. in looking at your kb, i'm not finding any solo kills for like, years. or any in frigates at all for that matter. no offense, but i think you're a bit out of touch. You have downs mate? That's from september of 2012, not 2009. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
27
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 01:38:00 -
[608] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:I agree, I think the nerf to TEs is far too harsh, especially considering the ships that generally use them are very deficient in optimal range and require boosts to falloff in order to have decent damage projection.
You're nerfing the skirmish playstyle essentially. I don't like it. I repeat myself from earlier, CCP has already told us that they like Blob fleets. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
27
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 01:44:00 -
[609] - Quote
UR13L wrote:
Not to mention (especially sniper) HACs being completely outmoded by tier 3 battlecruisers - and now even moreso
Uhh... BCs SHOULD be better then cruisers, herp! |
Major Killz
158
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 01:50:00 -
[610] - Quote
This should have been done 2 years ago. I argued for a NERF to tracking enhancers back then.
NERFING tracking enhancers will do more to bringing projectiles back inline with hybrids than any of the changes done to hybrids and Gallente ships.
By the way. The proposed changes are not even that serious. You could just put 3 tracking enhancers on a Hurricane (for example) to counter the proposed changes.
Mind you. I do love Minmatar and Caldari ships above all others. Still, this won't effect most Minmatar ships I fly or will fly. I'll be using artillary more than autocannons and missile-Minmatar-ships (Bellicose, Cyclone) sub battleship. Atleast when it comes to solo.
For fleets I'll be ok with Heavy missiles, Light missiles and Artillary.
Oh! I like z blasters and rails on z Talos, Harpy, Dominix, Vexor, Merlin, Cormorant, Rokh and Scorpion too.
To those with TIN FOIL HATS. Did you notice? Why is it that In every patch Caldari make out like bandits?. There has been a serious effort to NERF Minmatar ships or just ignore them and boost everything else. However, then CCP BOOST Minmatar in some random and r3t@rded way.
I think it's funny.
- killz |
|
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
521
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 02:00:00 -
[611] - Quote
Major Killz wrote:
By the way. The proposed changes are not even that serious. You could just put 3 tracking enhancers on a Hurricane (for example) to counter the proposed changes.
Yes because hurricanes are both a ship worth flying and are getting an extra low slot.
Also 8x TEs on a ship will bonus it less than a single TD will disrupt it |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4460
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 02:08:00 -
[612] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:I agree, I think the nerf to TEs is far too harsh, especially considering the ships that generally use them are very deficient in optimal range and require boosts to falloff in order to have decent damage projection.
You're nerfing the skirmish playstyle essentially. I don't like it. I repeat myself from earlier, CCP has already told us that they like Blob fleets. And so do I. That doesn't mean we can't have both. Malcanis for CSM 8 Module activation timers are buggy - CCP please fix |
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
151
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 02:11:00 -
[613] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:UR13L wrote:
Not to mention (especially sniper) HACs being completely outmoded by tier 3 battlecruisers - and now even moreso
Uhh... BCs SHOULD be better then cruisers, herp!
r u trolling? cause u almost got me ;) ;) ;) |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
27
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 02:13:00 -
[614] - Quote
Tub Chil wrote:Any chance of TE-s affecting missiles? In combination with TD-s affecting missiles. CCP was talking about it, why wasn't it done? inability to disrupt missiles is a big problem in any small scale engagement. Indeed, they've talked about it at least for the past 2 expansions and keep just putting it off ... I've been waiting rather long to see it go into effect |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
27
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 02:20:00 -
[615] - Quote
PAPULA wrote: Says pandemic legion who controls fozzie and whole game.
ROfawkingL, I remember a time when this was all goonswarm and other devs being controlled! |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
27
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 02:22:00 -
[616] - Quote
AlexKent wrote:In that case, maybe the TC needs a slight buff to compensate for the loss.
I feel like blasters were finally decent, i really don't want to see blaster ships suffer from this change, IMO it's totally uncalled for. Maybe a small faloff buff is in order for blasters if this change makes it to TQ. Not enough to make them the new OP, FOTM guns, but just so they maintain current range. I agree, let's give the TC a buff to make it even better! |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
27
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 02:25:00 -
[617] - Quote
To mare wrote:i can understand the need of a nerf to TE but since some minmatar ship got rebalanced being weaker than their cunterparts in recent balancing can we take a look at that as well? ^^^ Might be worth some effort, tbh |
Velia Canus
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 02:27:00 -
[618] - Quote
ISD Flidais Asagiri wrote:Greetings
This is an awesome discussion and want it to keep going, so this is the friendly reminder to keep it on topic and try and resist "quoting" everyone and their brother in one post as it does break the forum rules. Press on with the debate!
On On Quotes are only there because Michael made sense and Fozzie is just being *cough* himself. TE changes are as dumb as it gets. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
27
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 02:36:00 -
[619] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:beware my moa army. can I join your moa army? I want to fit mine with lazors! |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
27
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 02:44:00 -
[620] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:Zilero wrote:I don't understand the need for this nerf, but what's really bugging me about it is that in most cases it seems to be a idiotic divide by 2 in terms of bonuses.. It's Mr. Fozzie being bored and his PL friends doing idiotic changes. Fozzie nerfed missiles first, now everything else will be nerfed also. Dude, get off the drugs, your paranoid enough without them, these hallucinations are pushing you over the top |
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
27
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 03:09:00 -
[621] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Rek Seven wrote: Oh wait, what's stopping these gate camping fleets from using more remote sebo's to compensate?
You're aware of stacking penalties right? You're aware that after 3 mods the diminishing return on investment makes it not REALLY worth it right? From 1-3 Rsebo's you get a noticeable difference, then from 4-6 you can't even reach the same boost as the first Rsebo that was applied. I'm not familiar with how these insta-locking fleets are set up but effectively, what you guys are saying is that after these new changes are implemented, it will be IMPOSSIBLE to achieve the same scan resolution (or as high is needed to insta-lock) as these fleets have now because of stacking penalties... If that's true then CCP has just removed a legitimate tactic from the game and if it's not true (i.e. you will be able to get the same scan res) then your reasoning, that stacking penalties somehow balance insta locking fleets, is flawed. For what it's worth, I have a legion fit that can almost instalock pods w/out a resebo, so the nerf to it doesn't bother me, it'll still be just that much more effective if I have one on it either way :P |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
27
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 03:20:00 -
[622] - Quote
Sparkus Volundar wrote:
The effect on optimal and falloff is the same regardless of what turret but that does not mean that the effect on projectiles is the same as on other types of turrets (due to falloff damage reduction mechanics).
That would be on purpose, otherwise CCP Fozzie wouldn't have made the comment about minmatar in the OP. |
nat longshot
The RedNeck Posse
167
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 03:46:00 -
[623] - 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!
So you just killed the Mach. with changeing the TE's are you fing kidding me. I just got a Vaugar and i own a Mach and you are going to kill my gun range on both of my mission ships are you fing kidding me.
Btw CCP Fozzie min. auto cannons are a med. range weapons you #@$%$%^%$^&$ they dont come close to blasters and dont have range of rails if we want to hit something far out we fit Atry with take way to much powergrid and cpu and they have **** POOR TRACKING so why do you just put a gun to my fing head and pull the damn trigger.
I dislike CCP Falcon and now iam really not like you on the whole nerf TE and killing the one + side flying min had. ccp thinking = goon meat shield MORONS!!!
-á[13:12:18] CCP Punkturis nat longshot you're a cutie.. OH YAH I WIN!! |
Streya Jormagdnir
Alexylva Paradox
167
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 04:22:00 -
[624] - Quote
I would quote Michael but ISD has already cautioned against that. Needless to say, he is in fact correct. While I consider myself enamored with smallgang, I find myself flying solo the majority of the time. While I can respect the need to keep things in balanced for large-scale fleets, do keep in mind that some of us log in after a long day of work just to solo. While I will not suggest that TE changes will stop solo PvP entirely, I can assure you that "solo PvP" will equate to "use missiles and drones". Sadly, I find myself abandoning further turret training in favor of drone/missile/ TD training because I know those are aspects of combat CCP feels satisfied with and won't touch for some time. I am not going to stop solo PvPing, even if an utter lack of flexibility and diversity in what constitutes a solid ship-choice for solo besets the game. Just keep in mind that while a four-year player such as myself won't up and quit over this, newer players who select turret-heavy races at start and want to try turrets might get frustrated and leave when their chosen weapon system is relatively ineffective against both players and TD-using rats. I am also a human, straggling between the present world... and our future. I am a regulator, a coordinator, one who is meant to guide the way. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1396
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 04:26:00 -
[625] - Quote
Alli Othman wrote:2manno Asp wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:2manno Asp wrote:
in all sincerity, would you care to share some of those mails in your t1 point slicer, unboosted, where you're not blobbing people to death?
i'd be genuinely interested.
I don't use booster alts, sorry, its soft weakass game play that the young bucks in groups like Pizza can't play without. https://www.pandemic-legion.com/killboard/view_kill.php?id=498675Theres more, I haven't been flying them lately because slicers are fairly easy mode compared to flying some of the other frigates, especially when you actually roam pure solo. well... 1 kill against an ab frig from 2009 is hardly going to make the case. in looking at your kb, i'm not finding any solo kills for like, years. or any in frigates at all for that matter. no offense, but i think you're a bit out of touch. You have downs mate? That's from 2012, not 2009.
Don't tell him he's a ******, it'll hurt is feelings
|
Torei Dutalis
Perkone Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 04:56:00 -
[626] - Quote
I won't lie, did not see this particular nerf coming. Will this break eve? No, probably not. Condors and Atrons will still dominate the novice FW plexes, and Vagas and Cynabals will still kite their hearts out. Sure, dps on many ships will be reduced. Total kills will likely fall, and some ships will surely be flown less (long range null fits). I've never really considered the TE to be overpowered, but 30% is a big number I suppose. Frankly I've always wondered why the TE only takes 15 CPU, but maybe I'm the only one. On the flip side, I don't think that this nerf is necessarily "needed". I'd much rather see balancing team time spent on bringing the rest of the ship hulls into line that still need tweaking. It's good to see navy cruisers are making it in to the summer expansion, but it would be nice to maybe see a pass over some other ships instead of spending time on nerfs that aren't going to really do much to the landscape aside from lowering the variation of fits on the field and likely reducing the volume of pvp overall. Anywho, just thought I'd throw my two cents onto the fire. |
PAPULA
The Dark Tribe
22
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 05:12:00 -
[627] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:PAPULA wrote:Zilero wrote:I don't understand the need for this nerf, but what's really bugging me about it is that in most cases it seems to be a idiotic divide by 2 in terms of bonuses.. It's Mr. Fozzie being bored and his PL friends doing idiotic changes. Fozzie nerfed missiles first, now everything else will be nerfed also. Dude, get off the drugs, your paranoid enough without them, these hallucinations are pushing you over the top Oh Mr. wise man.
|
Sigras
Conglomo
396
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 06:13:00 -
[628] - Quote
nat longshot wrote:So you just killed the Mach. with changeing the TE's are you fing kidding me. I just got a Vaugar and i own a Mach and you are going to kill my gun range on both of my mission ships are you fing kidding me. WHAT?! you mean CCP doesnt want there to be two mission ships that are head and shoulders above the rest?!
WOW
its almost like theyre trying to balance the ships so they all have downsides
nat longshot wrote:I dislike CCP Falcon and now iam really not like you on the whole nerf TE and killing the one + side flying min had. ccp thinking = goon meat shield MORONS!!! LOL the one plus side the minmatar had? LOLOLOL
you mean other than
- Able to switch damage types
- Capless weapons
- Speed Advantage
- Extra Low Slots (for damage mods / TEs)
Please come back when you know what youre talking about . . . |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7214
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 06:13:00 -
[629] - Quote
nat longshot wrote:I dislike CCP Falcon and now iam really not like you on the whole nerf TE and killing the one + side flying min had. ccp thinking = goon meat shield MORONS!!!
Because having the only turrets that don't use capacitor and can deal damage of any type isn't a plus side
e;fb ~*a proud belligerent undesirable*~ TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Volstruis
The Tuskers
19
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 06:37:00 -
[630] - Quote
I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes)
Quote:
We have not forgotten solo pilots, even though this ship class does make things somewhat harder for them.
Quote:I am aware that any expansion of logistics capability in eve makes things harder for solo players, and we are endeavoring to make sure that these frigates add options to combat instead of taking them away.
Quote:Improving solo options without either killing fun aspects of group play or making solo too easymode is definitely a goal of ours, but the solution there isn't to keep the learning cliff facing support pilots.
Quote:I understand how much solo players rely on killing key enemy ships fast and how anything that helps gangs keep their ships alive is going to make solo harder. In the end I believe that the stats on these ships will make them managable for solo and small gangs to face.
Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok"[/quote]
|
|
Sigras
Conglomo
397
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 06:49:00 -
[631] - Quote
Torei Dutalis wrote:I won't lie, did not see this particular nerf coming. Will this break eve? No, probably not. Condors and Atrons will still dominate the novice FW plexes, and Vagas and Cynabals will still kite their hearts out. Sure, dps on many ships will be reduced. Total kills will likely fall, and some ships will surely be flown less (long range null fits). I've never really considered the TE to be overpowered, but 30% is a big number I suppose. Frankly I've always wondered why the TE only takes 15 CPU, but maybe I'm the only one. On the flip side, I don't think that this nerf is necessarily "needed". I'd much rather see balancing team time spent on bringing the rest of the ship hulls into line that still need tweaking. It's good to see navy cruisers are making it in to the summer expansion, but it would be nice to maybe see a pass over some other ships instead of spending time on nerfs that aren't going to really do much to the landscape aside from lowering the variation of fits on the field and likely reducing the volume of pvp overall. Anywho, just thought I'd throw my two cents onto the fire. Im responding to the part I underlined.
Yes, this will reduce the power and possibly the number of shield tanking fits, but you forget to take into account the number of armor ships this helps make viable.
This is a sizeable buff for ships that cannot spare the low slots to fit 3x damage mods AND 3x TEs |
Sigras
Conglomo
397
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 06:51:00 -
[632] - Quote
Volstruis wrote:I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes) Quote:We have not forgotten solo pilots, even though this ship class does make things somewhat harder for them. Quote:I am aware that any expansion of logistics capability in eve makes things harder for solo players, and we are endeavoring to make sure that these frigates add options to combat instead of taking them away. Quote:Improving solo options without either killing fun aspects of group play or making solo too easymode is definitely a goal of ours, but the solution there isn't to keep the learning cliff facing support pilots. Quote:I understand how much solo players rely on killing key enemy ships fast and how anything that helps gangs keep their ships alive is going to make solo harder. In the end I believe that the stats on these ships will make them managable for solo and small gangs to face. Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok"{/quote} Thats because w/o AOE there is basically no way to do anything that effects the game that doesnt also help blobs. |
Captain Africa
GRIM MARCH SpaceMonkey's Alliance
34
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 06:53:00 -
[633] - Quote
CCP Fozzie I appreciate your work , but this is really becoming ridiculous. I view ship fitting as a fine art and spend a lot of time and money in maximizing every ounce of each ship and implants to enhance it.
Every damn time you change **** ,it costs me a fortune to adapt. IGÇÖm using t2 rigs on most of my setups . I donGÇÖt mind you changing ships , but then make RIGS changeable without losing them.
Btw I'm not talking one or two ships here I am talking huge losses .... Its so easy to just aaaahm lets change this lets change that ....get your **** together or give me my money back !
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7215
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 07:12:00 -
[634] - Quote
Captain Africa wrote:CCP Fozzie I appreciate your work , but this is really becoming ridiculous. I view ship fitting as a fine art and spend a lot of time and money in maximizing every ounce of each ship and implants to enhance it.
Every damn time you change **** ,it costs me a fortune to adapt. IGÇÖm using t2 rigs on most of my setups . I donGÇÖt mind you changing ships , but then make RIGS changeable without losing them.
Btw I'm not talking one or two ships here I am talking huge losses .... Its so easy to just aaaahm lets change this lets change that ....get your **** together or give me my money back !
Man I hope they compensate you the same way they compensated titan and supercarrier pilots after Crucible
oh wait ~*a proud belligerent undesirable*~ TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Bobbechk
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
31
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 07:12:00 -
[635] - Quote
sap fozzy |
BobFromMarketing
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
35
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 07:14:00 -
[636] - Quote
Captain Africa wrote:CCP Fozzie I appreciate your work , but this is really becoming ridiculous. I view ship fitting as a fine art and spend a lot of time and money in maximizing every ounce of each ship and implants to enhance it.
Every damn time you change **** ,it costs me a fortune to adapt. IGÇÖm using t2 rigs on most of my setups . I donGÇÖt mind you changing ships , but then make RIGS changeable without losing them.
Btw I'm not talking one or two ships here I am talking huge losses .... Its so easy to just aaaahm lets change this lets change that ....get your **** together or give me my money back !
So you're literally the guy who shows up to fleets in special snowflake setups instead of the actual fleet doctrine because "yours is better"
Well now yours is nerfed lolololol. |
Torei Dutalis
Perkone Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 08:02:00 -
[637] - Quote
Sigras wrote:
Yes, this will reduce the power and possibly the number of shield tanking fits, but you forget to take into account the number of armor ships this helps make viable.
This is a sizeable buff for ships that cannot spare the low slots to fit 3x damage mods AND 3x TEs
Is it really helping just armor ships or ships with smaller engagement ranges? Moas, shield raxes, and a plethora of other shield blaster ships benefit from an environment of smaller engagement ranges. This isn't so much a nerf that "helps armor ships" it just reduces damage projection. Therefore all ships with lower range (and thus a lower propensity to fit TEs) will benefit. This is of course assuming that said armor fit can catch said shield ship that now has less dps. The crux of the arguement that this nerf boosts armor seems to imply that shield ships will be coming into closer engagement ranges or that people will fly more armor ships, neither of which seems to be extremely likely in my opinion. People may force fits that are now borderline viable for kiting, but those fits will eventually die out. Additionally, nerfing the TE to the proposed levels has virtually no effect (read: can still engage at max disruptor range)on kitey Omens and the like as they are optimal users (yes there are like 2 ships who fit like this I know). Essentially this is mostly a nerf to mid-range TE users, as ships with extreme falloff such as Cynabals will still be able to kite with ease. Overall I think the argument has little to do with the shield versus armor dynamic. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
584
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 08:32:00 -
[638] - Quote
Torei Dutalis wrote:The crux of the arguement that this nerf boosts armor seems to imply that shield ships will be coming into closer engagement ranges or that people will fly more armor ships, neither of which seems to be extremely likely in my opinion. People may force fits that are now borderline viable for kiting, but those fits will eventually die out. Additionally, nerfing the TE to the proposed levels has virtually no effect (read: can still engage at max disruptor range)on kitey Omens and the like as they are optimal users (yes there are like 2 ships who fit like this I know).
A good argument that the TE nerf doesn't go far enough.
|
Swifty Blowback
Republic University Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 08:47:00 -
[639] - Quote
Volstruis wrote:I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes) ... Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok"
Yep. This is possibly the harshest nerf for solo / small gang PVP in a long time. Viable kiting platforms are being slowly reduced. CCP wants players to be social and play in large corps / blobs because their data says they get more monies when players do that. See last CSM summit write-up for details + see trial account spike after massive blob brawls are publicized. The future of solo PVP has never looked so grim.
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1396
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 09:23:00 -
[640] - Quote
Swifty Blowback wrote:. The future of solo PVP has never looked so grim.
So grim that I spent the entire night PVPing solo unboosted in faction warfare in ships fit with t1 TE's to get used to the difference.
I was shocked to find that there is no noticeable difference.
And by shocked I do mean I told you so.
|
|
Mr Bright
Paradox Collective Choke Point
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 09:28:00 -
[641] - Quote
I cannot express how stupid the change to TE's is. Why should eve players be punished because some tard 3000 man alliance can't handle a fleet of shield tier 3 bc's?? I know this had been the trend of eve for a long time but it really needs to stop here. CCP, if you want to look at something to fix....FIX ECM. Don't sit here and preach to me how it isn't OP. Minmatar ships only advantage is SPEED and RANGE. Take away the range and what else is there for them? You can't just nerf the crap out of TE's and say "well now things are balanced". Minmatar ships cannot soak the damage the other races have. If people are stuggling with shield ships that have TE's fit.....bring tracking disruptors. Use the tools CCP has already provided. You've already destroyed the hurricane so I really hope you stop there. I understand CCP wants to cater to the larger alliances but I really do hope that the attempt to destroy solo/small gang pvp in eve is put to an end. Taking the advantage that minmatar has is a terrible plan to attempt to balance range and tracking. I would start by rethinking some of the ship bonuses as opposed to nerfing the modules. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2375
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 09:30:00 -
[642] - Quote
Swifty Blowback wrote:Michael Harari wrote:I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes) ... Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok"
Yep. The TE nerf is possibly the harshest for solo / small gang PVP in a long time. Viable kiting platforms are being slowly reduced. CCP wants players to be social and play in large corps / blobs because their data says they get more monies when players do that. See last CSM summit write-up for details + see trial account spike after massive blob brawls are publicized. The future of solo PVP has never looked so grim.
You don't have any kills, solo, small gang or blob
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2375
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 09:33:00 -
[643] - Quote
Mr Bright wrote: You've already destroyed the hurricane so I really hope you stop there.
1#Oracle 56,256 2#Naga 52,642 3#Tornado 51,917 4#Hurricane 48,758 5#Loki 46,526
It's useless
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Edward Olmops
Sirius Fleet
42
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 09:45:00 -
[644] - Quote
Hey Fozzie and Rise,
I support the idea of Tracking Enhancers being too strong in their current form compared to other modules.
However, if you would like to alter the balance of shield vs. armor as well... Have you considered doing something with Tracking Computer vs. Tracking Enhancer like with Cap Recharger vs. Capacitor Power Relay?
More specific: instead of -33% Optimal/Fall-Off to all TEs something like just -16% Optimal/Fall-Off and -5% Shield HP or even -16% Optimal/Fall-Off, -5% Ship Velocity (to balance skirmish vs. sitting duck)
I know you dislike "multi-purpose"-modules, but this is slightly different. Compare Capacitor Power Relay/Cap Recharger.
An armor ship has 2 options: a) pick the Cap Recharger in a not-so-important Mid Slot. b) pick the Capacitor Power Relay, get a higher bonus to cap recharge, sacrifice tank, but laugh about the shield boost debuff.
A shield ship has also 2 options, but both do have a catch: a) the Cap Recharger hurts the tank because Mid Slots are essential for shield tanks. b) the Capacitor Power Relay in the Low Slot will also hurt the tank making the choice no no-brainer. Those ships that prefer cap recharge over Cap Boosters are based around sustainability and the shield boost debuff will hurt them significantly.
Net result: It is a tad easier for armor ships to pick up cap recharge which does make sense because they tend to be more cap-hungry. And at the same time cap-stable active shield tanks are harder to build.
Maybe the same could be good for shield vs armor if armor ships (while less agile) could pick up weapon range more easily than shield ships.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
35
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 09:55:00 -
[645] - Quote
Roime wrote:Mr Bright wrote: You've already destroyed the hurricane so I really hope you stop there. 1#Oracle 56,256 2#Naga 52,642 3#Tornado 51,917 4#Hurricane 48,7585#Loki 46,526 It's useless
I really laugh whenever anyone bring up the number of ships used in killboard hits as if that was a demonstrator of wich one is superior. That plain stupid and blind.
Do you realize the cost of the ship and the fact that people had invested on last few years into the best flavor ships and will nto instantly change because their skills do not allow it, make WAY more impact on those number than the real effective capabilities of those ships?
If you could get numbers of usage of ships only from players with 100+ kills on last year, with a wallet over 10 bil isk and with 80M sp or more, then yes you could use those numbers for something. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
35
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 09:59:00 -
[646] - Quote
nat longshot 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! So you just killed the Mach. with changeing the TE's are you fing kidding me. I just got a Vaugar and i own a Mach and you are going to kill my gun range on both of my mission ships are you fing kidding me. Btw CCP Fozzie min. auto cannons are a med. range weapons you #@$%$%^%$^&$ they dont come close to blasters and dont have range of rails if we want to hit something far out we fit Atry with take way to much powergrid and cpu and they have **** POOR TRACKING so why do you just put a gun to my fing head and pull the damn trigger. I dislike CCP Falcon and now iam really not like you on the whole nerf TE and killing the one + side flying min had. ccp thinking = goon meat shield MORONS!!!
Game balance must catter first for PVP. PVE is and should be relegated to second place because you are not competign with anyone so there is no real unbalance.
Whining because of the mission ships is the most useless whine you can do. Want a "fix"for that? Propose them and uspport that they make the faction modules a bit stronger, sicne faction modules are mostly used on PVE ships that would not hurt so much PVP balance. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2376
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 10:03:00 -
[647] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Roime wrote:Mr Bright wrote: You've already destroyed the hurricane so I really hope you stop there. 1#Oracle 56,256 2#Naga 52,642 3#Tornado 51,917 4#Hurricane 48,7585#Loki 46,526 It's useless I really laugh whenever anyone bring up the number of ships used in killboard hits as if that was a demonstrator of wich one is superior. That plain stupid and blind. Do you realize the cost of the ship and the fact that people had invested on last few years into the best flavor ships and will nto instantly change because their skills do not allow it, make WAY more impact on those number than the real effective capabilities of those ships? If you could get numbers of usage of ships only from players with 100+ kills on last year, with a wallet over 10 bil isk and with 80M sp or more, then yes you could use those numbers for something.
I really laugh when someone claims that a ship is USELESS!!!1111 and OBSOLOTE!!!111 and NERFED TO GROUND!!111 when it clearly is not
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
116
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 10:18:00 -
[648] - Quote
Roime wrote:I really laugh when someone claims that a ship is USELESS!!!1111 and OBSOLOTE!!!111 and NERFED TO GROUND!!111 when it clearly is not You are wrong. Clearly it is useless because it's NOT #1. In fact no Minmatar ship is in the TOP 2. Which clearly indicates that they have NO DECENT SHIPS at all. I would try to explain it to you, but words don't exist that are small enough for you to understand, for you are obviously a mongrel idiot if you do not agree with my EFT-based point of view. This TE nerf is the DEATHKNELL for minmatar ships which are already useless.
And you smell like poo.
|
Imigo Montoya
Abraxsys Get Off My Lawn
116
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 10:32:00 -
[649] - Quote
Wow, missed this one so coming in late to the party.
Fortunately I fly Sabres more than Vagabonds these days, but the ability of a Vagabond (or Cynabal in the same role) to maintain range and kite is vital to their survival as skirmishing ships. The mantra goes like this: "A scrammed vaga is a dead vaga".
Seeing as this isn't affecting the speed of the ship, that's one thing which is not so bad, but it will certainly be taking a notch out of the applied DPS of a kiting AC/Blaster ship. What I'm not sure on at this point is just how much.
Can we get a graph of DPS over range for the selection of all medium range turreted weapons (Pulse Lasers with Scorch, Blasters with Null, and Autocannons with Barrage) of all sizes (S, M, and L), with one TE fitted, before and after the changes? Perhaps on comparable ships for bonuses (eg Harby/Brutix/Cane, or Zealot/Deimos/Vagabond).
Data like that would really help me decide whether I like the change or not. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
528
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 10:37:00 -
[650] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote: In fact no Minmatar ship is in the TOP 2.
Vagas are the best hac (although not that much better than zealot), and sleips are the best CS. Very arguably, sabres are the best dictor. Thats the extent of that crazy "winmatar dominance" you hear about |
|
Goldiiee
Superior Ratio High Sec Dropouts
313
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 10:40:00 -
[651] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Game balance must catter first for PVP. PVE is and should be relegated to second place because you are not competign with anyone so there is no real unbalance.
Whining because of the mission ships is the most useless whine you can do. Want a "fix"for that? Propose them and uspport that they make the faction modules a bit stronger, sicne faction modules are mostly used on PVE ships that would not hurt so much PVP balance. Without going into the fact that your supposition and your conclusion are both horribly misguided I would ask that you try to realise that PVP is the destruction portion of the sandbox and PVE is the building portion of the sandbox, one cannot exist without the other.
PVP is not, and should not, be the primary focus of rebalancing, as I am confident if the only ship available in EVE was a noobship there would still be people lining up to kill each other in it, and then spurge in local of how badass they are.
As for the Opinion that PVE is not competing against anyone. PVE is all about competition, for instance when contesting for the Loot drop in spawned sites, you are absolutely competing against everyone, PVEGÇÖers and PVPGÇÖers alike, with the added competition against time itself. Missions are competition as well but for both ISK generation and standings generation, so reduction in the ability to complete these effectively translates into moved goalposts, competition for these goals are indirectly PVP.
Not all PVP is decided in a Killmail, as not all Killmails are PVP (Or do you think a mining barge kill is PVP?).
Doing both PVP and PVE I can see how this will directly affect my current game play, the difference is I know all the PVPGÇÖers I go up against will be similarly handicapped, whereas the NPCGÇÖs I have to contend with are not going to be handicapped at all, since the code for NPCGÇÖs seems to be written in cuneiform.
This game is Not about PVP, itGÇÖs about building empire, and using PVPGÇÖers as pawns, this is something most people donGÇÖt seem to get, everyone in EVE is a pawn, probably even the kings.
Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced (But I still try..) |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
528
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 10:47:00 -
[652] - Quote
A better way to balance shields vs armor would be to reduce the base sig on all hulls and increase the sig bloom of shield modules. Add sig bloom to invulns and shield hardeners.
Add base armor to local armor reps. Give shield boosters a smaller sig penalty than buffer.
Stacking penalize both field extenders and trimarks.
Increase the bonus to speed from heating a mwd, and decrease the sig penalty of mwd. One problem with armor is that after mwd sig bloat, its bascally the same size sig as shields (enormous).
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
584
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 10:48:00 -
[653] - Quote
Roime wrote:Swifty Blowback wrote:Michael Harari wrote:I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes) ... Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok"
Yep. The TE nerf is possibly the harshest for solo / small gang PVP in a long time. Viable kiting platforms are being slowly reduced. CCP wants players to be social and play in large corps / blobs because their data says they get more monies when players do that. See last CSM summit write-up for details + see trial account spike after massive blob brawls are publicized. The future of solo PVP has never looked so grim. You don't have any kills, solo, small gang or blob
Well, that explains why his future looks so grim. |
Lina Halid
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 10:52:00 -
[654] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Vladimir Norkoff wrote: In fact no Minmatar ship is in the TOP 2.
Vagas are the best hac (although not that much better than zealot), and sleips are the best CS. Very arguably, sabres are the best dictor. Thats the extent of that crazy "winmatar dominance" you hear about
Being the best out of a generally gimped class doesn't say a lot. And why do you compare CSs not titans? I mean you can't call command ships something everybody flyes nowdays. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
36
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 10:52:00 -
[655] - Quote
Roime wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Roime wrote:Mr Bright wrote: You've already destroyed the hurricane so I really hope you stop there. 1#Oracle 56,256 2#Naga 52,642 3#Tornado 51,917 4#Hurricane 48,7585#Loki 46,526 It's useless I really laugh whenever anyone bring up the number of ships used in killboard hits as if that was a demonstrator of wich one is superior. That plain stupid and blind. Do you realize the cost of the ship and the fact that people had invested on last few years into the best flavor ships and will nto instantly change because their skills do not allow it, make WAY more impact on those number than the real effective capabilities of those ships? If you could get numbers of usage of ships only from players with 100+ kills on last year, with a wallet over 10 bil isk and with 80M sp or more, then yes you could use those numbers for something. I really laugh when someone claims that a ship is USELESS!!!1111 and OBSOLOTE!!!111 and NERFED TO GROUND!!111 when it clearly is not
And I dare you to show where I said that the hurricane is useless. I am just arguing that you are using STUPID and USELESS DATA to make your point, even if your point is not wrong. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
36
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 10:59:00 -
[656] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Game balance must catter first for PVP. PVE is and should be relegated to second place because you are not competign with anyone so there is no real unbalance.
Whining because of the mission ships is the most useless whine you can do. Want a "fix"for that? Propose them and uspport that they make the faction modules a bit stronger, sicne faction modules are mostly used on PVE ships that would not hurt so much PVP balance. Without going into the fact that your supposition and your conclusion are both horribly misguided I would ask that you try to realise that PVP is the destruction portion of the sandbox and PVE is the building portion of the sandbox, one cannot exist without the other. PVP is not, and should not, be the primary focus of rebalancing, as I am confident if the only ship available in EVE was a noobship there would still be people lining up to kill each other in it, and then spurge in local of how badass they are. As for the Opinion that PVE is not competing against anyone. PVE is all about competition, for instance when contesting for the Loot drop in spawned sites, you are absolutely competing against everyone, PVEGÇÖers and PVPGÇÖers alike, with the added competition against time itself. Missions are competition as well but for both ISK generation and standings generation, so reduction in the ability to complete these effectively translates into moved goalposts, competition for these goals are indirectly PVP. Not all PVP is decided in a Killmail, as not all Killmails are PVP (Or do you think a mining barge kill is PVP?). Doing both PVP and PVE I can see how this will directly affect my current game play, the difference is I know all the PVPGÇÖers I go up against will be similarly handicapped, whereas the NPCGÇÖs I have to contend with are not going to be handicapped at all, since the code for NPCGÇÖs seems to be written in cuneiform. This game is Not about PVP, itGÇÖs about building empire, and using PVPGÇÖers as pawns, this is something most people donGÇÖt seem to get, everyone in EVE is a pawn, probably even the kings.
You are trying to be shortminded? PVE does not need to be focus of rebalance of primarely PVP ships! PVE is a secondary activity that you can use PVE ships. And PVP can happen very well without any rat killing. PVP only need effectively mining.
PVE is nto a competition, you are not going to earn less ISK because the other guy is faster running missions. If all missioning is speed down 2% (that is the most imapact these changes would have) then that would create a very very slight trend of deflation that would nulify those losses and at tned the impact woudl be insignificant.
On PVP if one ship gets stronger, others get weaker, that does not happen in PVE because its not a DIRECT COMPETITION (except when you run incursions on a non optimized way without agreeing on systems sharing).
And youa re wrong. this game IS about PVP.! The empire building is the background so we can have PVP.
People ran missiosn for years before the trackign enhancers had ANY FALLOFF bonus. I made BILLIONS in my vargur BEFORE the minmatar buff. With shorter falloff, no falloff bonus modules and LESS damage on the guns.
THERE is NO NEED for inter ship balance on PVE! Missioning is for isk making not for competition or fun. |
Swifty Blowback
Republic University Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 11:08:00 -
[657] - Quote
Roime wrote:Swifty Blowback wrote:Michael Harari wrote:I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes) ... Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok"
Yep. The TE nerf is possibly the harshest for solo / small gang PVP in a long time. Viable kiting platforms are being slowly reduced. CCP wants players to be social and play in large corps / blobs because their data says they get more monies when players do that. See last CSM summit write-up for details + see trial account spike after massive blob brawls are publicized. The future of solo PVP has never looked so grim. You don't have any kills, solo, small gang or blob
I have many. This alt has none. EvE eh! Damn tricky for some to grasp simple concepts... |
Goldiiee
Superior Ratio High Sec Dropouts
313
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 11:12:00 -
[658] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:You are trying to be shortminded?. No I dont think I am.
Kagura Nikon wrote: Missioning is for isk making not for competition or fun. But this is. Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced (But I still try..) |
Swifty Blowback
Republic University Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 11:18:00 -
[659] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Swifty Blowback wrote:. The future of solo PVP has never looked so grim. So grim that I spent the entire night PVPing solo unboosted in faction warfare in ships fit with t1 TE's to get used to the difference. I was shocked to find that there is no noticeable difference. And by shocked I do mean I told you so.
It's a good job CCP haven't made a vast quantity of other changes that also hurt soloers... Oh wait...
P.S. "no noticeable difference". Wow. Looks like everyone using T2 TEs should have used t1s and used the CPU elsewhere huh! Strange as I'm sure I get at least 10% more DPS with T2 TEs over T1s at kiting range in a 'cane. |
Lina Halid
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 11:20:00 -
[660] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Swifty Blowback wrote:. The future of solo PVP has never looked so grim. So grim that I spent the entire night PVPing solo unboosted in faction warfare in ships fit with t1 TE's to get used to the difference. I was shocked to find that there is no noticeable difference. And by shocked I do mean I told you so.
Faction warfare isn't a solo pvp. Try to fly 30+ jumps in 0.0 and find a good target for your lonely ship and not die - that will be a solo pvp. |
|
Jeanne-Luise Argenau
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 11:26:00 -
[661] - Quote
I dont have a mind about the resebo changes. But the te changes suck, i dont mind the change of the meta 0 to meta 5 ones, but i think the faction ones need a boosting compared to t2 and the officer even a bit more. Else why should u fit them only for others to see the bling i dont believe so. |
Ana Fox
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 11:34:00 -
[662] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:
And I dare you to show where I said that the hurricane is useless. I am just arguing that you are using STUPID and USELESS DATA to make your point, even if your point is not wrong.
That same stupid and useless data was used when HML nerf happened,but all turret users were laughing and HTFU spam crap all over forum.
Are this changes are good or bad,I think we will know when they show complete idea about missile disrupting and how they plan to fix rails.We also dont know will they change ship bonuses.So as much this look good or bad it is not full info.Neither we know what they will do with ewar ,and I am sure there is a lot more of this threads with changes to follow after this one.
I really have full trust in CCP Fozzie ,cause this guy is busting his ass to make things if nothing more interesting.My main concern is that he will burn out and we can loose best dev we had in long time.So far all changes he made had some sense,and were always part of bigger idea how he thinks pvp should look in future.
|
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 11:56:00 -
[663] - Quote
Why does Fozzie have such an obsession with nerfing things...
He should know that nerfing is seen as a very negative thing as it means people are losing something. And lately there has been so much nerfing and ruining of good old ships that it's getting ridiculous...
Why not buff other things instead? Just don't do like 30% big changes at once like you do in the nerfing. Make small buffs and see over time how things look like. This way people can keep playing like they were and not feel like they were forcibly ripped off of something they spent huge amounts of training, isk and time while paying you guys real money. New tactics and setups would become viable and competitive with the old ones. Do you understand? you would still have what you worked hard for but it would have just as good alternatives and counters. That would be a win-win situation in my opinion. Nerf hammer should be the absolutely final and last option.
And what is this favoring towards large alliances as they weren't powerful enough already... It costs ridiculous amount to wardec large alliances while tiny corps are so cheap to dec. And other recent changes and game mechanics seem to favor more and more large blobs.
Does this mean smartbombs and bombs will be nerfed too at some point because zomg! i can actually take on larger fleets with them. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2377
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 11:56:00 -
[664] - Quote
Swifty Blowback wrote: I have many. This alt has none. EvE eh! Damn tricky for some to grasp simple concepts...
No you don't. Damn tricky for some people to accept the truth...
Lina Halid wrote: Faction warfare isn't a solo pvp. Try to fly 30+ jumps in 0.0 and find a good target for your lonely ship and not die - that will be a solo pvp.
Getting solo fights all the time is solo pvp, doing 30+ jumps and dying to a blob is banging your head against a wall.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2377
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 11:59:00 -
[665] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:
And I dare you to show where I said that the hurricane is useless. I am just arguing that you are using STUPID and USELESS DATA to make your point, even if your point is not wrong.
I wasn't even talking to you in the first place.
What's stupid and useless about the data, care to explain?
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Bosquit
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
44
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 12:03:00 -
[666] - Quote
This is the most painful nerf, ugh....I mean "rebalance." If anything the change should be much smaller, or not changed at all. The TE nerf is pretty much forcing a lot of Minmatar ships to become brawlers, that can't really out DPS Blasters anymore, and have worse tanks.
A very poorly thought out change. "Insert Philosophical Statement Here" |
Lina Halid
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 12:11:00 -
[667] - Quote
Roime wrote:Swifty Blowback wrote: I have many. This alt has none. EvE eh! Damn tricky for some to grasp simple concepts...
No you don't. Damn tricky for some people to accept the truth... Lina Halid wrote: Faction warfare isn't a solo pvp. Try to fly 30+ jumps in 0.0 and find a good target for your lonely ship and not die - that will be a solo pvp.
Getting solo fights all the time is solo pvp, doing 30+ jumps and dying to a blob is banging your head against a wall.
The trick is not to die and even kill some. That's why I don't like the idea to nerf TE at all. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
36
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 12:19:00 -
[668] - Quote
Roime wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:
And I dare you to show where I said that the hurricane is useless. I am just arguing that you are using STUPID and USELESS DATA to make your point, even if your point is not wrong.
I wasn't even talking to you in the first place. What's stupid and useless about the data, care to explain?
Let me rephrase... the date is not stupid. The implication that the number of ships that appear in killmails reflects direclty the capabilities of the ship. There are a lot of other factors, like for example cost and skills needed. That means you can only compare within a same class of ship.
Also after a nerf the drop in usage of a ship is NOT immediate because a lot of people only have good skills for the ship that used to be the best one.
That is why just posting a table of usage of ships is not a very good argument of how good a ship is. One of the reasosn that BC always dominated that table is because they have the best MERGE between cost and power. But you cannot imply form that table for example that they are better than command ships... I have seen people put that table and say. Look.. the hurricane is more used than the vagabond, therefore the vagabond is horrible. Clearly the much higher cost and skills requirement of the vagabond play a HUGE role on those numbers as well. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2381
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 12:37:00 -
[669] - Quote
Obviously not, but the fact that people still have very good success with the ship irrefutably proves that it is not useless.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Major Killz
158
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 12:42:00 -
[670] - Quote
Roime wrote:Mr Bright wrote: You've already destroyed the hurricane so I really hope you stop there. 1#Oracle 56,256 2#Naga 52,642 3#Tornado 51,917 4#Hurricane 48,7585#Loki 46,526 It's useless
I'm not sure you really flew the Hurricane before the initial changes to tracking enhancers or after the changes to the Hurricane hull.
CCP did not really hurt large fleets of Hurricanes at all. As far as nano-shield-Hurricanes solo? They were still viable, but tier 3 battlecruisers, tech 1 cruiser BOOST and the Harbinger f*cked that real nice.
This change will remove shield-autocannon-Hurricanes for the most part. However, blobs of artillery Hurricanes will still be intact.
The Hurricane is one of the worst kiting battlecruisers at the moment and wasnt the best in the near past. Infact, it was the second or third best for a long time (1. Drake, 2. Hurricane or Harbinger). CCP did not need to NERF it and I said as much in the Hurricane/drake/heavy missile nerf thread. They did it anyway. Still, it wasnt hit hard and the same for the Drake. Infact, CCP later boosted the drake (hahaha).
|
|
Alek Row
Silent Step
6
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 12:42:00 -
[671] - Quote
And TDs are next right?
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1396
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 12:44:00 -
[672] - Quote
Lina Halid wrote: The trick is not to die and even kill some. That's why I don't like the idea to nerf TE at all.
First of all solo PVP is solo PVP, wherever however you do it, by yourself alone in the cold dark. Whoever told you it was 0.0 only or whatever gave you that snobbish idea is beyond me but you have it and nothing can fix it.
One might even argue how flawed that perspective is since the more likely encountered target in 0.0 is a ratter, you know, somebody not prepared to actually fight you back.
Anyway know that of all the stupid things said on these forums, claiming that your version (most likely the scouted boosted type) is the only solo PVP ranks among the most stupid.
As far as the trick being no to die, can you tell me how losing 3kkilometers in fall off from say, a Cane will result in your death? You can stop acting like its 33% of your total range, the final number is so insanely small that theres hardly anything you notice. Even on something like a slicer, it doesn't even bring your damage projection down inside point range.
Couple that with the fact that they've outright stated that the 5% boosts are going away and that the command ship 3% links will be king of the hill, how on earth is losing 3 kilometers going to hurt you? The loss in TE range will be compensated for by an overall reduction in web ranges due to a removal of a broken set of t3 links.
So tell me how the TE nerf results in you dying more, or are you really just a drama queen?
|
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
266
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 12:48:00 -
[673] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Also after a nerf the drop in usage of a ship is NOT immediate because a lot of people only have good skills for the ship that used to be the best one. Yet the data indicate that hurricanes still didn't die, and still kill ships ; which indicate that they are not "useless" per se.
Also, a nerf or buff could also have a direct effect : Drake actually fell from the top. That don't mean they are bad, that mean the nerf had an effect on its use ; as opposed to the hurricane on which the nerf barrely had an effect on its use. Hence we can suppose that people didn't really mind the Hurricane nerf, or at least a lot less than they considered the Drake nerf.
What is interesting is that the Drake suffer in fact less nerf than the Hurricane (HAM buff largely compensate HML nerf IMO), yet battleclinic stats show a larger impact for the Drake than for the Hurricane.
Also, we need to consider all the buffed ships which took place of others without necessarily obsoloting them. There is only 20 places in the top 20, and they must be filled, but that don't mean the ships not in the top 20 are bad. If we need a place for every ship, each niche will be a lot narrower than before, and this could give to some people the feeling that their ship became useless.
Hence, IMO, the Hurricane is fine and didn't suffer that much from its nerf. |
Major Killz
158
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 12:51:00 -
[674] - Quote
Swifty Blowback wrote:Michael Harari wrote:I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes) ... Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok"
Yep. The TE nerf is possibly the harshest for solo / small gang PVP in a long time. Viable kiting platforms are being slowly reduced. CCP wants players to be social and play in large corps / blobs because their data says they get more monies when players do that. See last CSM summit write-up for details + see trial account spike after massive blob brawls are publicized. The future of solo PVP has never looked so grim.
While, I agree this will hurt skirmishing. I really doubt this will hurt solo pvpers. Mainly, because I was doing da solo long before tech 3 ships and falloff being introduced to tracking enhancers.
Nothing will likely hurt solo pvp other than a larger player base, proliferation of logistics and electronic warfare. There will still be ways around this outcome, but armageddon would mean the end of roaming.
Anyway.
Nothing will hurt "small gang" or as I call it "small scale warfare".
This is a multiplayer game. Any changes made should be for the purpose, so f*ck solo pvp v0v |
Alek Row
Silent Step
6
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 12:54:00 -
[675] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote: Tracking Enhancers don't save you from Tracking Disruptors now. You won't really notice a difference if they're nerfed or not.
My PVP char only fights at frig level, I will notice when TDs get nerfed. Just waiting for it.
|
amurder Hakomairos
Fellowship Of Lost Souls Rebel Alliance of New Eden
43
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 12:56:00 -
[676] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Let me know what you think!
Ok, so we let you know what we think. Basically seems like 75% of people are not in favor of this unnecessary change. Anyone else think that there is any chance this wont happen anyway?
If you are hell bent on nerfing TE for no reason (unless more blobs is a good reason) then can you at least stop the nerf with T2 and leave the faction/officer TE as they are now? That way those of us who spent 6+ months training T2 projectiles, the support skills, and the skills for the ships that use them can at least buy our way out of your stupidity and continue to use these ships as they should be.
If one thing ever makes me quit eve it will be the god damn cycle of training into some ship/module only to have CCP come nerf it for some half ass reason right after you spend weeks/months skilling for it. Nerfs should only be done as a last resort when a module or ship is so overpowered that it is game breaking and isn't practical to buff other ships/modules to that level. This clearly is not the case with tracking enhancers.
Why is it that you guys seem to love pissing off your player base with nerfs? Nerfs take away from players, and invalidate time spent training skills. If something isn't horribly broken then just leave well enough alone. If something is broken then look at buffing inferior ships/modules first. Everything in the game doesn't need to be equal. Nobody wants to play your vision of bland and generic Eve.
|
Major Killz
158
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 12:59:00 -
[677] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:[quote=nat longshot][quote=CCP Fozzie]
Game balance must catter first for PVP. PVE is and should be relegated to second place because you are not competign with anyone so there is no real unbalance.
Whining because of the mission ships is the most useless whine you can do. Want a "fix"for that? Propose them and uspport that they make the faction modules a bit stronger, sicne faction modules are mostly used on PVE ships that would not hurt so much PVP balance.
I would suggest:
1. Player versus enviroment (predominate economic sector) 2. Player versus player (this being the icing on the cupcake) 3. Industial input and output (this being the heart of the sand box) |
Major Killz
158
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:00:00 -
[678] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Roime wrote:Swifty Blowback wrote:Michael Harari wrote:I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes) ... Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok"
Yep. The TE nerf is possibly the harshest for solo / small gang PVP in a long time. Viable kiting platforms are being slowly reduced. CCP wants players to be social and play in large corps / blobs because their data says they get more monies when players do that. See last CSM summit write-up for details + see trial account spike after massive blob brawls are publicized. The future of solo PVP has never looked so grim. You don't have any kills, solo, small gang or blob Well, that explains why his future looks so grim.
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1396
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:02:00 -
[679] - Quote
amurder Hakomairos wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Let me know what you think!
Ok, so we let you know what we think. Basically seems like 75% of people are not in favor of this unnecessary change. Anyone else think that there is any chance this wont happen anyway? If you are hell bent on nerfing TE for no reason (unless more blobs is a good reason) then can you at least stop the nerf with T2 and leave the faction/officer TE as they are now? That way those of us who spent 6+ months training T2 projectiles, the support skills, and the skills for the ships that use them can at least buy our way out of your stupidity and continue to use these ships as they should be. If one thing ever makes me quit eve it will be the god damn cycle of training into some ship/module only to have CCP come nerf it for some half ass reason right after you spend weeks/months skilling for it. Nerfs should only be done as a last resort when a module or ship is so overpowered that it is game breaking and isn't practical to buff other ships/modules to that level. This clearly is not the case with tracking enhancers. Why is it that you guys seem to love pissing off your player base with nerfs? Nerfs take away from players, and invalidate time spent training skills. If something isn't horribly broken then just leave well enough alone. If something is broken then look at buffing inferior ships/modules first. Everything in the game doesn't need to be equal. Nobody wants to play your vision of bland and generic Eve.
I'm sure calling him stupid and not actually using any real facts, just made up numbers that you pulled out of your ass, will both get him on your side, and stop the nerfs.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
36
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:05:00 -
[680] - Quote
Johnson Oramara wrote:Why does Fozzie have such an obsession with nerfing things... He should know that nerfing is seen as a very negative thing as it means people are losing something. And lately there has been so much nerfing and ruining of good old ships that it's getting ridiculous... Why not buff other things instead? Just don't do like 30% big changes at once like you do in the nerfing. Make small buffs and see over time how things look like. This way people can keep playing like they were and not feel like they were forcibly ripped off of something they spent huge amounts of training, isk and time while paying you guys real money. New tactics and setups would become viable and competitive with the old ones. Do you understand? you would still have what you worked hard for but it would have just as good alternatives and counters. That would be a win-win situation in my opinion. Nerf hammer should be the absolutely final and last option. And what is this favoring towards large alliances as they weren't powerful enough already... It costs ridiculous amount to wardec large alliances while tiny corps are so cheap to dec. And other recent changes and game mechanics seem to favor more and more large blobs. Does this mean smartbombs and bombs will be nerfed too at some point because zomg! i can actually take on larger fleets with them.
because on last several years we had passed by a HUGE ammount of buffs and things were already getting out of hand. Thre must be nerfs from time to time to keep things under control, otherwise you need to redesign the whole game. |
|
amurder Hakomairos
Fellowship Of Lost Souls Rebel Alliance of New Eden
43
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:05:00 -
[681] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:
I'm sure calling him stupid and not actually using any real facts, just made up numbers that you pulled out of your ass, will both get him on your side, and stop the nerfs.
my experience is they are gonna do whatever the hell they want anyway. And I didn't call him stupid, the change is stupid. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1397
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:10:00 -
[682] - Quote
amurder Hakomairos wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:
I'm sure calling him stupid and not actually using any real facts, just made up numbers that you pulled out of your ass, will both get him on your side, and stop the nerfs.
my experience is they are gonna do whatever the hell they want anyway. And I didn't call him stupid, the change is stupid.
Oh you didn't?
amurder Hakomairos wrote: If you are hell bent on nerfing TE for no reason (unless more blobs is a good reason) then can you at least stop the nerf with T2 and leave the faction/officer TE as they are now? That way those of us who spent 6+ months training T2 projectiles, the support skills, and the skills for the ships that use them can at least buy our way out of your stupidity and continue to use these ships as they should be.
Whats that bold underlined bit say?
Because to anybody reading it evidently other than you it reads like you called him stupid.
Which I heard is always the best way to communicate.
|
Ana Fox
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:15:00 -
[683] - Quote
amurder Hakomairos wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:
I'm sure calling him stupid and not actually using any real facts, just made up numbers that you pulled out of your ass, will both get him on your side, and stop the nerfs.
my experience is they are gonna do whatever the hell they want anyway. And I didn't call him stupid, the change is stupid.
All changes look stupid when they disturb equilibrium that we made in our head.
Projectile platform was double buffed back then ,so it is time to tone that down.And as it looks now,there is more harm to blasters then projectiles.
It was fun to fly cap free weapons ,to have nice range ,speed and over all to chose ammo dmg types as situation asks.Well you will need to adapt a bit and change tactic so what is big deal.If you play just to have FOTM ships then sorry but game mechanics change from time to time ,sucks you dont like it . |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:17:00 -
[684] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:amurder Hakomairos wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:
I'm sure calling him stupid and not actually using any real facts, just made up numbers that you pulled out of your ass, will both get him on your side, and stop the nerfs.
my experience is they are gonna do whatever the hell they want anyway. And I didn't call him stupid, the change is stupid. Oh you didn't? amurder Hakomairos wrote: If you are hell bent on nerfing TE for no reason (unless more blobs is a good reason) then can you at least stop the nerf with T2 and leave the faction/officer TE as they are now? That way those of us who spent 6+ months training T2 projectiles, the support skills, and the skills for the ships that use them can at least buy our way out of your stupidity and continue to use these ships as they should be.
Whats that bold underlined bit say? Because to anybody reading it evidently other than you it reads like you called him stupid. Which I heard is always the best way to communicate.
In my opinion you can take it both ways, calling someone stupid or calling the thing he's suggesting stupid. And in my opinion he meant the latter. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1397
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:20:00 -
[685] - Quote
Johnson Oramara wrote:
In my opinion you can take it both ways, calling someone stupid or calling the thing he's suggesting stupid. And in my opinion he meant the latter.
Well then you're both wrong
Quote:Write your as the possessive form of you, referring to something that a person has, something that belongs to the person in question, or the person you are talking to. "Your" reflects ownership, as in "yours, mine, and ours". |
Mord Raven
Phrike Squadron
3
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:25:00 -
[686] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:
As far as the trick being no to die, can you tell me how losing 3kkilometers in fall off from say, a Cane will result in your death? You can stop acting like its 33% of your total range, the final number is so insanely small that theres hardly anything you notice. Even on something like a slicer, it doesn't even bring your damage projection down inside point range.
I donGÇÖt know how you fit your slicer but a common fit without TE gives it 22km optimal, and even then it is relatively easy to lure into point range while flying a fast AB frigate. Are you actually arguing that as long as you can project damage outside point range you are okay as a kiter? You do not take into account the room the kiter needs for maneuverability, get pointed and you die. Nerfing TEs will make this room for maneuverability smaller for a lot of ships because you need to move in closer to apply meaningful damage, making something that is already hard harder. |
amurder Hakomairos
Fellowship Of Lost Souls Rebel Alliance of New Eden
43
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:28:00 -
[687] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:amurder Hakomairos wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:
I'm sure calling him stupid and not actually using any real facts, just made up numbers that you pulled out of your ass, will both get him on your side, and stop the nerfs.
my experience is they are gonna do whatever the hell they want anyway. And I didn't call him stupid, the change is stupid. Oh you didn't? amurder Hakomairos wrote: If you are hell bent on nerfing TE for no reason (unless more blobs is a good reason) then can you at least stop the nerf with T2 and leave the faction/officer TE as they are now? That way those of us who spent 6+ months training T2 projectiles, the support skills, and the skills for the ships that use them can at least buy our way out of your stupidity and continue to use these ships as they should be.
Whats that bold underlined bit say? Because to anybody reading it evidently other than you it reads like you called him stupid. Which I heard is always the best way to communicate.
let me rephrase for the grammar police:
that way we can at least buy our way out of the stupidity of the change you are making |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1398
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:31:00 -
[688] - Quote
Mord Raven wrote: I donGÇÖt know how you fit your slicer but a common fit without TE gives it 22km optimal, and even then it is relatively easy to lure into point range while flying a fast AB frigate. Are you actually arguing that as long as you can project damage outside point range you are okay as a kiter? You do not take into account the room the kiter needs for maneuverability, get pointed and you die. Nerfing TEs will make this room for maneuverability smaller for a lot of ships because you need to move in closer to apply meaningful damage, making something that is already hard harder.
Have you even checked the range changes when applied to the standard slicer fits?
It goes from 22km to 20km.
That change sure does ruin....oh...wait....nothing at all.
|
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:37:00 -
[689] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Johnson Oramara wrote:
In my opinion you can take it both ways, calling someone stupid or calling the thing he's suggesting stupid. And in my opinion he meant the latter.
Well then you're both wrong Quote:Write your as the possessive form of you, referring to something that a person has, something that belongs to the person in question, or the person you are talking to. "Your" reflects ownership, as in "yours, mine, and ours".
Why are you just looking for a way to taunt him and looking for faults? We aren't all perfect in english. He even mentioned that he didn't mean to call anyone stupid, and still you are insisting on that so strongly? |
Mord Raven
Phrike Squadron
3
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:38:00 -
[690] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Mord Raven wrote: I donGÇÖt know how you fit your slicer but a common fit without TE gives it 22km optimal, and even then it is relatively easy to lure into point range while flying a fast AB frigate. Are you actually arguing that as long as you can project damage outside point range you are okay as a kiter? You do not take into account the room the kiter needs for maneuverability, get pointed and you die. Nerfing TEs will make this room for maneuverability smaller for a lot of ships because you need to move in closer to apply meaningful damage, making something that is already hard harder.
Have you even checked the range changes when applied to the standard slicer fits? It goes from 22km to 20km. That change sure does ruin....oh...wait....nothing at all.
As I clearly tried to express the fit is with locus coordinators and not TEs. That was not the point with the post, but you obviously missed it anyway. And yes, hypothetically for a ship that can be caught relatively easy at 22km optimal, a nerf down to 20km would have consequences, wouldnGÇÖt it? |
|
Octoven
Phoenix Productions Headshot Gaming
63
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:40:00 -
[691] - 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!
First off I would like to point out that armor tanking has always been preferred over shield in pvp simply because you put your tank in the lows which allows for your mids to use ewar such as webs and scrams. To say that shields are more powerful then armor is BS.
If you would like to continue with this trend then, lets assume they are for a moment. Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't the recent boost to armor supposed to fix this imbalance? Now you are saying TEs are also responsible?? Seriously CCP, you nerf missiles in an attempt to get less people to use them because they create extreme lag with your return to the new graphics system. You boost armor and leave shields where they are, and now you want to proverbially **** Caldari again? Its bad enough to also have lost a titan in RP sense. Sure lets go after minmatar as well.
Why do people fly minmatar over the other races? Ok here is some breakdown of it.
Gallenete Armor tank some shields and uses guns that use a little cap Caldari shield tanked primarily and uses missiles OR guns not either or Amarr armor tanked primarily and uses lasers that suck cap making active tanking not feasible. Minmatar can shield OR armor tank depending on what the player wants to do, does not use cap for guns
The reason Minmatar have dominated the pvp arena is not because of TEs its because they have the most versatile ships of the 4 races which makes them very useful for solo pvp. Stop blaming the modules and start looking at the ships. Minmatar ships do not need to be nerfed, the other 4 need boosted to fall in line.
|
seth Hendar
I love you miners
30
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:42:00 -
[692] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Ok. Pay attention people. We have people complaining this is a heavy nerf to Amarr, other saying it will kill blasters, others saying it hits minmatar much more massively. Match this to the whining of heavy missile nerf and.... EVERYONE IS COMPLAINING
That pretty much means its balanced! Everyone is equally unhappy!
Congratulations CCP Fozzie and CCP Rise! just a question:
how a game developper can hope seeing a bright future for his game by making his whole player base unhappy?
since the last patch, we have seen only 2 things:
NERF NERF NERF BUGS BUGS BUGS
Eve used to be a great game requiring skills...used to... |
Alsyth
20
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:44:00 -
[693] - Quote
ReSebo nerf welcome.
TE nerf unnecessary.
The only ship that makes TE overpowered is Machariel, that much damage and tracking at that range shouldn't exist. +50% falloff on LARGE AC and too many lowslots for a shield/nanoship is the problem there.
Others are fine, be it tier3 BCs -even AC tornado, few lowslots and no falloff bonus-, HAC snipers (poor things...), frigates/destroyers, AC Vaga/Sleipnir/Cynabal. |
amurder Hakomairos
Fellowship Of Lost Souls Rebel Alliance of New Eden
43
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:49:00 -
[694] - Quote
Alsyth wrote:ReSebo nerf welcome.
TE nerf unnecessary.
The only ship that makes TE overpowered is Machariel, that much damage and tracking at that range shouldn't exist. +50% falloff on LARGE AC and too many lowslots for a shield/nanoship is the problem there.
Others are fine, be it tier3 BCs -even AC tornado, few lowslots and no falloff bonus-, HAC snipers (poor things...), frigates/destroyers, AC Vaga/Sleipnir/Cynabal.
Its not even OP on the Mach. When a ship's hull costs 6-12x the cost of a normal battleship you should be getting a significant increase in performance.
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1401
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:51:00 -
[695] - Quote
Mord Raven wrote:[ As I clearly tried to express the fit is with locus coordinators and not TEs. That was not the point with the post, but you obviously missed it anyway. And yes, hypothetically for a ship that can be caught relatively easy at 22km optimal, a nerf down to 20km would have consequences, wouldnGÇÖt it?
It really doesn't, you'll still DPS out to 22km, it'll just be slightly less DPS. Thats the whole point, people are making this out to be more than it is. The kill will just take 12 seconds instead of 9 seconds (exaggeration intentional).
If you floated at 22km constantly (something thats actually very hard) you can still do exactly that, and you'll still apply DPS to your target, no big deal, again, it will just take you a few more seconds to score your kill but that doesn't matter because you're not actually tanking, you're kiting, so who cares how long it takes, you're in no real danger anyway.
If this thing had forced you into brawling range with the slicer and required a complete rethink on fits then it might be a different story, but most fits honestly won't change at all, in the slightest bit, people will still kite their hearts out, with the added benefit of fights being slightly longer affairs.
|
Goldiiee
Superior Ratio High Sec Dropouts
313
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:54:00 -
[696] - Quote
amurder Hakomairos wrote:Alsyth wrote:ReSebo nerf welcome.
TE nerf unnecessary.
The only ship that makes TE overpowered is Machariel, that much damage and tracking at that range shouldn't exist. +50% falloff on LARGE AC and too many lowslots for a shield/nanoship is the problem there.
Others are fine, be it tier3 BCs -even AC tornado, few lowslots and no falloff bonus-, HAC snipers (poor things...), frigates/destroyers, AC Vaga/Sleipnir/Cynabal. Its not even OP on the Mach. When a ship's hull costs 6-12x the cost of a normal battleship you should be getting a significant increase in performance. Even if you don't use the financial cost as a basis for the Mach being OP, (as the prices are player generated 'inflated' anyway) the SP requirement of skilling two races should afford some benefit over a Teir 1 or Navy hull. Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced (But I still try..) |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1401
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:55:00 -
[697] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote: Even if you don't use the financial cost as a basis for the Mach being OP, (as the prices are player generated 'inflated' anyway) the SP requirement of skilling two races should afford some benefit over a Teir 1 or Navy hull.
My titan called, CCP left it a note that said price and skill point investment will never have bearing on balance choices. |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:03:00 -
[698] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Johnson Oramara wrote:Why does Fozzie have such an obsession with nerfing things... He should know that nerfing is seen as a very negative thing as it means people are losing something. And lately there has been so much nerfing and ruining of good old ships that it's getting ridiculous... Why not buff other things instead? Just don't do like 30% big changes at once like you do in the nerfing. Make small buffs and see over time how things look like. This way people can keep playing like they were and not feel like they were forcibly ripped off of something they spent huge amounts of training, isk and time while paying you guys real money. New tactics and setups would become viable and competitive with the old ones. Do you understand? you would still have what you worked hard for but it would have just as good alternatives and counters. That would be a win-win situation in my opinion. Nerf hammer should be the absolutely final and last option. And what is this favoring towards large alliances as they weren't powerful enough already... It costs ridiculous amount to wardec large alliances while tiny corps are so cheap to dec. And other recent changes and game mechanics seem to favor more and more large blobs. Does this mean smartbombs and bombs will be nerfed too at some point because zomg! i can actually take on larger fleets with them. because on last several years we had passed by a HUGE ammount of buffs and things were already getting out of hand. Thre must be nerfs from time to time to keep things under control, otherwise you need to redesign the whole game.
Well if they made so many thoughtless buffs they should take responsibility for it rather than make their player base angry with simplest way for them as nerfs. |
Leslie Chow
Meltdown.
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:05:00 -
[699] - Quote
RSB nerf is welcome....
Gonna try and keep this short and sweet cuz so much name calling and crying in this thread its lame. also not gonna check and see if this was already posted.
Why not nerf tracking bonus from TE and perhaps increase cpu usage.
This way ships that try to dictate range to fight are not penalized for trying to not be scrambled while being able to able to apply damage only when directly running from or chasing target and some ships that can just perma kite are penalized by always large radial.
TL;DR
perma mwd ships hurt not people that actually manage their ship instead of scram web shoot
|
Octoven
Phoenix Productions Headshot Gaming
63
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:08:00 -
[700] - Quote
Alsyth wrote:ReSebo nerf welcome.
TE nerf unnecessary.
The only ship that makes TE overpowered is Machariel, that much damage and tracking at that range shouldn't exist. +50% falloff on LARGE AC and too many lowslots for a shield/nanoship is the problem there.
Others are fine, be it tier3 BCs -even AC tornado, few lowslots and no falloff bonus-, HAC snipers (poor things...), frigates/destroyers, AC Vaga/Sleipnir/Cynabal.
I agree, but recently changes to the game have pointed to the aspect of getting players up close to each other to fight. HML were nerfed by 20 km, and now they want to nerf TEs? It isn't because they are OP its because CCP is killing the sniper role as we know it and replacing combat with nothing but blaster, pulse, AC, HAMs up close and personal. To be honest, I am disappointed in the way the devs are handling this game.
STOP making changes you want CCP and start listening to the players who pay your salaries. Before that whole load of devs quit a few years back the game was awesome; however, despite some good things that have come out in recent expansions, its been mostly trash and nerfs. |
|
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance 24eme Legion Etrangere
57
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:08:00 -
[701] - Quote
Octoven wrote: First off I would like to point out that armor tanking has always been preferred over shield in pvp simply because you put your tank in the lows which allows for your mids to use ewar such as webs and scrams. To say that shields are more powerful then armor is BS.
Hi.
Just wondering, you been high for 5 years or abducted by aliens or maybe cryogenically frozen or?
|
Lin Fatale
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:10:00 -
[702] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:
Couple that with the fact that they've outright stated that the 5% boosts are going away and that the command ship 3% links will be king of the hill, how on earth is losing 3 kilometers going to hurt you? The loss in TE range will be compensated for by an overall reduction in web ranges due to a removal of a broken set of t3 links.
In a kiting / roaming setup most of the time you have to fight outnumbered. And for that you need to be A) faster than the bulk of enemy blop and B) you need the ability to kill tackle and stay outside scram / web range
IF you reduce one of that and it does not matter how much it will be harder for the kiting gang to fight.
noboday is saying its not possible to fight anymore because you lose X% range It will just be harder and it means fights you would take today, you cant take tomorrow after the nerf
result: less fights for smaller gangs / kiters and for what? what do we get in return? I cant see that this nerf is fixing anything besides a bad feeling of a dev that maybe the TE is a bit OP
I would like to get a clear answer, what will be the advantage of this nerf. |
Octoven
Phoenix Productions Headshot Gaming
63
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:11:00 -
[703] - Quote
Templar Dane wrote:Octoven wrote: First off I would like to point out that armor tanking has always been preferred over shield in pvp simply because you put your tank in the lows which allows for your mids to use ewar such as webs and scrams. To say that shields are more powerful then armor is BS.
Hi. Just wondering, you been high for 5 years or abducted by aliens or maybe cryogenically frozen or?
So enthrall me with your almighty wisdom as to why shield tanking trumps armor? |
Mord Raven
Phrike Squadron
3
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:12:00 -
[704] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Mord Raven wrote:[ As I clearly tried to express the fit is with locus coordinators and not TEs. That was not the point with the post, but you obviously missed it anyway. And yes, hypothetically for a ship that can be caught relatively easy at 22km optimal, a nerf down to 20km would have consequences, wouldnGÇÖt it? It really doesn't, you'll still DPS out to 22km, it'll just be slightly less DPS. Thats the whole point, people are making this out to be more than it is. The kill will just take 12 seconds instead of 9 seconds (exaggeration intentional). If you floated at 22km constantly (something thats actually very hard) you can still do exactly that, and you'll still apply DPS to your target, no big deal, again, it will just take you a few more seconds to score your kill but that doesn't matter because you're not actually tanking, you're kiting, so who cares how long it takes, you're in no real danger anyway. If this thing had forced you into brawling range with the slicer and required a complete rethink on fits then it might be a different story, but most fits honestly won't change at all, in the slightest bit, people will still kite their hearts out, with the added benefit of fights being slightly longer affairs.
The time to get a kill is important in many ways if you fly solo.
In essence I think the main problem people have with this is that no matter how you look at it it is still yet another nerf to solo and small group players. A playerbase that should be promoted instead of marginalized. |
Alsyth
20
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:15:00 -
[705] - Quote
amurder Hakomairos wrote: Its not even OP on the Mach. When a ship's hull costs 6-12x the cost of a normal battleship you should be getting a significant increase in performance.
-overpowered speed/agility mix (better than any BC/CS and most cruisers) -overpowered damage projection -top-class dps -tank is not bad compared to other non-specialized shield BSs
Get rid of the damage projection and I'm fine with the Machariel as a powerful tool for rich guys, but as it is, it's too much. Or drop a lowslot.
I can't think of any (subcapital) ship making as effective use of TEs as Machariels, and the point CCP PL raised is that TEs give too much of an advantage to kiting minmatar ships: the Machariel is the absolute best example for that, and in my opinion the only one that needs a nerf. |
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
54
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:19:00 -
[706] - Quote
Did some comparsion for my shield mission machariel: 4x RF gyro, 3xTE (used T1 TEs instead of T2 @0 speed to remove tracking difference in those modules)
T2 ACs, t1 ammo, no implants, no bonuses, no drones, all-5 http://i.imgur.com/DfX3ZOM.png (red line - before, green - after TE nerf)
140-150 paper DPS loss @40km range is sad but i can live with that... |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
30
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:20:00 -
[707] - Quote
Alsyth wrote:amurder Hakomairos wrote: Its not even OP on the Mach. When a ship's hull costs 6-12x the cost of a normal battleship you should be getting a significant increase in performance.
-overpowered speed/agility mix (better than any BC/CS and most cruisers) -overpowered damage projection -top-class dps -tank is not bad compared to other non-specialized shield BSs Get rid of the damage projection and I'm fine with the Machariel as a powerful tool for rich guys, but as it is, it's too much. Or drop a lowslot. I can't think of any (subcapital) ship making as effective use of TEs as Machariels, and the point CCP PL raised is that TEs give too much of an advantage to kiting minmatar ships: the Machariel is the absolute best example for that, and in my opinion the only one that needs a nerf. so PL cries, CCP changes, and the rest of the players can stfu?
nice.... |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1404
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:36:00 -
[708] - Quote
seth Hendar wrote:Alsyth wrote:amurder Hakomairos wrote: Its not even OP on the Mach. When a ship's hull costs 6-12x the cost of a normal battleship you should be getting a significant increase in performance.
-overpowered speed/agility mix (better than any BC/CS and most cruisers) -overpowered damage projection -top-class dps -tank is not bad compared to other non-specialized shield BSs Get rid of the damage projection and I'm fine with the Machariel as a powerful tool for rich guys, but as it is, it's too much. Or drop a lowslot. I can't think of any (subcapital) ship making as effective use of TEs as Machariels, and the point CCP PL raised is that TEs give too much of an advantage to kiting minmatar ships: the Machariel is the absolute best example for that, and in my opinion the only one that needs a nerf. so PL cries, CCP changes, and the rest of the players can stfu? nice....
Just for clarity, what did we cry about and how does this change help our game play while hurting yours?
I'd like specific examples if you have any.
|
seth Hendar
I love you miners
30
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:40:00 -
[709] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:seth Hendar wrote:Alsyth wrote:amurder Hakomairos wrote: Its not even OP on the Mach. When a ship's hull costs 6-12x the cost of a normal battleship you should be getting a significant increase in performance.
-overpowered speed/agility mix (better than any BC/CS and most cruisers) -overpowered damage projection -top-class dps -tank is not bad compared to other non-specialized shield BSs Get rid of the damage projection and I'm fine with the Machariel as a powerful tool for rich guys, but as it is, it's too much. Or drop a lowslot. I can't think of any (subcapital) ship making as effective use of TEs as Machariels, and the point CCP PL raised is that TEs give too much of an advantage to kiting minmatar ships: the Machariel is the absolute best example for that, and in my opinion the only one that needs a nerf. so PL cries, CCP changes, and the rest of the players can stfu? nice.... Just for clarity, what did we cry about and how does this change help our game play while hurting yours? I'd like specific examples if you have any.
what did it change to your gameplay, i don't know, how it will change mine, i fly gallente / minmatar
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1404
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:43:00 -
[710] - Quote
seth Hendar wrote:
what did it change to your gameplay, i don't know, how it will change mine, i fly gallente / minmatar
I fly everything, whats your point? What did PL Cry about, where did we do the crying, and how did it alter your game play more than it will alter ours?
Remember where I asked for specific examples? This would be where you provide them.
|
|
Major Killz
158
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:44:00 -
[711] - Quote
Lin Fatale wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:
Couple that with the fact that they've outright stated that the 5% boosts are going away and that the command ship 3% links will be king of the hill, how on earth is losing 3 kilometers going to hurt you? The loss in TE range will be compensated for by an overall reduction in web ranges due to a removal of a broken set of t3 links.
In a kiting / roaming setup most of the time you have to fight outnumbered. And for that you need to be A) faster than the bulk of enemy blop and B) you need the ability to kill tackle and stay outside scram / web range IF you reduce one of that and it does not matter how much it will be harder for the kiting gang to fight. noboday is saying its not possible to fight anymore because you lose X% range It will just be harder and it means fights you would take today, you cant take tomorrow after the nerf result: less fights for smaller gangs / kiters and for what? what do we get in return? I cant see that this nerf is fixing anything besides a bad feeling of a dev that maybe the TE is a bit OP I would like to get a clear answer, what will be the advantage of this nerf.
There was a time that tracking ehancers were not used at all. There was still small scale warfare and solo pvp. Of course things will become harder. Good! I prefer a challenge because all I do is collect killmails and it gets boring really quickly. Once you get even decent at this game in terms of pvp. There's not much left to hope for other than a challenge or changes to ships and modules or new hulls.
Adapt or die. Simple.
- llz |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
28
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:45:00 -
[712] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I understand the allure of hyperbole related to the death of the small gang versus the blob - but this change should definitely be considered in the context of a game where a gang with some standard cruisers and BCs with a couple skirmish links can engage at almost any ratio of friend to foe. Its fun to engage outnumbered (I've heard), but expecting a few extremely strong mods to do a large portion of the work for you seems a bit over the top. It also seems important to me that since speed isn't actually being effected here, fast moving skirmish engagements will likely look very similar except that during critical moments there will be a slightly higher tendency to commit. This could mean more vulnerability for the awesome small gang of nano pilots, or it could also mean that your prey now has to venture closer to actually apply dps. I like writing posts but I'm not sure its doing any good from my own experience, I can agree with this, I can see this making speed tanked cruiser/bc gangs abit stronger if the FC knows what he or she is doing :) |
Cardano Firesnake
Babylon Knights Test Alliance Please Ignore
49
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 15:05:00 -
[713] - Quote
I think that if you nerf Tracking Enhancers, you should creatr a Range Enhancer module that would increase Range and fall of like the today TE and with a decrease Tracking bonus of 1/3. |
Major Killz
158
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 15:08:00 -
[714] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:CCP Rise wrote:I understand the allure of hyperbole related to the death of the small gang versus the blob - but this change should definitely be considered in the context of a game where a gang with some standard cruisers and BCs with a couple skirmish links can engage at almost any ratio of friend to foe. Its fun to engage outnumbered (I've heard), but expecting a few extremely strong mods to do a large portion of the work for you seems a bit over the top. It also seems important to me that since speed isn't actually being effected here, fast moving skirmish engagements will likely look very similar except that during critical moments there will be a slightly higher tendency to commit. This could mean more vulnerability for the awesome small gang of nano pilots, or it could also mean that your prey now has to venture closer to actually apply dps. I like writing posts but I'm not sure its doing any good from my own experience, I can agree with this, I can see this making speed tanked cruiser/bc gangs abit stronger if the FC knows what he or she is doing :)
Aye. Skirmishing tactics are just superior.
In the past I suggested as much. Gallente pilots focused to much on "speed" not realising there was more to it than that. Effective range and applied damage @ said range is the basis of said tactic. From there you can think about defense and overall velocity.
Gallente ships aren't effective because of thier primary weapon systems lack of effective range.
Like I've said. The more our player base increases the more commiting completely to an engagement becomes suicide and by that I mean. Increasing the possibility of losses.
Skirmishing has helped and will continue to help deal with that issue. Those ships NOT optimum for skirmishing on the small scale will be destroyed ALOT more than ships able to skirmish effectively.
Skirmishing is a necessary way of mitigating losses and possibly engaging more targets at any given time.
I doubt CCP is trying to completely destroy a tactic and concept surrounding something so ubiquitous.
I mean seriously. All the best fleet concept employ ships with the most effective range and applied damage at that range. Then overall resistence and hitpoint buffer are looked at. At that point overall speed becomes important or not depending on "tank".
Example: Drake, Naga, Tornado, Caracal, Bellicose, Zealot, Tengu, Legion, Loki, Abaddon, Armageddon, abaddon, Rokh, Maelstrom.
Everyone of the aforementioned have one concept in common. RANGE and often longest range short range or long range turrent.
- killz |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
43
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 15:28:00 -
[715] - Quote
Major Killz wrote: Gallente ships aren't effective because of thier primary weapon systems lack of effective range.
- killz
Nope.. Gallente ships are not as effective as they used to be because on lat 6 years we got large increase to tackling range t2 disruptors pushign from 20 to 24 and even after that an extra extension due to overheating.
In the past, when all combat was forcefully within 20 km, and most of time within 17 km (to have that safe border), blasters used to be super powerful and people regarded the extensive range of scorch and AC as insignificant advantages. |
amurder Hakomairos
Fellowship Of Lost Souls Rebel Alliance of New Eden
43
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 15:51:00 -
[716] - Quote
Alsyth wrote:amurder Hakomairos wrote: Its not even OP on the Mach. When a ship's hull costs 6-12x the cost of a normal battleship you should be getting a significant increase in performance.
-overpowered speed/agility mix (better than any BC/CS and most cruisers) -overpowered damage projection -top-class dps -tank is not bad compared to other non-specialized shield BSs Get rid of the damage projection and I'm fine with the Machariel as a powerful tool for rich guys, but as it is, it's too much. Or drop a lowslot. I can't think of any (subcapital) ship making as effective use of TEs as Machariels, and the point CCP PL raised is that TEs give too much of an advantage to kiting minmatar ships: the Machariel is the absolute best example for that, and in my opinion the only one that needs a nerf.
And this is a problem because people are fielding huge Mach PvP fleets and owning everything right? Nerfing TEs because of the Mach or the Mach itself is a nerf to PvE only and nothing should be nerfed to make PvE a longer and more boring grind than it already is.
|
Major Killz
158
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 15:57:00 -
[717] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Major Killz wrote: Gallente ships aren't effective because of thier primary weapon systems lack of effective range.
- killz
Nope.. Gallente ships are not as effective as they used to be because on lat 6 years we got large increase to tackling range t2 disruptors pushign from 20 to 24 and even after that an extra extension due to overheating. In the past, when all combat was forcefully within 20 km, and most of time within 17 km (to have that safe border), blasters used to be super powerful and people regarded the extensive range of scorch and AC as insignificant advantages.
I joined the game in late 2007. So, anything beyond then does not matter to me. However, even before that large fleets used battleships with long range turret.
I was still kiting gallente ships in 2008 with 90% webs still intact. Nano-skirmishing even then was the superior tactic solo and the player base was smaller. Back then there were many bad entities and very few good ones. Today is much the same except now everyone is following the success of good entities unlike before.
Why is that important? Game filled with pilots who were not adapting fast enough including solo pilots and did the web, point and f1 - f8 thing because it was simple.
Pvp has become alot more dynamic than before and everyone has come up for the most part.
BTW the shield harbinger existed before the TE boost and was VERY viable. Same with the hml drake. The very few who used them owned in the 90% web era.
Nano hacs pwned and is what da "l33ts" used to feed on the terribubble.
Just because everyone was flying armor harbingers and hurricanes at the time. Does not mean that the hml-Drake was not better. Takes time for the player base to adapt while others adapt quickly and even innovate.
There are very few who innovate. While 99% of the player base trails and struggles to adapt. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
43
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 16:03:00 -
[718] - Quote
Major Killz wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Major Killz wrote: Gallente ships aren't effective because of thier primary weapon systems lack of effective range.
- killz
Nope.. Gallente ships are not as effective as they used to be because on lat 6 years we got large increase to tackling range t2 disruptors pushign from 20 to 24 and even after that an extra extension due to overheating. In the past, when all combat was forcefully within 20 km, and most of time within 17 km (to have that safe border), blasters used to be super powerful and people regarded the extensive range of scorch and AC as insignificant advantages. I joined the game in late 2007. So, anything beyond then does not matter to me. However, even before that large fleets used battleships with long range turret. I was still kiting gallente ships in 2008 with 90% webs still intact. Nano-skirmishing even then was the superior tactic solo and the player base was smaller. Back then there were many bad entities and very few good ones. Today is much the same except now everyone is following the success of good entities unlike before. Why is that important? Game filled with pilots who were not adapting fast enough including solo pilots and did the web, point and f1 - f8 thing because it was simple. Pvp has become alot more dynamic than before and everyone has come up for the most part. BTW the shield harbinger existed before the TE boost and was VERY viable. Same with the hml drake. The very few who used them owned in the 90% web era. Nano hacs pwned and is what da "l33ts" used to feed on the terribubble. Just because everyone was flying armor harbingers and hurricanes at the time. Does not mean that the hml-Drake was not better. Takes time for the player base to adapt while others adapt quickly and even innovate. There are very few who innovate. While 99% of the player base trails and struggles to adapt.
I do not disagree with you. Just pointing why the origianl VISIOn of gallente is not as strong as it used to be at its inception. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1409
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 16:10:00 -
[719] - Quote
Octoven wrote:
So enthrall me with your almighty wisdom as to why shield tanking trumps armor?
What?
I mean those alone are pretty solid benefits over armor, and I'm just grabbing things from off the top of my head, I could do a dissertation length document on why they're better and ways to change armor ships to compensate.
I can't believe you actually asked that. |
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
561
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 16:24:00 -
[720] - Quote
Octoven wrote:
I agree, but recently changes to the game have pointed to the aspect of getting players up close to each other to fight. HML were nerfed by 20 km, and now they want to nerf TEs? It isn't because they are OP its because CCP is killing the sniper role as we know it and replacing combat with nothing but blaster, pulse, AC, HAMs up close and personal. To be honest, I am disappointed in the way the devs are handling this game.
STOP making changes you want CCP and start listening to the players who pay your salaries. Before that whole load of devs quit a few years back the game was awesome; however, despite some good things that have come out in recent expansions, its been mostly trash and nerfs.
TE's make long range weapons unnecessary because it makes it so you can kite using blasters, pulses, and autocannons. Sorry your railguns can't reach past hard coded lock range anymore. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
|
Lina Halid
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 17:07:00 -
[721] - Quote
Alsyth wrote:amurder Hakomairos wrote: Its not even OP on the Mach. When a ship's hull costs 6-12x the cost of a normal battleship you should be getting a significant increase in performance.
-overpowered speed/agility mix (better than any BC/CS and most cruisers) -overpowered damage projection -top-class dps -tank is not bad compared to other non-specialized shield BSs Get rid of the damage projection and I'm fine with the Machariel as a powerful tool for rich guys, but as it is, it's too much. Or drop a lowslot. I can't think of any (subcapital) ship making as effective use of TEs as Machariels, and the point CCP PL raised is that TEs give too much of an advantage to kiting minmatar ships: the Machariel is the absolute best example for that, and in my opinion the only one that needs a nerf.
So Machariel is killing EVE pvp? Alright. |
Lina Halid
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 17:11:00 -
[722] - Quote
Commander Ted wrote:
TE's make long range weapons unnecessary because it makes it so you can kite using blasters, pulses, and autocannons. Sorry your railguns can't reach past hard coded lock range anymore.
Hm, care to support these your words by any examples? As far as I understand the main problem of railguns isn't reach, but tracking. Which said TE nerf won't help to. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
180
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 17:26:00 -
[723] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Small addition -
Obviously many of you seem frustrated that X Y or Z ship that used shields and TEs is getting nerfed, how many ships that don't use TEs are picking up that slack to punish you for this change? HAM caracals maybe? Not drakes right because they just got a big change as well...
I'm genuinely asking because the only space I see being created is for armor based ships that already needed the lows for their tanks - and I don't see those ships becoming stronger than skirmishers based on this change. Am I wrong?
People will -always- criticise changes that nerf their playstyle. Many less sophisticated players think -all- nerfs are wrong.
See: every change ever. The nano nerfs, the dual prop nerf, the original missile nerf, the ASB nerf etc etc etc |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
228
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 17:32:00 -
[724] - Quote
amurder Hakomairos wrote:Alsyth wrote:amurder Hakomairos wrote: Its not even OP on the Mach. When a ship's hull costs 6-12x the cost of a normal battleship you should be getting a significant increase in performance.
-overpowered speed/agility mix (better than any BC/CS and most cruisers) -overpowered damage projection -top-class dps -tank is not bad compared to other non-specialized shield BSs Get rid of the damage projection and I'm fine with the Machariel as a powerful tool for rich guys, but as it is, it's too much. Or drop a lowslot. I can't think of any (subcapital) ship making as effective use of TEs as Machariels, and the point CCP PL raised is that TEs give too much of an advantage to kiting minmatar ships: the Machariel is the absolute best example for that, and in my opinion the only one that needs a nerf. And this is a problem because people are fielding huge Mach PvP fleets and owning everything right? Nerfing TEs because of the Mach or the Mach itself is a nerf to PvE only and nothing should be nerfed to make PvE a longer and more boring grind than it already is.
If it is any consolation (unlikely), there were several collateral casualties of the HM nerf over and above the drake/tengu. The suggestions to address the hulls directly were rebuffed.
They're taking a mod first/hull second approach in the main from what I can tell. |
Boris Amarr
Viziam Amarr Empire
50
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 18:48:00 -
[725] - Quote
Nerf TE is a terrible idea! It is mean nerf ALL amarr ships. Amarr ships doesn't have med slots for tracking computers, because they need MVD, point (scramble or tracking disruptor) and cap booster. Also Amarr ships has huge capacitor usage, only EM and thermic damage, terrible bonus to capacitor use on 50% ships, terrible armor tank. And now you wand kill Amarr's optimal (that is not good). May be TE has overstate bonus to falloff but why are you going to kill optimal??? |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
44
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 19:33:00 -
[726] - Quote
Boris Amarr wrote:Nerf TE is a terrible idea! It is mean nerf ALL amarr ships. Amarr ships doesn't have med slots for tracking computers, because they need MVD, point (scramble or tracking disruptor) and cap booster. Also Amarr ships has huge capacitor usage, only EM and thermic damage, terrible bonus to capacitor use on 50% ships, terrible armor tank. And now you wand kill Amarr's optimal (that is not good). May be TE has overstate bonus to falloff but why are you going to kill optimal???
LOl Funny as ammar say they are the most nerfed, then minmatar say they are the most nerfed.. then come the gallente and say that blasters will be ruined.
Can you see people? That means its BALANCED!!!!! |
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
152
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 19:59:00 -
[727] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Boris Amarr wrote:Nerf TE is a terrible idea! It is mean nerf ALL amarr ships. Amarr ships doesn't have med slots for tracking computers, because they need MVD, point (scramble or tracking disruptor) and cap booster. Also Amarr ships has huge capacitor usage, only EM and thermic damage, terrible bonus to capacitor use on 50% ships, terrible armor tank. And now you wand kill Amarr's optimal (that is not good). May be TE has overstate bonus to falloff but why are you going to kill optimal??? LOl Funny as ammar say they are the most nerfed, then minmatar say they are the most nerfed.. then come the gallente and say that blasters will be ruined. Can you see people? That means its BALANCED!!!!!
It might affect all races equally (it doesn't) but it does not affect all ships equally. There's more to balance than that. |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Guild of the Faceless Men Entropy Alliance
68
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 20:12:00 -
[728] - Quote
minmatar actually will get a huge buff out of this because their upper echelon options like vagas, lokis, and sleipnirs all have a racial falloff bonus' on their ships. so, things that dont have it will suck but most folks who fly minmatar cruisers will probably wind up in those three minmatar ships at some point anyways and now they most definatly will if these changes go through
tldr minmatar are hit least by nerfing te's in this fashion. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
224
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 20:24:00 -
[729] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:
LOl Funny as ammar say they are the most nerfed, then minmatar say they are the most nerfed.. then come the gallente and say that blasters will be ruined.
Can you see people? That means its BALANCED!!!!!
I think the problem is specific ship fits/doctrines from each are affected in different degrees rather than it necessarily badly effecting one race as a whole. This is why I'm not a fan of the change now after having been these stats for so long as it is very varied in its impact infact I'm very dubious of a change that reduces a T2 module back to the stats of the origial meta0 version unless its in response to a major game breaking problem.
|
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
543
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 20:31:00 -
[730] - Quote
Major Killz wrote: Adapt or die. Simple.
- killz
This forum desperately needs a feature where every time some highsec publord posts the words "adapt or die" they get struck by lightning IRL.
Nice post-signing, bro. |
|
Major Killz
159
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 20:41:00 -
[731] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Major Killz wrote: Adapt or die. Simple.
- killz
This forum desperately needs a feature where every time some highsec publord posts the words "adapt or die" they get struck by lightning IRL. Nice post-signing, bro.
Good sir. What does pub lord mean? I hope you do not use me as an example. I fear I may be sad if so
Also, I have existed in this game with the aforementioned as a principle. Predators often try to differentiate from thier prey.
Hmm. I've been told it's the same for child molesters. Honestly, though. I often hear that term thrown around by terribubbles on a consistent basis. Guess I'm not young anymore v0v
- killz |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
543
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 20:53:00 -
[732] - Quote
Major Killz wrote: - killz
ZAP! |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
118
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 21:01:00 -
[733] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Major Killz wrote: - killz
ZAP!
Brannigan ? |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
28
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 21:14:00 -
[734] - Quote
seth Hendar wrote: ship fully aligned that refuse to warp (a 20+ fleet of nano vaga aligned , wing warped, half of them needed 5 extra second to initiate warp!)
This glitch I've personally experienced twice while in a legion in epic arc missions, the first time the GMs admitted there was an issue and reimbursed me, the second time they refused to admit any such thing. Nice to see public response that this glitch does exist! |
Sorana Bonzari
Paradox Collective Choke Point
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 21:29:00 -
[735] - Quote
Since we are on the nerf train to cater to the large fleets why donGÇÖt we just nerf damage projection as a whole and force fleets to all fight at 0 because no one enjoys fighting against the odds and we all know nano pvp is completely useless. Eve doesnGÇÖt need tactics. LetGÇÖs make it 10km easier for massive blobs to hit F1 and call it skill. |
Aralieus
Shadowbane Syndicate
90
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 21:31:00 -
[736] - Quote
Oh my God, the tears! Rejoice my Amarrian brothers, our time is almost at hand Oderint Dum Metuant |
Sorana Bonzari
Paradox Collective Choke Point
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 21:40:00 -
[737] - Quote
Aralieus wrote:Oh my God, the tears! Rejoice my Amarrian brothers, our time is almost at hand
well 90% of the game likes the nerf because they are crying that the other 10% can kite and kill a fleet twice their numbers. I mean this ability to win with skill over brawn is bad we should nerf all dps to 1 and tanks up to 100k so we have to deploy Test Alliance tactics... look a drake cyno look inta time dilation! |
Major Killz
159
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 21:53:00 -
[738] - Quote
Sorana Bonzari wrote:Aralieus wrote:Oh my God, the tears! Rejoice my Amarrian brothers, our time is almost at hand well 90% of the game likes the nerf because they are crying that the other 10% can kite and kill a fleet twice their numbers. I mean this ability to win with skill over brawn is bad we should nerf all dps to 1 and tanks up to 100k so we have to deploy Test Alliance tactics... look a drake cyno look inta time dilation!
SKILL? I'm not to sure about that. I've been able to teach a new character the basics of kiting and be able to use said tactic in fleets.
Solo I'm able to handle 3 - 7 targets at once, at ranges between 14 - 20,000m and move in, threw and around them fairly well. Most ingame are not capable of that. Even those I know to be really good. In fact. I know of only one other pilot in the Genos who has shown the ability to do that, but he's not playing at the moment.
Most who employ the general skirmishing tactic take advantage of the fact that 98% of the pilots ingame are just terribubble. In fact the contrast is VAST. Still. I've seen large fleets in TEST kite fairly well.
The tactic is now ubiquitous. Those who master it are few though, but it DOESNT MATTER.
So, this "skill" is easly learned and employed in a fleet of atleast 2 and it becomes easier the larger the fleet scales. Like most things that tend to reach da level of BLOB.
In the past the difference between BLOBS were HUGE. Now everyone has come up. Everyone is employing L33T tactics at varying degrees of success. Most of them cant use said tactics solo very well, but properly lead by a compotent fleet commander. NUbs can fight outnumbered like pros in those fleets.
- killz |
Elara Longbottom
Dark Falcon Operations
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 22:00:00 -
[739] - Quote
Lelob wrote:rsb nerf is nice
nerfing te's though is not a good change. This will make almost any gang shield ship severely nerfed, given that almost all of them rely on te's to have any hope to work properly. This is not a change that I would look forward to or would offer a particularly good fix to anything really. The reason that it has always traditionally been acceptale that shield ships have greater range via te's is because they have less tank and less ewar. This just makes it so that when you role in armor you will not be out-kited by faster, less tankier ships and those ships will have to come and fight within your optimals. It just does not make sense why anyone would willingly want to fly shield ships after the heavy bonuses/nerfs that they have been getting.
They recently got t2 plates Then armour honeycombing made them far less slow Now they will be able to operate in the same general range as shield ships, but with the bonus of having more tank, stronger force multipliers, (loki/proteus vs huggin/lachesis), and more midslots potentially for ewar such as td's and damps
This will also be a pretty siable buff for td's given the greatly shortened range this will give shield ships.
This really is a bad, bad idea.
thats what keep ppl paying subscribers... every once in a while there are incoming failbalance tries pushing pilots to train other hulls, guns, upgrades, tanks, ...
thats the sole reason. TEs is the basic element of shield nano gangs. the kind of gamestyle that makes fighting outnumbered possible. without those, or with these incoming nerfes as well, ccp prevents ppl from being able to fight outnumbered wihtout an extreme added risk of losing everything while trying to fight the blob.
its like it is. if u lack range and speed, u have to go close, if u go close u will get webbed (out to 30-40k in fleets) and then u will just die to the blob.
so, fozzie, is this what u want? force ppl to form blobs and the bigger blob always wins?
god, get into the game and get a clue about whats up out there. |
Sorana Bonzari
Paradox Collective Choke Point
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 22:05:00 -
[740] - Quote
^^^ All Im saying is 90% of my kills are because people are to stupid to do what their FC says. CCP just made that 33.33% harder to keep range kill and not get caught. |
|
maCH'EttE
Mafia Redux Phobia.
22
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 22:44:00 -
[741] - Quote
maCH'EttE wrote:Michael Harari wrote:I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes) Quote:
We have not forgotten solo pilots, even though this ship class does make things somewhat harder for them.
Quote:I am aware that any expansion of logistics capability in eve makes things harder for solo players, and we are endeavoring to make sure that these frigates add options to combat instead of taking them away. Quote:I understand how much solo players rely on killing key enemy ships fast and how anything that helps gangs keep their ships alive is going to make solo harder. In the end I believe that the stats on these ships will make them managable for solo and small gangs to face. Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok" Baby run for CSM and you got my vote. what a shame CCP Fonzie
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
28
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 23:22:00 -
[742] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Octoven wrote:
So enthrall me with your almighty wisdom as to why shield tanking trumps armor?
What? I could do a dissertation length document on why they're better and ways to change armor ships to compensate. I can't believe you actually asked that. As someone who has flown a variety of hulls (caldari, amarr, and minnie) with either shield or amor tank on them (yes, that includes armor on cald and shield on amarr) I can say that neither is better then the other overall, it's more a matter of what you intend to use the ship for that dictates which version of a tank is better for it. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
28
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 23:32:00 -
[743] - Quote
Lina Halid wrote:Commander Ted wrote:
TE's make long range weapons unnecessary because it makes it so you can kite using blasters, pulses, and autocannons. Sorry your railguns can't reach past hard coded lock range anymore.
Hm, care to support these your words by any examples? As far as I understand the main problem of railguns isn't reach, but tracking. Which said TE nerf won't help to. actually, it's specifically stated that the tracking speed bonus of the TE is being left untouch, so explain to me how this will be a negative for the tracking of your rail guns? |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
28
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 23:37:00 -
[744] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Boris Amarr wrote:Nerf TE is a terrible idea! It is mean nerf ALL amarr ships. Amarr ships doesn't have med slots for tracking computers, because they need MVD, point (scramble or tracking disruptor) and cap booster. Also Amarr ships has huge capacitor usage, only EM and thermic damage, terrible bonus to capacitor use on 50% ships, terrible armor tank. And now you wand kill Amarr's optimal (that is not good). May be TE has overstate bonus to falloff but why are you going to kill optimal??? LOl Funny as ammar say they are the most nerfed, then minmatar say they are the most nerfed.. then come the gallente and say that blasters will be ruined. Can you see people? That means its BALANCED!!!!! Even funnier as I started this game as a pure amarr pilot and I've never used a TE on any armor tanked hull I made of that race and have done quite well thank you very much. |
PAPULA
The Dark Tribe
22
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 00:53:00 -
[745] - Quote
Lin Fatale wrote: and for what? what do we get in return? I cant see that this nerf is fixing anything besides a bad feeling of a dev that maybe the TE is a bit OP
I would like to get a clear answer, what will be the advantage of this nerf.
Some advantages:
1. Fozzie will be happy again and smiling. 2. Pandemic Legion will also be happy. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
635
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 00:55:00 -
[746] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:Lin Fatale wrote: and for what? what do we get in return? I cant see that this nerf is fixing anything besides a bad feeling of a dev that maybe the TE is a bit OP
I would like to get a clear answer, what will be the advantage of this nerf.
Some advantages: 1. Fozzie will be happy again and smiling. 2. Pandemic Legion will also be happy. What would PL stand to gain from this? |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
28
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 01:31:00 -
[747] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:PAPULA wrote:Lin Fatale wrote: and for what? what do we get in return? I cant see that this nerf is fixing anything besides a bad feeling of a dev that maybe the TE is a bit OP
I would like to get a clear answer, what will be the advantage of this nerf.
Some advantages: 1. Fozzie will be happy again and smiling. 2. Pandemic Legion will also be happy. What would PL stand to gain from this? He's a moron who can't do anything other then spout of random nonsense about his pet paranoid delusion, ignore him. |
Destoya
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
65
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 07:02:00 -
[748] - Quote
maCH'EttE wrote:maCH'EttE wrote:
Baby run for CSM and you got my vote.
what a shame CCP Fonzie
Do you often quote yourself in support of your own points? |
raz1980
nul-li-fy Nulli Secunda
18
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 07:15:00 -
[749] - Quote
CCP is broken time for a fix |
Martin0
Maximum-Overload
91
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 08:25:00 -
[750] - Quote
I <3 CCP Fozzie
21 days eve-online free trial here https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=396dca45-adb9-487c-913d-fa94643491bf&action=buddy |
|
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
212
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 09:06:00 -
[751] - Quote
I'm thinking of an alternative solution.
Why not remove the tracking bonus of Tracking Enhancers(yes I know it goes against the name) and return optimal and falloff bonus back to current levels?
I mean really the tracking bonus is largely obsolete compared to tracking computers that give a big bonus. Not to mention tracking computers can change bonuses on the fly in exchange for cap usage. |
chris elliot
EG CORP Talocan United
157
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 09:17:00 -
[752] - Quote
Fozzie, do you have any plans to tweak tracking disruptors now that you have tweaked the tracking enhancers?
We know that the TD's were quite powerful before but with this change to TE's do you feel the TD's have been allowed to become a bit too strong? |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear Limitless Inc.
98
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 09:44:00 -
[753] - Quote
chris elliot wrote:Fozzie, do you have any plans to tweak tracking disruptors now that you have tweaked the tracking enhancers?
We know that the TD's were quite powerful before but with this change to TE's do you feel the TD's have been allowed to become a bit too strong?
Yeah - I was gravitating towards Missiles - almost exclusivly after the TDs. Now that this has happened - I'll want to move more towards missiles. I wish Minmatar had faction missiles in their LP stores. Also will the Stabber be revisited now - as this will bury the Stabber. |
Connall Tara
The Dude's Interstellar Enterprizes Quixotic Hegemony
73
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 09:52:00 -
[754] - Quote
Claire Raynor wrote:chris elliot wrote:Fozzie, do you have any plans to tweak tracking disruptors now that you have tweaked the tracking enhancers?
We know that the TD's were quite powerful before but with this change to TE's do you feel the TD's have been allowed to become a bit too strong? Yeah - I was gravitating towards Missiles - almost exclusivly after the TDs. Now that this has happened - I'll want to move more towards missiles. I wish Minmatar had faction missiles in their LP stores. Also will the Stabber be revisited now - as this will bury the Stabber.
you mean in that other thread a few stickies down where the stabber is receiving a 25M3 dronebay and an improved fall off bonus from 7.5% to 10% per level?
why yes... yes it has :> Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7 |
feihcsiM
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
189
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 10:18:00 -
[755] - Quote
Positive changes in my opinion.
Remote SEBO changes: Overdue and very welcome. Lazy instalock T3 camps with bonused scrams & webs seem to be spreading like a cancer, anything to mitigate this is great. Have you thought about keeping the current bonus but altering the modules so a ship can only receive benefits from a single Remote SEBO? I wonder if this might be a better way to balance the issue. (but have no idea what it entails from a coding point of view)
TE changes: Don't get me wrong, I love TEs, I really do, but if I'm honest I think they have been somewhat overpowered since their huge buff some years ago. At less than half the fitting cost of a damage mod you can project your firepower some 30% farther. Bargain! I think there are other changes that need addressing sooner, but this change should shake things up a bit and hopefully skew the meta away from kitey fits. I have to admit, when I find myself kite fitting Omens as they are just plain better as shield tanked kiters you know something is a bit askew.
The points about TDs mentioned by others earlier in the thread are valid though and need to be addressed. They are somewhat OP when fitted to non bonused ships right now. A decrease of 48% to tracking or range from a completely unbonused ship is rather a lot in my opinion. I think TDs on unbonused ships should work out around 30% when scripted to bring them into line with other EWAR modules.
Any plans to do so CCP? It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine. |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear Limitless Inc.
98
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 11:04:00 -
[756] - Quote
Connall Tara wrote:Claire Raynor wrote:chris elliot wrote:Fozzie, do you have any plans to tweak tracking disruptors now that you have tweaked the tracking enhancers?
We know that the TD's were quite powerful before but with this change to TE's do you feel the TD's have been allowed to become a bit too strong? Yeah - I was gravitating towards Missiles - almost exclusivly after the TDs. Now that this has happened - I'll want to move more towards missiles. I wish Minmatar had faction missiles in their LP stores. Also will the Stabber be revisited now - as this will bury the Stabber. you mean in that other thread a few stickies down where the stabber is receiving a 25M3 dronebay and an improved fall off bonus from 7.5% to 10% per level? why yes... yes it has :>
Awesome! Thanks for the update - this has cheered me up! |
Donedy
Snuff Box
36
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 12:22:00 -
[757] - Quote
I completely disagree with the TE nerf. I cant see in what way it was OP, the module was just doing his job. "Rebalancing" doesnt mean "Change everything". Cause its the feeling i have when i see what you do Mr Fozzie. |
Hellakhanasos
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 12:33:00 -
[758] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Hellakhanasos wrote:Venustas Blue wrote:If your fighting at 0, say in scram & Webb range to be doing affective damage, theres no way to disengage say if your off gate. Unless your ****** fit with stabs or possibly AB fit and able to burn out. The more powerful ship or better counter fit ship will always win. You will not have the ability granted to kiting ships to disengagde by either burning away, or causing the hostile to lose point by pulsing MWD on cross axis so they burn out of range & lose point, allowing you to warp out. There's little skill in fighting at 0 (scram/Webb) range, nerfing TEs kiting ability, wich is an art and skill its self would be yet another mistake by CCP, and a great loss as far as skill goes for the game. There is counters to kiting ships, & as far as minnie ships go, they have already been nerfed enough, dont ruin it by overstepping a reasonable current mark & success. This proposed change to TEs needs to be scrapped. All it would do is subject eve to yet a other nerf of making the game ever easier, this does not inspire anybody to become better within tactics and situational awareness, it only acts to dumb it down, even giving more reason to blob, and there should be no further reason given to blobbing WHAT SO EVER. Should be promoting skill and fun gfs instead. Sometimes it becomes very apparent CCP are out of touch with the game and its tactics, this is as good as any example. A resounding NO to TE nerf from me. After sifting through the turd of many prior posts over the last couple of pages. This is more of less spot on. Yeah basically this.
CCP going to do a boo boo again. Is there any point in this thread they don't listen to anything except for what they want to hear, and there any many in eve that have the skill of a FA pilot (no skill at all) wich gives this nerf a huge benifit to the aweful pvp'rs, and the blob yet another benifit. Gives the vet, budding pvp'rs who have skill in kiting less chance still when fighting outnumbered ranging from solo all the way to the biggest of fleet fights. If you have the Pvp ability of a turd this nerf will benifit you. Fozzie how many hours per year on average do you actually genuinely play eve 4-5? |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear Limitless Inc.
98
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 12:42:00 -
[759] - Quote
One thing that will happen - is people using EFT and not using TEs because Gyros make the numbers bigger - are now probably doing it right. |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
51
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 12:49:00 -
[760] - Quote
I've got to wonder how many of those complaining here (about a change that is the same as T2 --> T1) were on the other side of the fence when Blaster boats got hit with a crippling 400% increase in target speeds under webbing (effectively the same as cutting tracking to 25%) back in 2008...
Gallente MkII: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1227770 War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293 |
|
Goldiiee
Superior Ratio High Sec Dropouts
313
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 13:34:00 -
[761] - Quote
I was also upset at first with these proposed changes, but unlike apparently the majority of forum readers here, I also read the other forum threads identifying the changes proposed for cruisers. As it is apparent in those threads the loss of falloff is being addressed in new bonuses to the hulls most in need of it.
It would follow that Fozzie is on the job and tweaking where needed to provide the necessary buff and nerf as appropriate, placing the apparent OP bonuses where they belong, in the Hull, not the modules. Eve is not the real world and progress in eve should not compare, if everything gets better and quicker it would lead to the eventual reduction of options to one ship one gun and no fun at all. (Imagine everyone with Nukes)
Sit back and enjoy the time you have left with the falloff you have now, all the while thinking up a new way to make your advantage work for you and against the other guy, you did it once before, or you copied the guy that did it once before, so be original and come up with a new plan.
Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced (But I still try..) |
CthulhusSpaceTrip
the united Negative Ten.
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 13:40:00 -
[762] - Quote
NOOOOOOOES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
226
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 14:16:00 -
[763] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote:I was also upset at first with these proposed changes, but unlike apparently the majority of forum readers here, I also read the other forum threads identifying the changes proposed for cruisers and frigs. As it is apparent in those threads the loss of falloff is being addressed in new bonuses to the hulls most in need of it.
It would follow that Fozzie is on the job and tweaking where needed to provide the necessary buff and nerf as appropriate, placing the apparent OP bonuses where they belong, in the Hull, not the modules. Eve is not the real world and progress in eve should not compare, if everything gets better and quicker it would lead to the eventual reduction of options to one ship one gun and no fun at all. (Imagine everyone with Nukes)
Sit back and enjoy the time you have left with the falloff you have now, all the while thinking up a new way to make your advantage work for you and against the other guy, you did it once before, or you copied the guy that did it once before, so be original and come up with a new plan.
Except theres a lot more ships where its applicable than those being changed and also people who actually play eve somewhat like the sandbox its advertised as being get shafted (again) and with all these "closing the gap" type changes and possibly irrational fear of power creep (even tho concerns for power creep should always be kept in mind) eventually the game is going to become just as meh as if everyone was running about in the overpowered setup you describe but instead its from being so insipidly uniform. |
amurder Hakomairos
Fellowship Of Lost Souls Rebel Alliance of New Eden
44
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 14:18:00 -
[764] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote:It would follow that Fozzie is on the job and tweaking where needed to provide the necessary buff and nerf as appropriate, placing the apparent OP bonuses where they belong, in the Hull, not the modules.
Looking forward to the Mach receiving a buff to its falloff bonus then.
Or maybe if you are dead set on nerfing TEs then maybe you could also remove the 25% reduction in falloff that you get using Hail ammo?
|
Leoviscus
League of Non-Aligned Worlds Nulli Secunda
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 14:54:00 -
[765] - Quote
Venustas Blue wrote:If your fighting at 0, say in scram & Webb range to be doing affective damage, theres no way to disengage say if your off gate. Unless your ****** fit with stabs or possibly AB fit and able to burn out. The more powerful ship or better counter fit ship will always win. You will not have the ability granted to kiting ships to disengagde by either burning away, or causing the hostile to lose point by pulsing MWD on cross axis so they burn out of range & lose point, allowing you to warp out. There's little skill in fighting at 0 (scram/Webb) range, nerfing TEs kiting ability, wich is an art and skill its self would be yet another mistake by CCP, and a great loss as far as skill goes for the game. There is counters to kiting ships, & as far as minnie ships go, they have already been nerfed enough, dont ruin it by overstepping a reasonable current mark & success. This proposed change to TEs needs to be scrapped. All it would do is subject eve to yet a other nerf of making the game ever easier, this does not inspire anybody to become better within tactics and situational awareness, it only acts to dumb it down, even giving more reason to blob, and there should be no further reason given to blobbing WHAT SO EVER. Should be promoting skill and fun gfs instead. Sometimes it becomes very apparent CCP are out of touch with the game and its tactics, this is as good as any example. A resounding NO to TE nerf from me.
Agreed +1 for this |
Goldiiee
Superior Ratio High Sec Dropouts
313
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 15:25:00 -
[766] - Quote
amurder Hakomairos wrote:Goldiiee wrote:It would follow that Fozzie is on the job and tweaking where needed to provide the necessary buff and nerf as appropriate, placing the apparent OP bonuses where they belong, in the Hull, not the modules. Looking forward to the Mach receiving a buff to its falloff bonus then. Or maybe if you are dead set on nerfing TEs then maybe you could also remove the 25% reduction in falloff that you get using Hail ammo? That would be awesome I agree I have thrown away 5 ships as useless since the beginning of the Great Balancing Act of 2013, but I have picked a few gems along the way as well.
And I sit on the edge of my seat hopping my Mach doesn't become 180mil in ore and nothing else. Like my Cain has become 60mil worth of ore. But I feel Fozzie has a really rotten job (It canGÇÖt be easy to field this much hate) and I am sure he wouldn't want to kill any portion of this game just for forum tears.
Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced (But I still try..) |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3847
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 15:27:00 -
[767] - Quote
Leoviscus wrote:Venustas Blue wrote:If your fighting at 0, say in scram & Webb range to be doing affective damage, theres no way to disengage say if your off gate. Unless your ****** fit with stabs or possibly AB fit and able to burn out. The more powerful ship or better counter fit ship will always win. You will not have the ability granted to kiting ships to disengagde by either burning away, or causing the hostile to lose point by pulsing MWD on cross axis so they burn out of range & lose point, allowing you to warp out. There's little skill in fighting at 0 (scram/Webb) range, nerfing TEs kiting ability, wich is an art and skill its self would be yet another mistake by CCP, and a great loss as far as skill goes for the game. There is counters to kiting ships, & as far as minnie ships go, they have already been nerfed enough, dont ruin it by overstepping a reasonable current mark & success. This proposed change to TEs needs to be scrapped. All it would do is subject eve to yet a other nerf of making the game ever easier, this does not inspire anybody to become better within tactics and situational awareness, it only acts to dumb it down, even giving more reason to blob, and there should be no further reason given to blobbing WHAT SO EVER. Should be promoting skill and fun gfs instead. Sometimes it becomes very apparent CCP are out of touch with the game and its tactics, this is as good as any example. A resounding NO to TE nerf from me. Agreed +1 for this You really need to make up your mind as to whether toning down TE's is going to kill the game by making it too difficult or by making the game too easy.
This is a situation that will only really be intelligently argued once the changes hit the test server. Of course, some will only trying them out using the exact same tactical choices they always have and will they claim "It's broken"... a few will actually try modifying thier approach to account for the new parameters.
The latter will be the ones that need to be listened too.
A great deal of this controversy would go away if Fozzie has time to look at the long range weapons systems in this pass as well, especially when using their close range ammunition. It's overdue for a rework, and since range and tracking are the central issues (and nobody even bothers making comparisons using long range weapons instead of short range weapons) it would seem to be a good time to make a pass at it.
If long range weapons using short range ammo types were comparable to short range weapons using their long range ammo this wouldn't be such an issue. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
28
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 15:41:00 -
[768] - Quote
Claire Raynor wrote:Connall Tara wrote:Claire Raynor wrote:chris elliot wrote:Fozzie, do you have any plans to tweak tracking disruptors now that you have tweaked the tracking enhancers?
We know that the TD's were quite powerful before but with this change to TE's do you feel the TD's have been allowed to become a bit too strong? Yeah - I was gravitating towards Missiles - almost exclusivly after the TDs. Now that this has happened - I'll want to move more towards missiles. I wish Minmatar had faction missiles in their LP stores. Also will the Stabber be revisited now - as this will bury the Stabber. you mean in that other thread a few stickies down where the stabber is receiving a 25M3 dronebay and an improved fall off bonus from 7.5% to 10% per level? why yes... yes it has :> Awesome! Thanks for the update - this has cheered me up! - [edit having read all these threads - I came here from another part of the forum] the drone bay won't do squat as they are now useless for missions but the 10% is epic for the fall off. try putting a disruptor or some other form of ewar on your ship to cause the rats to have even more hate for you, makes them much less likely to go after your drones. |
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
45
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 15:47:00 -
[769] - Quote
amurder Hakomairos wrote:Looking forward to the Mach receiving a buff to its falloff bonus then.
Get the **** out. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
28
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 15:50:00 -
[770] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote:I was also upset at first with these proposed changes, but unlike apparently the majority of forum readers here, I also read the other forum threads identifying the changes proposed for cruisers and frigs. As it is apparent in those threads the loss of falloff is being addressed in new bonuses to the hulls most in need of it.
It would follow that Fozzie is on the job and tweaking where needed to provide the necessary buff and nerf as appropriate, placing the apparent OP bonuses where they belong, in the Hull, not the modules. Eve is not the real world and progress in eve should not compare, if everything gets better and quicker it would lead to the eventual reduction of options to one ship one gun and no fun at all. (Imagine everyone with Nukes)
Sit back and enjoy the time you have left with the falloff you have now, all the while thinking up a new way to make your advantage work for you and against the other guy, you did it once before, or you copied the guy that did it once before, so be original and come up with a new plan. Thank you , for being one of those RARE few to actually do some research before bitching (also, if any of those threads are from the last month, could you send me a mail with the links?) |
|
Goldiiee
Superior Ratio High Sec Dropouts
313
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 16:27:00 -
[771] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:Thank you , for being one of those RARE few to actually do some research before bitching (also, if any of those threads are from the last month, could you send me a mail with the links?) Sadly I have lots of time on my hands to read, but never thought to save any of the things I read. But for the rest of the guys perusing this thread here are just a few examples the can be found in a few seconds within the stickyGÇÖs right here.
RIFTER: Frigate skill bonuses: +5% to small projectile turret damage and +7.5% to small projectile turret tracking per level
TRISTAN: Gallente Frigate bonuses: +7.5% to small hybrid turret tracking and +10% to drone tracking and hitpoints per level
IMPERIAL NAVY SLICER: Frigate skill bonuses: +25% to small energy turret damage and +10% to small energy turret optimal range per level
FEDERATION NAVY COMET: Gallente Frigate bonuses: +7.5% to small hybrid turret tracking and +20% to small hybrid turret damage per level
REPUBLIC FLEET FIRETAIL: Frigate skill bonuses: +25% (+5%) to small projectile turret damage and +7.5% to small projectile turret tracking per level
Stabber: Minmatar Cruiser bonuses: -5% medium projectile turret rate of fire and +10% (+2.5) medium projectile turret falloff per level
Omen Navy Issue: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret optimal range
Stabber Fleet Issue: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret firing speed 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed
And sure Pela Ming, I will spend a little time later today and see if I can find some of the old posts and forward them to you.
Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced (But I still try..) |
Sorana Bonzari
Paradox Collective Choke Point
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 16:31:00 -
[772] - Quote
All this "re-balance" is doing it making it easier for blob PVP. Don't over complicate this topic. Put simply CCP is siding with the masses and rationalizing that it should be even harder for a smaller fleet using tactics and paying attention to the game, to beat a larger fleet using the "approach MWD fire" key while eating a cookie. Tailoring games to the retards is why MMO's start to fall of the deep end.
BTW to the above post ^^^^ I dont want tracking I want damage projection L2 read what we are bitching about?
SFI needs range Vaga needs range exc...... |
Sean Parisi
Fugutive Task Force Caldari State Capturing
231
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 17:00:00 -
[773] - Quote
Won't the tracking enhancer changes pretty much screw over the navy slicer? Haven't done the math on it, so maybe the change is minor for it. But just thought I'd mention it. |
Minimax Zed
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 17:07:00 -
[774] - 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.
In other words:
Deal with it.
On one hand, this seems like a final nail in the coffin of the dual-neut shield autocannon welpcane I knew and loved.
On the other hand, this [along with the other tier3 changes] is a nice nerf to the totally-OP nature of the shield Talos.
Go Fozzie! |
Sorana Bonzari
Paradox Collective Choke Point
3
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 17:13:00 -
[775] - Quote
Minimax Zed wrote: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. In other words: Deal with it. On one hand, this seems like a final nail in the coffin of the dual-neut shield autocannon welpcane I knew and loved. On the other hand, this [along with the other tier3 changes] is a nice nerf to the totally-OP nature of the shield Talos. Go Fozzie!
Since the problem is T3's then nerf them don't blanket nerf all of the other ships. But that makes to much common sense so its not going to happen. |
Turgon Barash
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
3
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 17:17:00 -
[776] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:Thank you , for being one of those RARE few to actually do some research before bitching (also, if any of those threads are from the last month, could you send me a mail with the links?) Sadly I have lots of time on my hands to read, but never thought to save any of the things I read. But for the rest of the guys perusing this thread here are just a few examples the can be found in a few seconds within the stickyGÇÖs right here. RIFTER: Frigate skill bonuses: +5% to small projectile turret damage and +7.5% to small projectile turret tracking per level TRISTAN: Gallente Frigate bonuses: +7.5% to small hybrid turret tracking and +10% to drone tracking and hitpoints per level IMPERIAL NAVY SLICER: Frigate skill bonuses: +25% to small energy turret damage and +10% to small energy turret optimal range per level FEDERATION NAVY COMET: Gallente Frigate bonuses: +7.5% to small hybrid turret tracking and +20% to small hybrid turret damage per level REPUBLIC FLEET FIRETAIL: Frigate skill bonuses: +25% (+5%) to small projectile turret damage and +7.5% to small projectile turret tracking per level Stabber: Minmatar Cruiser bonuses: -5% medium projectile turret rate of fire and +10% (+2.5) medium projectile turret falloff per levelOmen Navy Issue: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret optimal rangeStabber Fleet Issue: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret firing speed 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speedAnd sure Pela Ming, I will spend a little time later today and see if I can find some of the old posts and forward them to you.
Did you even read OP its not about tracking that stays the same its about optimal and falloff that we are talking about....great research lol
Sorana Bonzari is right if this change hits there will be bunch of ships in need of major redoing of their bonuses or they will be utter crap...worth it??? |
Sorana Bonzari
Paradox Collective Choke Point
3
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 17:40:00 -
[777] - Quote
I make a point not to make personal attacks so i will make a few general statements.
1) if you notice the only people who agree with this change are those that have gank kills or 10+ on all of their kills.
2) Those of us that play with 2-5 people in vagas - SFI- cynables are the ones who are effected the most by this change. Using speed and range it doesn't matter how many are on the field we take advantage of opportunity killing.
Why is CCP killing this?
3) Well like I said before the devs are tailoring the game to (approach -mwd -fire) instead of using tactics. 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. Then the devs will bring it back, its the life cycle of mmo's. Its only when devs don't fix it for the good players is why mmo's fail. |
Goldiiee
Superior Ratio High Sec Dropouts
313
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 18:05:00 -
[778] - Quote
Turgon Barash wrote:Did you even read OP its not about tracking that stays the same its about optimal and falloff that we are talking about....great research lol
Sorana Bonzari is right if this change hits there will be bunch of ships in need of major redoing of their bonuses or they will be utter crap...worth it??? Yes I read the OP, I read it two days ago when the whining started and I am reading it now as the whining continues Ad Nauseum , My point was not about your particular problem and rant, it was about the obvious changes being made to pretty much every ship in EVE.
Therefore with just a little foresight it is conceivable that there is a plan to take into consideration these small but loud complaints about a ruined game. And that there are people that actually get paid to figure this stuff out, real professionals, with experience and everything, who knows they might even have a focus group and an entire team of other professionals that they can bounce ideas off of, and receive decent, not confrontational, feedback.
And who knows they might even have a plan that will work without having to consult with the plethora of professional well thought out advice being forwarded here.
Quotes GÇÖ NOOOOOOGÇÖ/ what a shame CCP Fonzie / CCP is broken time for a fix / I completely disagree with the TE nerf./..... GÇÿGÇÖ
Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced (But I still try..) |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries Sick N' Twisted
429
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 18:23:00 -
[779] - Quote
Sean Parisi wrote:Won't the tracking enhancer changes pretty much screw over the navy slicer? Haven't done the math on it, so maybe the change is minor for it. But just thought I'd mention it. COMPARISON: T2 and T1 TE's (After rebalance, a T2 TE will be the same as current T1)
Quote:All V's Slicer with 1 x T2 TE / Small Focused Pulse Laser II's / Scorch S 19.4km Optimal + 3.3km Falloff
All V's Slicer with 1 x T1 TE / Small Focused Pulse Laser II's / Scorch S 18.6km Optimal + 3.0km Falloff
Overall lose: 0.8km Optiamal + 0.3km Falloff Not what I would call a drastic change.
Quote:All V's Dramiel with 1 x T2 TE / 200mm AC II's / Barrage S 1.7km Optimal + 17.6km Falloff
All V's Dramiel with 1 x T1 TE / 200mm AC II's / Barrage S 1.7km Optimal + 16.2km Falloff
Overall lose: 0.0km Optiamal + 1.4km Falloff Again, not the end of the world. MODULAR DRONES
MORE ORE SHIPS |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
28
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 18:51:00 -
[780] - Quote
Sorana Bonzari wrote:All this "re-balance" is doing it making it easier for blob PVP. Don't over complicate this topic. Put simply CCP is siding with the masses and rationalizing that it should be even harder for a smaller fleet using tactics and paying attention to the game, to beat a larger fleet using the "approach MWD fire" key while eating a cookie. Tailoring games to the retards is why MMO's start to fall of the deep end.
BTW to the above post ^^^^ I dont want tracking I want damage projection L2 read what we are bitching about?
SFI needs range Vaga needs range exc......
A nerf to these ships rage puts me nearly at web range. So whats the point of flying them unless i have numbers + long rage ammo to do the same thing. again tailored to more blob warfare yay because that's what eve needs. -_- well, per that 'above' post of Goldiiee's, they ARE balancing out these TE nerfs by giving a variety of hulls a range boost, so your kiting issues won't 'die' and as Fozzie has stated, the tracking speed buff of the TE is remaining unchanged, so you don't need to see more tracking as your not losing any.
-edited to add link to relevant post- |
|
Sorana Bonzari
Paradox Collective Choke Point
3
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 18:53:00 -
[781] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote:Sean Parisi wrote:Won't the tracking enhancer changes pretty much screw over the navy slicer? Haven't done the math on it, so maybe the change is minor for it. But just thought I'd mention it. COMPARISON: T2 and T1 TE's(After rebalance, a T2 TE will be the same as current T1)Quote:All V's Slicer with 1 x T2 TE / Small Focused Pulse Laser II's / Scorch S 19.4km Optimal + 3.3km Falloff
All V's Slicer with 1 x T1 TE / Small Focused Pulse Laser II's / Scorch S 18.6km Optimal + 3.0km Falloff Overall lose: 0.8km Optiamal + 0.3km Falloff Not what I would call a drastic change. Quote:All V's Dramiel with 1 x T2 TE / 200mm AC II's / Barrage S 1.7km Optimal + 17.6km Falloff
All V's Dramiel with 1 x T1 TE / 200mm AC II's / Barrage S 1.7km Optimal + 16.2km Falloff Overall lose: 0.0km Optiamal + 1.4km Falloff Again, not the end of the world.
I'm not sure if you know it based on your KB (Just an observation not an attack) but a few Km Difference when the buffer between you and death in 5k is a Big deal.
Take this
http://choke.eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=16793806
for example 1-5k less I would of never got kills and would be webbed to kindomcome and dead.
I try to get fights like this all the time and this is how tactics > massive blob
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
28
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 18:56:00 -
[782] - Quote
Turgon Barash wrote:Goldiiee wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:Thank you , for being one of those RARE few to actually do some research before bitching (also, if any of those threads are from the last month, could you send me a mail with the links?) Sadly I have lots of time on my hands to read, but never thought to save any of the things I read. But for the rest of the guys perusing this thread here are just a few examples the can be found in a few seconds within the stickyGÇÖs right here. RIFTER: Frigate skill bonuses: +5% to small projectile turret damage and +7.5% to small projectile turret tracking per level TRISTAN: Gallente Frigate bonuses: +7.5% to small hybrid turret tracking and +10% to drone tracking and hitpoints per level IMPERIAL NAVY SLICER: Frigate skill bonuses: +25% to small energy turret damage and +10% to small energy turret optimal range per level FEDERATION NAVY COMET: Gallente Frigate bonuses: +7.5% to small hybrid turret tracking and +20% to small hybrid turret damage per level REPUBLIC FLEET FIRETAIL: Frigate skill bonuses: +25% (+5%) to small projectile turret damage and +7.5% to small projectile turret tracking per level Stabber: Minmatar Cruiser bonuses: -5% medium projectile turret rate of fire and +10% (+2.5) medium projectile turret falloff per levelOmen Navy Issue: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret optimal rangeStabber Fleet Issue: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret firing speed 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speedAnd sure Pela Ming, I will spend a little time later today and see if I can find some of the old posts and forward them to you. Did you even read OP its not about tracking that stays the same its about optimal and falloff that we are talking about....great research lol Sorana Bonzari is right if this change hits there will be bunch of ships in need of major redoing of their bonuses or they will be utter crap...worth it??? but that IS the point, the hulls that would be hurt the most by this nerf of TEs are already or will be adjusted to balance out the lost ranges, and those that need the nerf the most won't be receiving such changes. |
Sorana Bonzari
Paradox Collective Choke Point
3
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 19:01:00 -
[783] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote: but that IS the point, the hulls that would be hurt the most by this nerf of TEs are already or will be adjusted to balance out the lost ranges, and those that need the nerf the most won't be receiving such changes.
Wrong damage projection for medium size ships will decrease. Please refer to above post for the definition of damage projection.
SFI Vaga Cynable Vigelnt Exc,,,,, |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
28
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 19:09:00 -
[784] - Quote
Sorana Bonzari wrote:Pelea Ming wrote: but that IS the point, the hulls that would be hurt the most by this nerf of TEs are already or will be adjusted to balance out the lost ranges, and those that need the nerf the most won't be receiving such changes.
Wrong damage projection for medium size ships will decrease. Please refer to above post for the definition of damage projection. SFI Vaga Cynable Vigelnt Exc,,,,, Yes, I read the proposed changes to the Navy Cruisers, and I don't like that the current low tank/high damage ships are all being nerfed on damage pretty severely, but something that specific I left to that specific thread. You have an issue like that over a specific ship class, put it on that thread, this thread is for the mod nerfs, and bringing up specific ship gripes in regards to that is actually rather bad form for an attempt to argue against it. |
Sorana Bonzari
Paradox Collective Choke Point
3
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 19:16:00 -
[785] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote: Yes, I read the proposed changes to the Navy Cruisers, and I don't like that the current low tank/high damage ships are all being nerfed on damage pretty severely, but something that specific I left to that specific thread. You have an issue like that over a specific ship class, put it on that thread, this thread is for the mod nerfs, and bringing up specific ship gripes in regards to that is actually rather bad form for an attempt to argue against it.
Fair point but counter point the TE nerf effects everything but the one ship they already fixed for damage projection. This TE debuff is focused because of the T3 BC grievance so I believe it is relevant to this mod. Again why not put a debuff on what the devs consider to be OP and not debuff everything and rebuff everything but what you originally wanted to debuff? Then we can talk about specific ships.
Edit: For nano PVP tank is almost irrelevant. its about damage projection and speed. The former is being cut and makes a difference. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
28
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 19:19:00 -
[786] - Quote
Sorana Bonzari wrote:Pelea Ming wrote: Yes, I read the proposed changes to the Navy Cruisers, and I don't like that the current low tank/high damage ships are all being nerfed on damage pretty severely, but something that specific I left to that specific thread. You have an issue like that over a specific ship class, put it on that thread, this thread is for the mod nerfs, and bringing up specific ship gripes in regards to that is actually rather bad form for an attempt to argue against it.
Fair point but counter point the TE nerf effects everything but the one ship they already fixed for damage projection. This TE debuff is focused because of the T3 BC grievance so I believe it is relevant to this mod. but from what I'm seeing, both in this thread, and the one relating to the Navy cruisers, and the little bit I gleaned from Goldiiee's post providing me with some info on the upcoming Navy frig changes, it will be balanced in the long run, we just need to be patient. Also, the changes to the TEs aren't going through until Odessy, which is when they are doing these other changes, so it will all get put through at the same time, essentially meaning that they will all be balanced out at the same time. |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries Sick N' Twisted
429
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 19:24:00 -
[787] - Quote
Sorana Bonzari wrote:I'm not sure if you know it based on your KB (Just an observation not an attack) but a few Km Difference when the buffer between you and death in 5k is a Big deal. Take this http://choke.eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=16793591 (Use Copy&Paste for this to work) for example 1-5k less I would of never got kills and would be webbed to kindomcome and dead. I try to get fights like this all the time and this is how tactics > massive blob I would hope that it does not take a genius to work out that this character does not take part in PvP. But, much like the vast majority of the player base, I do have other accounts. I do PvP and the I'm about 50/50 for solo kills vs group kills. I'm also about 55/45 for kills/deaths. I am no "1337 PvP'a". I prefer brawling, though I have tried kiting. It is an art form I admire. I just prefer the more visceral brawler approach.
I am also acutley aware, from both sides of the coin, just how important that extra bit of range can be.
Sorana Bonzari wrote:Edit to respond to above:
Again I can care less about tracking I care for damage projection and yes overall damage projection will decrease.
Just in case you don't know: Damage projection = Damage that can be effectively applied at range. For medium size ships like vagas - SFI exct.... this is a big deal and no the damage projection is not fixed due to hull changes. Projection will decrease, your right. No one is arguing that. It will also decrease marginally less than your range, which overall, with 1 TE, is by approximately 7.5%. MODULAR DRONES
MORE ORE SHIPS |
Sorana Bonzari
Paradox Collective Choke Point
3
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 19:28:00 -
[788] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:[quote=Sorana Bonzari] but from what I'm seeing, both in this thread, and the one relating to the Navy cruisers, and the little bit I gleaned from Goldiiee's post providing me with some info on the upcoming Navy frig changes, it will be balanced in the long run, we just need to be patient. Also, the changes to the TEs aren't going through until Odessy, which is when they are doing these other changes, so it will all get put through at the same time, essentially meaning that they will all be balanced out at the same time.
And that's exactly why every once in awhile people like me come out of the woodwork and post on the forms to get their voice heard so when that final rebalanced happens and is rolled out that small fleet PVP'er like myself don't get left behind. Ive loved lot of the other changes don't get me wrong but small fleet PVP needs to be heard as just as big of an issue as big fleet pvp where IMHO balancing doesn't even matter. After 100 people are on the field individuals are so diluted +- a little of this and that don't matter.
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
28
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 19:30:00 -
[789] - Quote
Sorana Bonzari wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:[quote=Sorana Bonzari] but from what I'm seeing, both in this thread, and the one relating to the Navy cruisers, and the little bit I gleaned from Goldiiee's post providing me with some info on the upcoming Navy frig changes, it will be balanced in the long run, we just need to be patient. Also, the changes to the TEs aren't going through until Odessy, which is when they are doing these other changes, so it will all get put through at the same time, essentially meaning that they will all be balanced out at the same time. And that's exactly why every once in awhile people like me come out of the woodwork and post on the forms to get their voice heard so when that final rebalanced happens and is rolled out that small fleet PVP'er like myself don't get left behind. Ive loved lot of the other changes don't get me wrong but small fleet PVP needs to be heard as just as big of an issue as big fleet pvp where IMHO balancing doesn't even matter. After 100 people are on the field individuals are so diluted +- a little of this and that don't matter. Oh, I completely agree, when I do pvp I MUCH prefer small gangs. So I don't mind it when people break out and bring things like this up. if you like armor fleets, btw, I might have to get you in touch with a good mate of mine that runs a very tight organization specializing in small gang armor fleets :) |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 20:45:00 -
[790] - Quote
In my opinion the nerf is already set in stone and this thread exists only for those that are against it to vent their anger. The proposed nerf numbers were intentionally set high so they can lower the nerf later by some % to sooth the anger and they have accomplished their planned nerf goal.
I'm afraid same happened with missiles too.
Please let me believe this isn't so and our voices actually matter to you. |
|
amurder Hakomairos
Fellowship Of Lost Souls Rebel Alliance of New Eden
44
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 21:46:00 -
[791] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: These are broke, so we're fixing them.
Says who? You or people who play the game? Because I'm looking at a 40 page thread of your customers telling you this change is unnecessary.
Sorana Bonzari wrote: Since the problem is T3's then nerf them don't blanket nerf all of the other ships. But that makes to much common sense so its not going to happen.
Agree 100% |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
29
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 22:06:00 -
[792] - Quote
amurder Hakomairos wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: These are broke, so we're fixing them.
Says who? You or people who play the game? Because I'm looking at a 40 page thread of your customers telling you this change is unnecessary. Sorana Bonzari wrote: Since the problem is T3's then nerf them don't blanket nerf all of the other ships. But that makes to much common sense so its not going to happen.
Agree 100% 1) T3 nerfs have been scheduled, and 2) this is again trying to use a specific ship class to justify an argument against the proposed module change, very weak if not pretty much just invalid reasoning, please provide some reason relevant specific to the module, not whatever ship you feel it should/would affect the most. |
Major Killz
160
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 22:15:00 -
[793] - Quote
Attack battlecruisers is a recent development. The issues surrounding tracking enhancers has been a long one. That module alone moved Minmatar ships away from close range combat with Gallente. Leaving Gallente as the long close range race while the game was moving towards more dynamic engagements. Where damage projection is a very important part.
However, there was nano-skirmishing even before that change. Even if CCP removed the module we would just go back to using mainly tech 2 ships to skirmish properly instead of basically every ship as we have now.
The change p much just expanded skirmishing from a handfull of ships to most of them now.
By the way. CCP has also introduced force multipliers like ASB's and AAR's. Which are annoying things, but whatever. Also, CCP has never made changes based on solo players input. Tracking enhancers were boosted to help artillery in what was the meta in fleet warfare at the time. Apparently, lasers were just to good and Railguns and more importantly Minmatar needed the help.
I didnt agree but I was not into fleet warfare at the time and never really been in a fleet passed 10 dudes at the time. To me it just seemed like something done to help terribubble pilots (98% of the player) because they are bad v0v
In anycase. More challenges will make you a better pilot and this change is not that serious to even cry about. There have been worse in the near past.
- killz |
Torei Dutalis
Perkone Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 22:25:00 -
[794] - Quote
I find the composition of responses to this change to be rather amusing. As expected a majority of posters seem opposed to the TE change, which is unsurprising as the module has become a staple of certain fitting types. The really interesting part though is the other portion of responses. The argument that "this nerf doesn't do anything so get over it" seems to be rather prevalent in many of the posts. I think people are taking this attitude as a pro-nerf stance, which it may be in some cases. However, the fact that people are arguing that a nerf is ok due to the fact that it is not really relevant is an argument that the nerf does not go far enough. There have been significant posts in the threads showing the numbers differences on falloff and optimal on some of the more standard fits that operate in the 20~ km range. It seems that the loss in range falls into the 1-3~ km range, or an overall loss of 5%~ dps for falloff. These are just generalized numbers of course. Essentially the nerf does very little to ships that have solidly established kiting styles, and has more impact on mid range ships. Which is interesting in and of itself as almost all of the examples in this thread pertain to ships with exceptional range with or without TEs
Also the cause of the nerf seems to be interesting. In the OP, Fozzie seems to be motivated by "Minmatar dominance in recent years" Which could be backed up by the fact that twelve out of the top twenty used ships in pvp are minmatar, but that doesn't necessarily establish a link between TE and minmatar being overpowered. I think that people seem to believe that minmatar ships have fallen out of favor, but on the aggregate this is not true. In some arenas such as solo-duo and FW caldari and gallente ships have seen a significant rise in usage, but in the 0.0 blocks minmatar ships are still highly prevalent. As a small gang player myself I of course am going to have a skewed perspective to that type of play and so I would caution people to form their opinions more holistically.
Of course there is the armor shield debate, but I already posted my opinion on that subject in a previous post and don't think it needs repeating. Overall I think people, players and CCP balancers, need to consider whether a nerf that is widely viewed as either bad or ineffective is really the way to go. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
29
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 22:29:00 -
[795] - Quote
Torei Dutalis wrote:I find the composition of responses to this change to be rather amusing. As expected a majority of posters seem opposed to the TE change, which is unsurprising as the module has become a staple of certain fitting types. The really interesting part though is the other portion of responses. The argument that "this nerf doesn't do anything so get over it" seems to be rather prevalent in many of the posts. I think people are taking this attitude as a pro-nerf stance, which it may be in some cases. However, the fact that people are arguing that a nerf is ok due to the fact that it is not really relevant is an argument that the nerf does not go far enough. There have been significant posts in the threads showing the numbers differences on falloff and optimal on some of the more standard fits that operate in the 20~ km range. It seems that the loss in range falls into the 1-3~ km range, or an overall loss of 5%~ dps for falloff. These are just generalized numbers of course. Essentially the nerf does very little to ships that have solidly established kiting styles, and has more impact on mid range ships. Which is interesting in and of itself as almost all of the examples in this thread pertain to ships with exceptional range with or without TEs
Also the cause of the nerf seems to be interesting. In the OP, Fozzie seems to be motivated by "Minmatar dominance in recent years" Which could be backed up by the fact that twelve out of the top twenty used ships in pvp are minmatar, but that doesn't necessarily establish a link between TE and minmatar being overpowered. I think that people seem to believe that minmatar ships have fallen out of favor, but on the aggregate this is not true. In some arenas such as solo-duo and FW caldari and gallente ships have seen a significant rise in usage, but in the 0.0 blocks minmatar ships are still highly prevalent. As a small gang player myself I of course am going to have a skewed perspective to that type of play and so I would caution people to form their opinions more holistically.
Of course there is the armor shield debate, but I already posted my opinion on that subject in a previous post and don't think it needs repeating. Overall I think people, players and CCP balancers, need to consider whether a nerf that is widely viewed as either bad or ineffective is really the way to go. Personally, I can't help but agree with your observations of this, and I agree that the TE nerf should go further. |
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
157
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 22:33:00 -
[796] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote: 2) this is again trying to use a specific ship class to justify an argument against the proposed module change, very weak if not pretty much just invalid reasoning, please provide some reason relevant specific to the module, not whatever ship you feel it should/would affect the most.
What ships are using TEs 'unfairly' that makes them 'overpowered'? |
Ava Starfire
Gradient Electus Matari
784
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 22:38:00 -
[797] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes) Quote:
We have not forgotten solo pilots, even though this ship class does make things somewhat harder for them.
Quote:I am aware that any expansion of logistics capability in eve makes things harder for solo players, and we are endeavoring to make sure that these frigates add options to combat instead of taking them away. Quote:Improving solo options without either killing fun aspects of group play or making solo too easymode is definitely a goal of ours, but the solution there isn't to keep the learning cliff facing support pilots. Quote:I understand how much solo players rely on killing key enemy ships fast and how anything that helps gangs keep their ships alive is going to make solo harder. In the end I believe that the stats on these ships will make them managable for solo and small gangs to face. Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok"
Between the AF changes, the T1 frigate changes, the cruiser changes, the removal of the 2/10s from losec, the stupid incidence of Ewar/Sensor Damps/TDs, the off grid boosters, the falcon alts, and now all of this, no, Fozzie, it wont be ok.
Stop attacking solo and actual SMALL gang pvp, please? "There is no strength in numbers; have no such misconception."
-Jayka Vofur, "Warfare in the North" |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear Limitless Inc.
98
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 22:41:00 -
[798] - Quote
This ^^ |
Major Killz
160
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 22:53:00 -
[799] - Quote
Well CCP are trying to catch up but the meta has changed. I would think CCP F would know this but I'm not sure.
Artillery is the reason why Minmatar ships are being used ALOT more. Alpha is very powerful and some have argued in the past to much so. Autocannons is in the past for the most part and have made way for missiles, lasers and artillery.
I hope CCP does not go after artillery. As far as autocannons? I dont use it that much at all anymore. I do use artillery, missiles and Hybrids to a lesser extent. Nothing in these changes can hurt my gameplay because autocannons have become next to outmoded.
I've been trying to think back to why and when it happened and I can only say I adapted.
The introduction of attack battlecruisers ment I no use for a Hurricane. The BOOST to ewar ment that I used turrents that had far more range to counter tracking disruptors (which is why I use a rail harpy). Artillery's ability to end engagements quickly long before help can arrive or instantly decide an engagement, ment limited losses. Asb's was an issue too and I've also used it against superior forces in terms of numbers.
I can go on to recent advances in fleet doctrines and meta but it just change. I use less ships that use autocannons and rely on ships and weapon systems to deal with our current enviroment vov
- killz |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear Limitless Inc.
98
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 22:56:00 -
[800] - Quote
So - Armour and Shield fits are being made to be the same in terms of what the end result of the ships will be. Same Speed - damage - range - etc. Or at least CCP are engineering them to move to converge and to be more similar. I never saw the issue with variation. But everything seems to now need to be the same - I don't think making everything the same is balance at its best. I thought CCP had already done something to make Armour tanking better? I thought Armour tanking let you have more tackle and EWar? I thought it gave you more tank than Shield - so you could perhaps mitigate Shield tanking's bigger DPS?
I guess we will all just start using Gyros instead of TEs and forget flying and tactics - we can just charge at one another and turn our guns on - because we'll all be in scram and web range now - (or doing no damage is the other option). So - Fit a TE1 - because that is what the TE2 now will be - or a Gyro2. Hmmm. Yeah - So my TEs are going in the same bucket as the Drone Link Augmentors I used to like went into. Refine.
We could simplify EvE even more. . . . I'm wondering if, going forward, we even need modules. . . . |
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
29
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 02:28:00 -
[801] - Quote
the TE nerf is going through at the same time alot of ships are getting range buffs to their hulls if you were paying attention to the appropriate threads, this won't be making OP ships downgraded, it will be to keep a mod from making hulls that are getting the buffs from becoming OP. |
Alxea
Unstable Pirate Sharks Of The Damed Sea
117
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 02:35:00 -
[802] - 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. One does not simply use TE's for 5 years unchanged and suddenly break them. They are broke because you say they are broke when they were never broke to begin with. Your changing the way people play the game. Its more then a nerf its a game changer. But oh well I was never a fan of kiting anyways. The closer the better. But the point is its not the mods that are overpowered, its the way people always invent new fits that are deemed overpowered when they are simply just so powerful. Dominance is all in the creativeness of the fitting. When Kil2 use to fly Talos's he could kill fleets with it. So anything that can do that should be nerfed according to CCP so nerf a major mod that effects everybody and force them to fight at closer ranges with medium ranged weapons. It may as well be close range because weapons for medium range now will only be effective at close range. Of course forcing us to use a mid slot for a TC just to get range also nerfs the tanks of a lot of ships players want to shield tank making them have even less EHP. These nerfs are tba getting out of hand because they are stealth nerfing shield tanks on common ships. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
29
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 02:46:00 -
[803] - Quote
Alxea wrote: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. One does not simply use TE's for 5 years unchanged and suddenly break them. They are broke because you say they are broke when they were never broke to begin with. Your changing the way people play the game. Its more then a nerf its a game changer. But oh well I was never a fan of kiting anyways. The closer the better. But the point is its not the mods that are overpowered, its the way people always invent new fits that are deemed overpowered when they are simply just so powerful. Dominance is all in the creativeness of the fitting. When Kil2 use to fly Talos's he could kill fleets with it. So anything that can do that should be nerfed according to CCP so nerf a major mod that effects everybody and force them to fight at closer ranges with medium ranged weapons. It may as well be close range because weapons for medium range now will only be effective at close range. Of course forcing us to use a mid slot for a TC just to get range also nerfs the tanks of a lot of ships players want to shield tank making them have even less EHP. These nerfs are tba getting out of hand because they are stealth nerfing shield tanks on common ships. And yet, as has been previously, and numerously, pointed out, this 'nerf' is actually simply returning the TE back to it's original stats at the same time as a number of hulls are getting alot of range boosts to more then compensate for this to begin with. |
Alxea
Unstable Pirate Sharks Of The Damed Sea
117
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 02:58:00 -
[804] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:Alxea wrote: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. One does not simply use TE's for 5 years unchanged and suddenly break them. They are broke because you say they are broke when they were never broke to begin with. Your changing the way people play the game. Its more then a nerf its a game changer. But oh well I was never a fan of kiting anyways. The closer the better. But the point is its not the mods that are overpowered, its the way people always invent new fits that are deemed overpowered when they are simply just so powerful. Dominance is all in the creativeness of the fitting. When Kil2 use to fly Talos's he could kill fleets with it. So anything that can do that should be nerfed according to CCP so nerf a major mod that effects everybody and force them to fight at closer ranges with medium ranged weapons. It may as well be close range because weapons for medium range now will only be effective at close range. Of course forcing us to use a mid slot for a TC just to get range also nerfs the tanks of a lot of ships players want to shield tank making them have even less EHP. These nerfs are tba getting out of hand because they are stealth nerfing shield tanks on common ships. And yet, as has been previously, and numerously, pointed out, this 'nerf' is actually simply returning the TE back to it's original stats at the same time as a number of hulls are getting alot of range boosts to more then compensate for this to begin with.
The talos and cane are not the ships that are getting range boosts. The T2-TE will be as effective as a T1-TE. They might want to fix that. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
266
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 11:46:00 -
[805] - Quote
If range is that important, why not using long range weapon instead of pushing short range weapon to the extreme ?
Because IMO, that's the reason for the OPness of TE : they make short range weapon to impinge upon long range weapon operating range. |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear Limitless Inc.
98
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 12:51:00 -
[806] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:the TE nerf is going through at the same time alot of ships are getting range buffs to their hulls if you were paying attention to the appropriate threads, this won't be making OP ships downgraded, it will be to keep a mod from making hulls that are getting the buffs from becoming OP.
Err. Not that I saw.
1 ship got their falloff upgraded. The stabber.
1 ship got their optimal uprated. Some Amarr thing.
I'm sorry - what other hulls are getting their falloff / optimal enhanced to coincide with this nerf? |
Goldiiee
Superior Ratio High Sec Dropouts
316
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 13:00:00 -
[807] - Quote
Claire Raynor wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:the TE nerf is going through at the same time alot of ships are getting range buffs to their hulls if you were paying attention to the appropriate threads, this won't be making OP ships downgraded, it will be to keep a mod from making hulls that are getting the buffs from becoming OP. Err. Not that I saw. 1 ship got their falloff upgraded. The stabber. 1 ship got their optimal uprated. Some Amarr thing. I'm sorry - what other hulls are getting their falloff / optimal enhanced to coincide with this nerf? the point of ballance means some get a buff in one area, and others do not, the TE II was giving all ships a buff, and in the spirit of balance you need ot move the buffs to the hul not the module,,,, feel like i am repeating myself a lot,,, anyways all ships need to start from a basline and be buffed acording to thier role, after all why would you give optimal range to a Scimi or for that matter a missle boat. You wouldn't, so if you have one ship that does this well then why would you need more. Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced (But I still try..) |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear Limitless Inc.
98
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 13:25:00 -
[808] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote:Claire Raynor wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:the TE nerf is going through at the same time alot of ships are getting range buffs to their hulls if you were paying attention to the appropriate threads, this won't be making OP ships downgraded, it will be to keep a mod from making hulls that are getting the buffs from becoming OP. Err. Not that I saw. 1 ship got their falloff upgraded. The stabber. 1 ship got their optimal uprated. Some Amarr thing. I'm sorry - what other hulls are getting their falloff / optimal enhanced to coincide with this nerf? The point of balance means some get a buff in one area, and others do not, the TE II was giving all ships a buff, and in the spirit of balance you need to move the buffs to the hull not the module,,,, feel like I am repeating myself a lot,,, Anyways all ships need to start from a basline and be buffed acording to thier role, after all why would you give optimal range to a Scimi or for that matter a missle boat? You wouldn't, so if you have one ship that does this well then why would you need more.
What??? Ohh - OK - So we really don't need modules than - because it's the hull that should determine what the ship does - because "in the spirit of balance we need to move buffs from the modules onto the hulls" ? Then just have done with it and get rid of modules.
TE wasn't "giving all ships a buff" - It was only buffing the ships it was fitted to. You wouldn't ever have given a missile boat a TE2 that would be a fail fit. Obviously. Just because you could put a TE on a missile ship doesn't make them OP. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
29
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 13:47:00 -
[809] - Quote
Claire Raynor wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:the TE nerf is going through at the same time alot of ships are getting range buffs to their hulls if you were paying attention to the appropriate threads, this won't be making OP ships downgraded, it will be to keep a mod from making hulls that are getting the buffs from becoming OP. Err. Not that I saw. Range buff on hulls - show me more. Because from what I can see. . .. 1 ship got their falloff upgraded. The stabber. 1 ship got their optimal uprated. Some Amarr thing. I'm sorry - what other hulls are getting their falloff / optimal enhanced to coincide with this nerf? Check out the threads for the upcoming Navy cruisers and Navy frig mods, check out the already existing changed hulls we have available in the game, the range buffs are there. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
29
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 13:52:00 -
[810] - Quote
To be perfectly honest, I don't think that TE's should have ever been buffed up like this 4 years ago. I think it's wrong that a passive module should ever out perform an active one. with this nerf, in some respects it still does, but at least not to the point of having people say "wtf are you putting that TC on your ship? get a TE!" I honestly think that since the TC is an active mod, it should actually still get abit of a buff out of all of this yet, too. |
|
Claire Raynor
NovaGear Limitless Inc.
98
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 13:59:00 -
[811] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:Claire Raynor wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:the TE nerf is going through at the same time alot of ships are getting range buffs to their hulls if you were paying attention to the appropriate threads, this won't be making OP ships downgraded, it will be to keep a mod from making hulls that are getting the buffs from becoming OP. Err. Not that I saw. Range buff on hulls - show me more. Because from what I can see. . .. 1 ship got their falloff upgraded. The stabber. 1 ship got their optimal uprated. Some Amarr thing. I'm sorry - what other hulls are getting their falloff / optimal enhanced to coincide with this nerf? Check out the threads for the upcoming Navy cruisers and Navy frig mods, check out the already existing changed hulls we have available in the game, the range buffs are there.
Please help me - I've read / re-read - all these posts and threads. Where are the other ships who are getting their tracking-weapon's weapon ranges increased?
You pointed me at the Faction cruisers thread - Only the IN Omen gets and upgrade - The normal Stabber gets an upgrade - You pointed me at the faction frigates thread the Imperial navy Slicer shows a range bonus that it has AWLASYs had - and nah - other than the INOmen and the Stabber - nothing. . . |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear Limitless Inc.
98
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 14:06:00 -
[812] - Quote
Well it's done now. And this thread's finished.
I just wish they'd say why - What was the design intent ? They've reduced the range at which fights happen and pulled everything within Scram and web range. To what end?
I'm sorry Minmatar were OP - I didn't want them to be when I chose them. I didn't realise they were so OP that it'd take 6 months of solid development effort to nerf them back to "balanced" and that it would wipe out so many play styles en-route.
I wish I'd chosen Caldari instead.
I miss my Hurricane. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
29
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 14:10:00 -
[813] - Quote
Claire Raynor wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:Claire Raynor wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:the TE nerf is going through at the same time alot of ships are getting range buffs to their hulls if you were paying attention to the appropriate threads, this won't be making OP ships downgraded, it will be to keep a mod from making hulls that are getting the buffs from becoming OP. Err. Not that I saw. Range buff on hulls - show me more. Because from what I can see. . .. 1 ship got their falloff upgraded. The stabber. 1 ship got their optimal uprated. Some Amarr thing. I'm sorry - what other hulls are getting their falloff / optimal enhanced to coincide with this nerf? Check out the threads for the upcoming Navy cruisers and Navy frig mods, check out the already existing changed hulls we have available in the game, the range buffs are there. Please help me - I've read / re-read - all these posts and threads. Where are the other ships who are getting their tracking-weapon's weapon ranges increased? You pointed me at the Faction cruisers thread - Only the IN Omen gets and upgrade - The normal Stabber gets an upgrade - You pointed me at the faction frigates thread the Imperial navy Slicer shows a range bonus that it has AWLASYs had - and nah - other than the INOmen and the Stabber - nothing. . . Ugg, I finished with the cruiser thread this morning, but I know I saw at least one hull also got a falloff bonus, and don't forget to look at the cruisers, frigates, and BCs that have already been changed got some boosts too. |
Funky Lazers
shin-ra ltd
235
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 14:29:00 -
[814] - Quote
Damn, seeing the topic's name I thought CCP is actually making a change towards missiles being affected by TCs/TEs. Sadly there was none. Are we going to see this change in the summer patch? Whatever. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
29
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 14:32:00 -
[815] - Quote
Funky Lazers wrote:Damn, seeing the topic's name I thought CCP is actually making a change towards missiles being affected by TCs/TEs. Sadly there was none. Are we going to see this change in the summer patch? I agree, this change has been too long delayed. |
Major Killz
160
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 14:37:00 -
[816] - Quote
CCP is not increasing or giving vessel bonuses to counter the proposed changes to tracking enhancer at all.
In the past. skirmishing was limited to specialized vessels.
Back then I was aware of heavy missile Drakes and shield-Harbingers being used solo in early 2008. So it was clear most ships bonused for lasers and missiles were capable of skirmishing. Even though they lacked dominance in overall velocity.
However. When CCP changed tracking enhancers near all Minmatar vessels could now skirmish (not just the Vagabond). Instantly bringing them from the dirt that is close range combat and leaving Gallente completely behind. There by removing specialization and adding to ubiquity. Near every ship is now able to skirmish and are fitted for that purpose.
Removing that ubiquity makes alot of sense. Furthur, the Hurricane and many other Minmatar vessels are dangerous artillery platforms. I dont need to tell those who are not ret@rded that a fleet of shield-artillery-Hurricanes is superior to a fleet of shield-autocannon-Hurricanes.
Minmatar have a near overpowered long range weapon system. CCP has said nothing about touching it. Hope they dont because near every other race now has a ship better than Minmatar vessels at skirmishing.
When it comes to combat battlecruisers at skirmishing solo:
1. Drake (Ham (javelin), Hml) 2. Harbinger (pulse laser) 3. Hurricane (autocannon)
When it comes to attack battlecruisers at skirmishing solo:
1. Talos (blaster) 2. Oracle (pulse laser) 3. Tornado (autocannon)
When it comes to t1 cruisers at skirmishing solo:
1. Caracal (Ham (javelin), light missile) 2. Omen (pulse laser) 3. Bellicose (Ham (javelin), light missile) 4. Rupture (autocannons)
The combat battlecruisers have been much the same for awhile now. The rest is what it is.
- killz |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
29
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 14:41:00 -
[817] - Quote
Major Killz wrote:CCP is not increasing or giving vessel bonuses to counter the proposed changes to tracking enhancer at all.
In the past. skirmishing was limited to specialized vessels.
Back then I was aware of heavy missile Drakes and shield-Harbingers being used solo in early 2008. So it was clear most ships bonused for lasers and missiles were capable of skirmishing. Even though they lacked dominance in overall velocity.
However. When CCP changed tracking enhancers near all Minmatar vessels could now skirmish (not just the Vagabond). Instantly bringing them from the dirt that is close range combat and leaving Gallente completely behind. There by removing specialization and adding to ubiquity. Near every ship is now able to skirmish and are fitted for that purpose.
Removing that ubiquity makes alot of sense. Furthur, the Hurricane and many other Minmatar vessels are dangerous artillery platforms. I dont need to tell those who are not ret@rded that a fleet of shield-artillery-Hurricanes is superior to a fleet of shield-autocannon-Hurricanes.
Minmatar have a near overpowered long range weapon system. CCP has said nothing about touching it. Hope they dont because near every other race now has a ship better than Minmatar vessels at skirmishing.
When it comes to combat battlecruisers at skirmishing solo:
1. Drake (Ham (javelin), Hml) 2. Harbinger (pulse laser) 3. Hurricane (autocannon)
When it comes to attack battlecruisers at skirmishing solo:
1. Talos (blaster) 2. Oracle (pulse laser) 3. Tornado (autocannon)
When it comes to t1 cruisers at skirmishing solo:
1. Caracal (Ham (javelin), light missile) 2. Omen (pulse laser) 3. Bellicose (Ham (javelin), light missile) 4. Rupture (autocannons)
The combat battlecruisers have been much the same for awhile now. The rest is what it is.
- killz Exactly, use your artillery guns! |
Nikolai Vodkov
Pro Synergy
41
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 17:38:00 -
[818] - Quote
I disapprove of this message! Horrible :( Run level 4 missions? -áIncrease your income and help new players earn ISK. -áJoin channel: Pro Synergy Pro Synergy is looking for dedicated Salvagers. -áWant to learn more? -áJoin channel: Pro Synergy |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
227
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 18:37:00 -
[819] - Quote
Alxea wrote:One does not simply use TE's for 5 years unchanged and suddenly break them. They are broke because you say they are broke when they were never broke to begin with. Your changing the way people play the game. Its more then a nerf its a game changer. But oh well I was never a fan of kiting anyways. The closer the better. But the point is its not the mods that are overpowered, its the way people always invent new fits that are deemed overpowered when they are simply just so powerful. Dominance is all in the creativeness of the fitting. When Kil2 use to fly Talos's he could kill fleets with it. So anything that can do that should be nerfed according to CCP so nerf a major mod that effects everybody and force them to fight at closer ranges with medium ranged weapons. It may as well be close range because weapons for medium range now will only be effective at close range. Of course forcing us to use a mid slot for a TC just to get range also nerfs the tanks of a lot of ships players want to shield tank making them have even less EHP. These nerfs are tba getting out of hand because they are stealth nerfing shield tanks on common ships.
I mean when was the last time you saw someone complaining about TEs seriously? infact there are so many things that need addressing before TEs should even be a thought on someones mind.
Getting bored of complaining about this stuff now tho for all the great changes lately theres been a few like this creeping in - just gonna keep playing til it goes too far (probably around the time command ship changes come into effect) and then find another game to play. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
266
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 21:19:00 -
[820] - Quote
Rroff wrote:I mean when was the last time you saw someone complaining about TEs seriously? infact there are so many things that need addressing before TEs should even be a thought on someones mind.
Getting bored of complaining about this stuff now tho for all the great changes lately theres been a few like this creeping in - just gonna keep playing til it goes too far (probably around the time command ship changes come into effect) and then find another game to play. Every time winmatar were on topic, TE were accused of a fair amount of their OPness. There must some tracks of this in the hurricane nerf thread in fact.
Also, can I have you stuff ? :D |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4767
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 21:37:00 -
[821] - Quote
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? Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Zircon Dasher
177
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 21:40:00 -
[822] - 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?
YAY updates!
also: LOLOLOLOLOL Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
227
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 21:41:00 -
[823] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Rroff wrote:I mean when was the last time you saw someone complaining about TEs seriously? infact there are so many things that need addressing before TEs should even be a thought on someones mind.
Getting bored of complaining about this stuff now tho for all the great changes lately theres been a few like this creeping in - just gonna keep playing til it goes too far (probably around the time command ship changes come into effect) and then find another game to play. Every time winmatar were on topic, TE were accused of a fair amount of their OPness. There must some tracks of this in the hurricane nerf thread in fact. Also, can I have you stuff ? :D
To be fair I only started playing the game I think after the time winmatar came out on top if its what I think your referring to, as I said before tho I completely agree there are some setups where TEs could do with rebalancing but I'm also of the opinion that overall its a heavy handed way to fix something that on some ships has a much bigger impact than on others i.e. some ships literally the viability of using them can come down to the difference of 1-2km of damage projection.
If I do quit it will probably be with a bang so you'd have to loot my wrecks.
|
PAPULA
The Dark Tribe
24
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 22:04:00 -
[824] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote:the TE II was giving all ships a buff, Same with large shield extender, it gives buff to all ships, it should get removed from game. |
Major Killz
163
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 22:12:00 -
[825] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:Goldiiee wrote:the TE II was giving all ships a buff, Same with large shield extender, it gives buff to all ships, it should get removed from game.
Ha ha ha!
Wise words Confucius. Lets see them try to beat that logic. Ha.
- killz |
Goldiiee
Superior Ratio High Sec Dropouts
316
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 23:06:00 -
[826] - Quote
Major Killz wrote:PAPULA wrote:Goldiiee wrote:the TE II was giving all ships a buff, Same with large shield extender, it gives buff to all ships, it should get removed from game. Ha ha ha! Wise words Confucius. Lets see them try to beat that logic. Ha. - killz Your absolutely right, and I was totally wrong, TE II were not OP. Everyone that is disagreeing with this nerf is completely correct in their belief that short range weapons should have a longer effective range than scrams, neuts, webs, or any other potential counter measure. After all, how else am I supposed to use Autocannons and Blasters if not at the absolute outside range of their influence? I was wrong in thinking that anything that has high damage, fast ROF should have an effective counter. After all there is no other weapon system in EVE that can hit from outside the range of web and scram influence, right?
It makes so much more sense from this point of view. Really?
And BTW, LSE are coupled with Sig bloom, Armour Plates are coupled with mass bloom, Cloaks with lower reaction time, longer range weapons take more CPU and PG to prevent coupling them with huge tanks, everything has a downside; and TE? What is the downside to having increased range? Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced (But I still try..) |
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
159
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 23:34:00 -
[827] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote:Major Killz wrote:PAPULA wrote:Goldiiee wrote:the TE II was giving all ships a buff, Same with large shield extender, it gives buff to all ships, it should get removed from game. Ha ha ha! Wise words Confucius. Lets see them try to beat that logic. Ha. - killz Your absolutely right, and I was totally wrong, TE II were not OP. Everyone that is disagreeing with this nerf is completely correct in their belief that short range weapons should have a longer effective range than scrams, neuts, webs, or any other potential counter measure. After all, how else am I supposed to use Autocannons and Blasters if not at the absolute outside range of their influence? I was wrong in thinking that anything that has high damage, fast ROF should have an effective counter. After all there is no other weapon system in EVE that can hit from outside the range of web and scram influence, right?
Let's remove long range ammo instead on short range weapons?? I'm a genius.
I noticed that there are no short range laser weapons or missile launchers. This is cool.
Your points are awful, sorry bro.
|
Goldiiee
Superior Ratio High Sec Dropouts
316
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 23:40:00 -
[828] - Quote
Dez Affinity wrote:Goldiiee wrote:Major Killz wrote:PAPULA wrote:Goldiiee wrote:the TE II was giving all ships a buff, Same with large shield extender, it gives buff to all ships, it should get removed from game. Ha ha ha! Wise words Confucius. Lets see them try to beat that logic. Ha. - killz Your absolutely right, and I was totally wrong, TE II were not OP. Everyone that is disagreeing with this nerf is completely correct in their belief that short range weapons should have a longer effective range than scrams, neuts, webs, or any other potential counter measure. After all, how else am I supposed to use Autocannons and Blasters if not at the absolute outside range of their influence? I was wrong in thinking that anything that has high damage, fast ROF should have an effective counter. After all there is no other weapon system in EVE that can hit from outside the range of web and scram influence, right? Let's remove long range ammo instead on short range weapons?? I'm a genius. I noticed that there are no short range laser weapons or missile launchers. This is cool. Your points are awful, sorry bro. Yes you are. A genius, that is. :) 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 00:32:00 -
[829] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote: And BTW, LSE are coupled with Sig bloom, Armour Plates are coupled with mass bloom, Cloaks with lower reaction time, longer range weapons take more CPU and PG to prevent coupling them with huge tanks, everything has a downside; and TE? What is the downside to having increased range?
Thats not an entirely silly way to look at it, a lot of (sort of) comparable low slot modules have a penalty of some sort. Much prefer it (depending on the penalty) than a fairly big lop at the current stats.
Another possible alternative tho it doesn't really address the issues where it hits smaller ships as they would likely be expensive is to keep the current T2 stats on deadspace variants of the module. |
PAPULA
The Dark Tribe
25
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 00:43:00 -
[830] - Quote
Power Diagnostic has no negative effects. Oh, wait it needs to be nerfed right now.
|
|
Major Killz
163
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 00:47:00 -
[831] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:Power Diagnostic has no negative effects. Oh, wait it needs to be nerfed right now.
BOOSH! |
Goldiiee
Superior Ratio High Sec Dropouts
316
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 00:48:00 -
[832] - Quote
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? Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced (But I still try..) |
Goldiiee
Superior Ratio High Sec Dropouts
316
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 00:53:00 -
[833] - 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? I am imagining you going through every item in ship mods, line by line, right now looking for another example. Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced (But I still try..) |
MystLynx
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
16
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 01:23:00 -
[834] - Quote
Well, you are not serious when saying TE should be nerfed because it has backsides? Must be a troll. Or you're just... Nah im not gonna say that.
"NERF GYROS, MFS, HS, BCS, DC, GUNS, MISSILES, NEUTS, SBs, PROBE LAUNCHERS, NERF EVERYYYYYYYYYTHIIIIIIIIIIIIIING!" |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7251
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 03:25:00 -
[835] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Have they killed off all solo pvp in the game yet as you predicted?
every change CCP has made since 2003 has killed off all solo PvP and CCP only cares about blobs (and only Goonswarm/the NC/BoB/(insert whatever alliance controls CCP here) fields large fleets)
this change will also be the nth final nail in the coffin of solo PvP just like every other change made to anything in eve anywhere
let me tell you about all the remote sensor boosters I use when I go soloing (which I don't, because CCP killed it off, see) ~*a proud belligerent undesirable*~ TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Kleen Enkook
Mal Reynolds' Pool of Recruits
8
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 06:55:00 -
[836] - 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?
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. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3258
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 07:44:00 -
[837] - Quote
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 Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
540
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 08:01:00 -
[838] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: How's life in a world with support frigates going? Have they killed off all solo pvp in the game yet as you predicted?
No, people just went right into the cruisers. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
239
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 08:52:00 -
[839] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:Goldiiee wrote:the TE II was giving all ships a buff, Same with large shield extender, it gives buff to all ships, it should get removed from game. TE isnt getting removed , so you fail hard, little butthurt arent you?
|
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
239
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 08:59:00 -
[840] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:Power Diagnostic has no negative effects. Oh, wait it needs to be nerfed right now.
oh god , your butt should realy get a treatment , all this strained whining has a negative effect on it , pls stop makeing up bs in all your posts |
|
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+ñth-)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?" |
|
Hikaru Kuroda
Shimai of New Eden
89
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 13:31:00 -
[871] - Quote
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.
|
Capqu
Love Squad
90
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 16:08:00 -
[872] - Quote
Unkind Omen wrote: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/4QhH5hGun / 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/4QhS1IGun / 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
http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
29
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 16:23:00 -
[873] - Quote
as to everyone who tries to ***** that higher falloff bonuses then optimal on these mods is wrong, smack yourself now. When your in Optimal, your doing full applied dps, when your in fall off, your taking a penalty that only grows larger the further into falloff that your target is. ergo, falloff bonuses 1k to 1k are worth significantly less then optimal bonuses. |
Funky Lazers
shin-ra ltd
235
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 19:01:00 -
[874] - Quote
Capqu wrote: 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?! Whatever. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3260
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 20:14:00 -
[875] - Quote
Funky Lazers wrote:Capqu wrote: 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?!
Optimal as a mechanic is much more powerful than falloff. I think trying to dispute that is silly.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Pinky Feldman
Gank Bangers Moar Tears
506
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 20:34:00 -
[876] - 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.
Well said. Module rebalances are an important step in doing things right and establishing balance and a framework before they go on with the continued changes to ship rebalancing. Modules effect the potential fits across all ships, so it makes sense to adjust those first before you tweak the individual ships themselves to create some uniformity moving forward.
The moar you cry the less you pee |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
29
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 21:55:00 -
[877] - Quote
Personally, I think that, compared to the mid slot occupying, cap using, scriptable TC, the current TE is overpowered, and if the TE doesn't get nerfed, then the TC needs to be buffed. |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 22:38:00 -
[878] - Quote
Hikaru Kuroda wrote: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.
They have defender missiles as counter, they are just broken. |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 22:41:00 -
[879] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote: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
Don't underestimate the freedom of using scripts, since this nerf is going to happen anyway make TE also able to use scripts. |
PsyDrakoon
Orbit Backpackers P O L A R I S
9
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 23:09:00 -
[880] - Quote
Soldarius wrote: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
ok, then make sure every ship can use Artys, because Vargur cant fit Artys. and hey, more tracking for Artys would be nice also.
Big Alpha, veeeeery Long cycle time, and the tracking sucks.... |
|
PAPULA
The Dark Tribe
25
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 08:47:00 -
[881] - Quote
Sorana Bonzari wrote: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. |
Ana Fox
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 09:11:00 -
[882] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:Sorana Bonzari wrote: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.
You see those numbers drop on test server or what ? I dint notice any drop in number of players online ,I can say there is even more than usual.
If EVE die cause of TE changes than it will only show that even EVE community is on same way ******** like in other MMOs.Your post are really same as WoW random paladin crying how his class is nerfed.
If you cant be constructive and you just rant then just stop ,quit or what ever . |
AspiB'elt
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 09:44:00 -
[883] - Quote
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. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
56
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 10:31:00 -
[884] - Quote
AspiB'elt wrote: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.
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! |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
56
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 10:32:00 -
[885] - Quote
Funky Lazers wrote:Capqu wrote: 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?! Remember that these modules are also usable on amarr ships taht have 50 km range and 2 km falloff? REally? |
Madbuster73
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
37
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 10:33:00 -
[886] - Quote
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. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
499
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 10:54:00 -
[887] - Quote
Madbuster73 wrote: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.
Oh oh oh, I know this one, mememememe!
Wait wait.. it's... YES
"EVE is dying!" |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear Limitless Inc.
100
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 10:57:00 -
[888] - Quote
ACs - 425 used as example. Lasor was Heavy Pulse Laser II.
I've been running with these numbers - on a 425 with a TE - it moves the DPS back by about 1km after 11KM which is at 62% damage due to falloff - this contines to ultimatly reduces max range of 2km. But at the final 2km you were only doing 2% and 6% respectivly. Previously at 23km you would be doing 10% - now you only do 10% at 22km - and previously at 22km you were doing 17%.
At 14km you lose 4%. At 11km it is 3%.
This affects proportionally all tracking based weapons I've looked at. Lasors suffer exactly the same in terms of proportions looking at a range/effectivness falloff. Before and after the Lasors do more percentage than the AC to 10km - at which point the AC is stronger - after the changes the AC actually gets stronger quicker.
With 1 TE the AC does percentage-wise double the Lasor at 14km.
With the old TE - this didn't happen till 15km. The differential between 14 and 15 km is still 4% - and the difference at those ranges between the old TE and the new is also 4%.
I need my excel sheet to show. But in all honesty. . .
It's a 4% hit to ACs - and also all the other systems. ACs lose 2km - lasors 1km. (but at these extreme ranges the ACs do nothing - it's like 1 to 5 % - because the range is squashed up the percentage loss to the bulk of the range is less diminished)
Also - proportinally - Lasors become less good than ACs slightly quicker by 1% per km initially with the gap then growing like it did before.
With two TEs - (with stacking penalty 0.87) - Things look a bit worse. From 19km the difference is 10% - with 25km giving 11% whereas we would have gotten 12% at 28km. This is a loss of 3km. At 24km you are doing 14% whereas you used to do 25%.
At 14km you are doing 6% less but proportionally still more than lasors used to at that range by 20% of the percentage reduction, (ACs do 52% and lasors do 37% - it used to be 58% and 49% respectivly).
With 1 TE - a 4%@14km hit and 2km reduction at extremities With 2 TE - a 6%-8%@14km hit and a 3km reduction at extremities
Once target sig, traversal and tracking are taken into consideration - And I needed to model scenarios in EFT for this - using a 'Caine against frigates cruisers and other battlecruisers. I didn't notice much indicated difference. Where I used two TEs before I may actually still do this - it still gives a 19% increase at 14KM and a 5km range increase. It used to give 25% and 7km increase (at a 14km equiv). Although 19% is less than the DPS increase of a Gyro - factoring in tracking - it still works. (I'm not good enough to model this).
In my humble opinion - and I'm doing a U-Turn from my previous bitching - I will still consider TEs to be a great module esspecially for their fitting cost.
Now I know that I'm not very good at EvE - and that people will have specialised fits to take advantage of mechanics. But in the general case - all the proportions seem to be respected by the changes - this seems to affect all the tracking weapons I've looked at equally. Minnies don't seem to suffer more. And Minnies can still perform outside Scram range - but not so good outside long point range. For mediums.
All my efforts have focused on medium wepaonry as that's what I'm personnaly interested in.
I now give Fozzie a +1 for this and conceed it was imba b |
AspiB'elt
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 11:11:00 -
[889] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:AspiB'elt wrote: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. 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!
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
|
Claire Raynor
NovaGear Limitless Inc.
100
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 11:14:00 -
[890] - Quote
AspiB'elt wrote: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? |
|
AspiB'elt
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 11:18:00 -
[891] - Quote
Claire Raynor wrote:AspiB'elt wrote: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?
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. |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
91
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 11:25:00 -
[892] - Quote
Claire Raynor wrote:
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?
Because blasters are UP and need moar dps, tracking, oh and null needs to give them more dps at long ranges, because beating 'winmatar' at that game has already happened.
Stupid OP Gallente.
TE changes are needed, there's a real problem atm of short range weapons being used at med-long ranges (blasters are really the worst offenders, auto's not so much).
With this nerf it will give back the advantage to lol medium rails (they really need a buff), arty and scorch, since that's a key advantaged to flying that fat slow slave trader race.
These changes will also help armour tanking a bit more. No one can possibly say that having a ship like the talos that can in 5s swap from a <15k 1200dps monster, to a 800ds 50km range kiter is balanced.
What they do need to do is give ships the fitting to fit their long range weapons, I'm thinking arty on a vaga, stabber, vargur, rails on thorax (though it's mainly a cap issue on those). Without the fitting changes, the vaga will be significantly nerfed, the stabber is getting the buff to counteract the TE changes (so it's just as **** as it is now) and the Vargur has always needed more grid.
Close range means 10km, not 30. Close range weapons should not hit effectively to 30km, unless it's a specialist (read t2) ship designed for that.
Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear Limitless Inc.
100
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 11:25:00 -
[893] - Quote
AspiB'elt wrote:Claire Raynor wrote:AspiB'elt wrote: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? 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.
I appologize - I was looking at the Weapon not the ships. You suggest the 425 gets 2400 Optimal - 1.2km less than the bigg medium blaster and the same falloff as the blaster. The Blaster does more DPS than the 425. That wouldn't be balanced. From an applied DPS point of veiw falloff is worth numerically half of Optimal - but raw DPS can adjust this up and down. So with 1.2 KM more optimal a blaster doing the same raw DPS as an autocannon would need to give the autocannon 2.4 km more falloff so - 7.4km - and then you factor in the increased DPS and the two get closer - and then reload speed. . .. And finally you are left with the tactics - but the weapons themselves are balanced at the moment. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
706
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 12:22:00 -
[894] - Quote
I've got a trouble with this specific module since the beginning because of "generalities" in those bonuses.
One option would be to completely get rid of this module and add different variants of dmg mods with different optimal or fall off bonus:
Minmatar does not need optimal bonus, change from 3km to 3,15km is kinda pathetic change, however 30% bonus on fall off is too much considering this on some already fall off bonused hulls. This means the problem is not being solved at the source (hulls bonus) but somewhat tweak which leads me to the following point.
Optimal bonus on TEs has very little influence on Rails and Beams, small on Arty. Again, specific dmg modules could use of different "logical" variants instead of some sort of generic module being a strong plus in some circumstances (projectiles/hybrids) but little and still mandatory for lasers (tracking issues).
Making these bonus as options in specific dmg mods either by scripting them either by making different ones would force players to make rational choices instead of as per usual stack of TE's. This would also open new options since having more room for tanking mods or just add drone upgrades.
Probably a terrible idea but I think this wouldn't hurt.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Major Killz
163
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 12:59:00 -
[895] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:Sorana Bonzari wrote: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.
The reason you have not noticed a drop in our player base is simple. Alternative characters and now DUST514. As far as to why those players are leaving. Well. The core player base are old and have been ingame for awhile now.
The older players tend to be the largest content providers ingame. That is. Leadership in large scale engagements (commanders) and organization (corporation, alliance). From what I know. Most of them are done with hearding sheep and this game.
As far as myself. Killmails become repetitive and that's someting I tried to avoid as long as possible in the past by focusing on things like setups and innovation. Once I exhasted those intrest all I had left was receiving repetitive killmails.
What I enjoy now are the simple things (frigates,cruisers, people). The complexities become worthless and boring.
CCP has a systemic problem that can only be solved by attracting and keeping new players.
These changes mean nothing and will not stop core players from leaving because this is the same game it was in 2007. All we have had is iterations. Playing the same game gets boring after awhile v0v
- killz |
Athena Maldoran
Special Nymphs On A Mission
1447
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 13:21:00 -
[896] - Quote
I like my falloff, and I hate that I can't switch projectile guns without having to change the !!WHOLE layout for the ship. Granted some modules would have to be changed, but the pg/cpu requirements of arties... |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
56
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 13:44:00 -
[897] - Quote
AspiB'elt wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:AspiB'elt wrote: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. 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! 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
I will not even loose time discussing with someoen that was not at the thread were the commuunity and developers calculated what was to be the range of falloff of each autocannon size. This were not thrown from the magical bag nubmers. All were calculated and were agreed upon.
The only thing back then that everyoen got surprised was when CCP decided to give such HUGE bonus to TE. Notice that CCp simply realized that the community was right back then. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4504
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 01:24:00 -
[898] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Its is so clearly the TE problem that you see amarr ships shield tankign so they can use TE! Except they don't. Malcanis for CSM 8 Module activation timers are buggy - CCP please fix |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 10:57:00 -
[899] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Madbuster73 wrote: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. Oh oh oh, I know this one, mememememe! Wait wait.. it's... YES "EVE is dying!" Atleast my interest to eve has been rapidly declining this past half year with these "balancings" I'm giving them last chance to prove themselfs with the BS rebalance. I'm especially interested in planned caldari and minnie BS changes. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Tormented of Destiny Cha Ching PLC
115
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 11:18:00 -
[900] - Quote
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.
|
|
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
163
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 11:28:00 -
[901] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:
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.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
57
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 11:31:00 -
[902] - Quote
For god's sake stop with this childish whining!
Several years ago NO ONE used tracking enhancers. All range ships used mostly Tracking computers and that was on the age were REAL range was necessary and you were useless if you could not reach 150 km.
So stop with this doomsday talk! NO. Weapons are not #!#!@#1, no they did NOT hit massively any reasonable setup. No they did not made kiting impossible.
ANYONE that really believe that this changes are OMG SO DEVASTATIGN is simply DUMB, or is trolling! They affect ALL ships almost since almost all ships used those modules! The balance has not been massively shaked, just slightly adjusted. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
57
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 11:33:00 -
[903] - Quote
Dez Affinity wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:
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.
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. |
Luscius Uta
Unleashed' Fury Forsaken Federation
39
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 12:36:00 -
[904] - Quote
I don't mind faloff bonus for TE's being reduced slightly (and 20% instead of 30% isn't such a big difference). The rest of changes I don't like - 15% increase in optimal range wasn't that great to begin with, and people should be encouraged to use remote sebos instead of local ones. |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
34
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 13:17:00 -
[905] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote: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 |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
57
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 13:25:00 -
[906] - Quote
seth Hendar wrote:Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote: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
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. IT would be stupid for all races be the same, but in different colors.
Also peopel are really failing hard at this thread on not understandign how falloff is nto nearly same as range.
At range+ faloff you are doing LESS than 50% of your damage. Effectively ANYTHING beyond range + HALF falloff is outside effective range! Unless you are fighting something completely paper made. |
Callic Veratar
Power of the Phoenix
343
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 16:43:00 -
[907] - Quote
In general, low slot mods provide lots of smaller bonuses for less fitting and no cap. For the TE this balancing makes a lot of sense, at it was purely better than the TC. There is a third vector to affect these stats, though Locus Coordinators (+15% optimal) and Ambit Extensions (+15% falloff).
Currently, the Locus Coordinators give +15% to optimal compared to the TE's 10%, that's an interesting choice. However, the Ambit Extensions only give +15% to falloff relative the TE's 20%. I'd like to propose that along with the nerf to the TEs, all Ambit Extension rigs gain 10% or 15% to their falloff bonus to 25% or 30%. This way, it's still not as good as a TC as it only affects falloff, better than a TE, and locks the fitting of the ship even more.
Having the T1 Ambit Extensions at 30% might not be balanced, though, as the T2s would be at 35%. However, for PVP consideration, T2 rigs is asking for trouble.
I'd like a situation (for PVE at least) where the best option isn't almost always 3xCCC.
DirectX 11, it's not rocket appliance! |
Snape Dieboldmotor
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
10
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 17:44:00 -
[908] - Quote
When Tracking Enhancers were originally created there was some though put into overall module balance. As a result, if you are going to reduce range then there should be some change in another area to keep the module in balance. Some options I can think of are increasing tracking bonus or reducing CPU requirements...
Seems only fair... |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
715
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 18:41:00 -
[909] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote: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.
The reason why changing TEs, read get rid of them, and replace them with scripts on racial DMG mods would be the best option. Also, change drone dmg mods from lows to mids would simply annihilate shield based drone ships unless these modules get an exceptional ability to be fitted either in lows or mids but not both. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Tormented of Destiny Cha Ching PLC
115
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 21:53:00 -
[910] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:seth Hendar wrote:Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote: (...)
(...) 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.
|
|
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
192
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 14:17:00 -
[911] - Quote
As Fozzie said he will nerf everything, because he can, no reason given.
you can listen to it here: http://www.netsky.org/nerfozzie.mp3
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
59
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 16:01:00 -
[912] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:seth Hendar wrote:Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote: (...)
(...) 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.
Will not change much. But that is the beauty.. the most impact will coem trough psicological effect. People Stop flying ships that are MIDLY nerfed just because for most, overreaction is the way to go. I know a LOT of people that are statign they will have no use for talos anymore? its mathematically reasonable? NO. but will have a large psicological effect and the ammount of talos , tornados and etc will diminish a bit.
If you look at numbers only, amarr laser boats never stoped being good when minmatar got boosted. But people overreact by all jumping into minmatar ships and forgetting minmatar ones. An Apoc with megaPulse are still monstruously powerful against battlecruiser traying to kite!!! |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
263
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 16:20:00 -
[913] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote: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
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.
Quote: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.
This is true of all short-ranged turrets. Your pulse boat isn't running around with 8 sets of laser crystals. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
59
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 17:12:00 -
[914] - Quote
Milton Middleson wrote:Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote: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
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. Quote: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. This is true of all short-ranged turrets. Your pulse boat isn't running around with 8 sets of laser crystals.
hey hey.. I did that with my apoc just to be able to make the Rainbow attack with all colors at same time!
but seriously, that is right. AC are overrrated. People are just plain ignorant or overreactive on how effective a system is. They tend to look only the advantages and ignore the rest.
Check how amazingly HUGE your damage projection is with EMP when you are not using TE (tat are being nerfed ). Only the bonused ships have some sort of noticeable projection, and even those are not incredble. A stabber with EMP and no TE has pitiful damage projection and can barely hurt a drunken butterfly outside web range. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Tormented of Destiny Cha Ching PLC
115
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 20:44:00 -
[915] - Quote
[quote=Milton Middleson]
I came here to say that the word you are looking for is penalty. [\quote]
thank you :)
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.
|
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
267
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 20:52:00 -
[916] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote: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. It depend on the fit, but with LR weapons, they are somewhat useful, giving you a good scale of range, but the longest range ammo are indeed useless compared to T2 LR ammo. |
Sigras
Conglomo
398
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 08:24:00 -
[917] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Quote: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. This is true of all short-ranged turrets. Your pulse boat isn't running around with 8 sets of laser crystals. hey hey.. I did that with my apoc just to be able to make the Rainbow attack with all colors at same time!
but seriously, that is right. AC are overrrated. People are just plain ignorant or overreactive on how effective a system is. They tend to look only the advantages and ignore the rest.
Check how amazingly HUGE your damage projection is with EMP when you are not using TE (tat are being nerfed ). Only the bonused ships have some sort of noticeable projection, and even those are not incredble. A stabber with EMP and no TE has pitiful damage projection and can barely hurt a drunken butterfly outside web range.[/quote] Looking at things in a vacuum is not helpful.
The problem is more that, as shield tankers, the minmatar already have the fastest ships, and usually have enough low slots for 2x gyrostabs, 2x TEs and a damage control in addition to their tank slots.
An armor tanking ship is going to be slower by nature, and would have to have 7-8 low slots just to stay on par with the amount of damage output and projection a shield tanker can produce.
This change somewhat mitigates the disadvantage the armor tankers find themselves having |
Davion Falcon
Those Once Loyal
46
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 19:38:00 -
[918] - Quote
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. Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise. Never forgotten, never forgiven. |
Alexander the Great
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 20:04:00 -
[919] - Quote
Remote assistance modules usually give better bonuses than local ones with the same effect (such as sensor boosters, ECCM).
This thread reminded me that it's not the case with Tracking Link vs Tracking Computer. Their bonuses are absolutely the same. I'm sure that Tracking Link needs a buff, especially if you're nerfing Tracking Enhancer. |
Sigras
Conglomo
398
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 22:52:00 -
[920] - Quote
Davion Falcon wrote: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 |
|
SilentStryder
Aliastra Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 00:18:00 -
[921] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Davion Falcon wrote: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
There should be a damage mid slot module that activates and uses cap and can be run with scripts. |
Lloyd Roses
Risk-Averse PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
49
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 05:05:00 -
[922] - Quote
notify: your effective combat range has been cut down by 5%.
conclusion: SOLO PVP AND SMALL SCALE IS DEAD WTFOMG CCP SUCKS EVE IS DYING!!!1!!
I also believe that kiting cruisers won't notice a singnificant drop in dps at 22km... |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5138
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 13:28:00 -
[923] - Quote
Hey everyone, sorry for the delay, been a bit of a hectic week. I've got some time now so I'm going to write up responses to some of the questions and comments that have come up a lot in the thread so far. Thanks to everyone providing their feedback, every bit helps.
Why nerf things when you could buff things instead?This is a question that comes up often in any thread where we are discussing decreasing the power of an item or ship. I can completely understand where it's coming from. Buffing things makes people happy in much larger numbers, it simply feels good to see the effectiveness of your equipment increase. Many other games rely on constantly improving gear to drive engagement in their content and that method of development can work very well for those games.
I'm going to start by quoting my answer to this question from the Heavy Missile thread before Retribution, because what I said there still applies.
CCP Fozzie wrote: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. I would be lying if I said that we never allow power creep in EVE. It's quite simply much much easier to balance upwards and considering how powerful of a tool it is for creating short term customer satisfaction, some power creep is very hard to avoid. However we do need to be very mindful of how much we let ourselves indulge. There are cases where for the long term health of the game ecosystem we simply have to reduce the power of certain items and ships. We believe this is one of those times. I can promise you that we're committed to eating our vegetables and making adjustments either up or down based on our best estimation of what the game needs. We won't decrease the power of items and ships unless we deem it necessary but we also won't forget that our job is to manage the health of the game over the long term. This will not be the last set of "nerfs" you see us make for Odyssey.
No real life company or military would ever limit themselves for balance, so why does it make sense here?This is one of those areas where a game simply cannot follow real life examples. Whenever possible we try to ease the suspension of disbelief by bending game systems into metaphors that have some parallel with the real world, but when it comes down to it the demands of a game mean that balance is more important than realism. 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.
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.
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.
Is it intentional that this change hurts the Cynabal and Machariel?Many people are expressing surprise that we are making this change without somehow compensating the larger Angel ships. I can tell you that the effect this change has on the Cynabal and especially the Mach is intended. The Machariel has absolutely exceptional projection using high tracking autocannons and after this change it will still be very powerful and viable. The slight decrease in its ability to project using short range weapons is both intended and necessary to keep it in balance.
A 33% decrease in range seems like a lot. Isn't that too drastic?This has been pointed out by several people in the thread already but I want to quickly touch on it again. It is important to note that a 33% decrease in the bonus provided by one module is very different than a 33% decrease in the overall range of the ships that fit that module. In most cases the actual range difference is very small. For example a dual TE Talos with Null would go from 16.4+28.7 before the change to 15.1+24.7. Significant to be sure, but not the catastrophe that losing 1/3 of its optimal and falloff would be. You can easily test the affect of this change on your favorite setups right now in EFT or PYFA, by swapping T2 TEs to T1. Give it a try!
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 change makes Tracking Disruptors even more powerful!In practice the difference between the old and new TEs when under the influence of multiple range scripted TDs will be insignificant. TDs are a very powerful weapon system, but can ... Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
535
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 13:59:00 -
[924] - Quote
"CCP Fozzie wrote: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.
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. |
Nicen Jehr
Swarm Federation
176
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 14:04:00 -
[925] - Quote
Thanks for explaining your reasoning behind the balance Fozzie, I agree that these are good changes Little Things to improve GëíGïüGëí-á| My Little Things posts |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
535
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 14:05:00 -
[926] - Quote
SilentStryder wrote:Sigras wrote:Davion Falcon wrote: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 There should be a damage mid slot module that activates and uses cap and can be run with scripts. So that we can script them for alpha and get Machs and Tornadoes with even more instakill power! |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
536
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 14:07:00 -
[927] - Quote
Nicen Jehr wrote:Thanks for explaining your reasoning behind the balance Fozzie, I agree that these are good changes I can't believe the people complaining that they can "no longer" kite with short range guns loaded with short range ammo. Typically these people fly Cynabals. 425mm guns with RF Emp.
No, you should not be doing great damage with these guns outside disruptor range. Load Barrage! |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
153
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 14:11:00 -
[928] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5143
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 14:13:00 -
[929] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
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.
If we need to go farther, we can very easily do so in later iterations. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Kenpachi Viktor
Gradient Electus Matari
251
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 14:23:00 -
[930] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:"CCP Fozzie wrote: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. 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.
I always used the theory of the inbuilt inertia dampeners being always on, look at the agility modifiers on the battleships compared to the frigates, the higher the mass, the greater the agility modifier. Inertia being what keeps you going in a straight line unless acted on by an outside force A war that wouldGÇÖve involved 20,000 players, 75% of nullsec space, and hundreds of supercapitals was halted not by diplomacy, but by a game mechanic so dreadful that those who have experienced it previously have no desire to do so again. - Fix POS & SOV |
|
Zevv Kal'Jael
Risei e no shinrai
1
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 16:24:00 -
[931] - Quote
well.. sensor booster nerf is.. ok.
TE nerf is much to big... 5% would be a good thing to start with and look at it.. nearly 20% is bullshit ( looking into it with stacking penalty its more then 20% )
ffffff.... lol |
Major Killz
168
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 16:44:00 -
[932] - Quote
The minute tracking disrupts were brought up I suggested a nerf and to damps. The opi was done and it was a VERY BAD IDEA. This is all im going to say about. I delt with but those modules are redick and is just a FACT.
- killz |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
546
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 17:14:00 -
[933] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
This change makes Tracking Disruptors even more powerful!In practice the difference between the old and new TEs when under the influence of multiple range scripted TDs will be insignificant. TDs are a very powerful weapon system, but can be countered. We're continuing to watch ewar balance closely and we will make adjustments as necessary.
Could you share this counter to TDs (apart from "use missiles")?
Also, speaking of power creep, i think the AT frigs need some love after the t1/af buffs. (CLEARLY THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR MANY PEOPLE).
Also, have you considered just increasing the fitting cost of TEs to match the damage modules? |
Alexander the Great
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 17:57:00 -
[934] - Quote
So what about Tracking Links? Will you look at them as well and make them better than Tracking Computers as it should be? |
Davion Falcon
Those Once Loyal
47
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 21:14:00 -
[935] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Davion Falcon wrote: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
Pvp Shield tankers have midslots at a premium wrt tackle requirements and usually have less overall EHP than armor. With the changes to the active tank rigs the speed difference isn't as great (plus those extra mids for tackle/EWAR/TC). Of course one is always free to plate+trimark the **** out of a ship and turn it into a brick as before.
Perhaps 30/10+20/15 bonus spread would be more equitable? Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise. Never forgotten, never forgiven. |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 23:29:00 -
[936] - Quote
So are the TC's being nerfed then too because you can have the same range with them as current TE's by switching to armor tank? I don't see how they are balanced after this since i would choose TC over TE. Slightly higher fitting and cap needs are non issue.
I understand that you and other dev's are likely trying your best to make the game balanced from you point of view but honestly i would be fine with 1 or 2 nerfs where it is absolutely needed but this constant swinging of the nerf hammer is getting ridiculous.
Each of the nerfs feels like a bad news with the negative feeling and with how the battleship balancing is turning out too i'm dreading what will happen to the faction bs's that i love... I have been playing and supporting you for 7 years and been fine with the changes but now... seems like i will need to take a break and then see what is left after this nerf war.
Where are all the things that made me say "cool" aloud? |
David Zahavi
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
45
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 01:33:00 -
[937] - Quote
This is a tremendous nerf for various types of group PVE gameplay, and most obviously incursion runners.
Most obviously how this hits newer players... Many "newbie friendly" fleets will lose their ability to run the NMCs since many ships won't be able to shoot out far enough to hit the mara spawn in the first wave.
These fleets will face even less isk efficiency as they try and engineer some not terrible way to get it dead, and even more likely, they will ban what few battlecruisers they do allow, often the only way for newer, lower sp characters to even try incursions.
Quoting some numbers I saw somewhere else:
Quote:Vindicators with three TEs and Null ammo will go from 18km + 34km to 16km + 27km effectively killing their ability to hit the Mara at range. Machariels with three TEs will go from 4,2km + 69km to 3,8km + 57km reducing their ability to project damage. Legions will drop from 17km + 9,6km short range to 16km + 7,8km and for long range their 52km + 9,6km will turn into 48km + 7,8km effectively killing their ability to hit the Mara as well.
Normal vanguard Rokhs and Maelstroms won't suffer too badly from this, but they will take a noticable hit in dps due to reduced falloff. Also several sniper fits will find themselves lacking in both range and dps with this change.
Our poor medium weapon battlecruisers suffer even more though, due to having ****-poor range to begin with. This is like a nail in the coffin for anything but medium railguns.
This may not seem like much, but we constantly operate within the fringes of 20km and 60km and these changes pull a lot of ships from the > 20km region into < 20km and > 60km to < 60km which will have far larger consequences for incursion fleets than the mere reduction of 33% would imply. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
123
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 05:30:00 -
[938] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:If we need to go farther, we can very easily do so in later iterations. That is a nice and reasonable approach. Now would you please go and slap Kil2 as he just wrecked havoc instead of battleships rebalance. |
Funky Lazers
shin-ra ltd
236
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 08:06:00 -
[939] - Quote
@CCP Fozzie Are we going to see TCs/TEs affecting missiles this patch? Whatever. |
Arteriamus
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 09:06:00 -
[940] - Quote
To avoid hurting minnies too much, why not add scripts for the TEs? thereby allowing minnie to keep their falloff bonus, by forefeiting the tracking bonus? this would also put TEs in line with TCs |
|
Funky Lazers
shin-ra ltd
236
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 10:00:00 -
[941] - Quote
Arteriamus wrote:thereby allowing minnie to keep their falloff bonus
Lol, this is exactly why they nerf TEs - so minnies can't have their falloff. Whatever. |
Akonnen
Birds of Prey Inc.
4
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 14:24:00 -
[942] - Quote
As a Vargur pilot using 2 TE to be effective without having to fly all over the ******* space i call BS on this. If you want to nerf a Ship, the machariel in particular, then nerf it. not the modules everyone else uses to be effective. The range on projectiles are already a problem because of falloff, not to mention you have to switch ammo all the times. there's no reason to nerf it even lower if you won't increase the speed to get in range faster or add something else to compensate. |
Sigras
Conglomo
398
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 06:16:00 -
[943] - Quote
Seriously as a PvE vargur pilot i have to say if you find yourself having to switch ammo all the time then you're doing it wrong.
Also, if youre using a vargur in PvP . . . youre still doing it wrong . . . |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Tormented of Destiny Cha Ching PLC
115
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 13:36:00 -
[944] - Quote
Akonnen wrote:As a Vargur pilot using 2 TE to be effective without having to fly all over the ******* space i call BS on this. If you want to nerf a Ship, the machariel in particular, then nerf it. not the modules everyone else uses to be effective. The range on projectiles are already a problem because of falloff, not to mention you have to switch ammo all the times. there's no reason to nerf it even lower if you won't increase the speed to get in range faster or add something else to compensate.
if your doing L4s, fit an Afterburner. You'll be ridiculously overtanked anyway. Afterburner even adds to that too. when you are doing sites in 0.0 you should not have to switch ammo and certainly enough range with two TEs. even after patch. choosing ammo for autocannons is a non-issue. load fusion, emp or phased. when doing angels use hail. just considering that you still have 44km falloff with hail (falloff penalty n'stuff) and 2 TEs. How can you possibly be lacking range?
|
amurder Hakomairos
Fellowship Of Lost Souls Rebel Alliance of New Eden
45
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 15:48:00 -
[945] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Is it intentional that this change hurts the Cynabal and Machariel?Many people are expressing surprise that we are making this change without somehow compensating the larger Angel ships. I can tell you that the effect this change has on the Cynabal and especially the Mach is intended. The Machariel has absolutely exceptional projection using high tracking autocannons and after this change it will still be very powerful and viable. The slight decrease in its ability to project using short range weapons is both intended and necessary to keep it in balance.
So is a Cynabal/Mach hull nerf at least off the table now that you are crushing tracking enhancers? |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4546
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 10:10:00 -
[946] - Quote
*Give Machariel and Cynabal a 10% bonus to falloff per level* OMFG MACHARIEL AND CYNABAL DAMAGE PROJECTION TOO HIGH WAT DO *Nerf TE O/F by 33%* Malcanis for CSM 8 Module activation timers are buggy - CCP please fix |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4546
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 10:21:00 -
[947] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:notify: your effective combat range has been cut down by 5%.
conclusion: SOLO PVP AND SMALL SCALE IS DEAD WTFOMG CCP SUCKS EVE IS DYING!!!1!!
I also believe that kiting cruisers won't notice a singnificant drop in dps at 22km... The kiting SFI fit I have here loses 30 DPS at 22 km with barrage (from 230 down to 198) according to EFT's DPS graph. That's almost 10% of your DPS. An Omen with no range mods and one less damage mod by comparison gets about 370 DPS here.
Your standard Stabber which has a 7.5% falloff bonus will also lose about 10-15% of its DPS in this range compared to the Stabber with the pre-nerf tracking enhancers. 10-15% from a ship in an operating regime where there isn't that much DPS to begin with. Malcanis for CSM 8 Module activation timers are buggy - CCP please fix |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4546
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 10:41:00 -
[948] - Quote
Of course other ships get hit a lot harder. The Talos comes to mind. At 30 KM which is a typical engagement range with Null ammo, the Talos loses about 80 DPS, from 640 to 560, with two tracking enhancers.
The Talos is a Gallente ship, mind you. CCP might be scratching their heads at this point and say "well if we nerf the TE, why won't people just use tracking comps?"
Here's the thing, people don't use TEs over TCs because the TE is that much better. The TC can get the exact same range and falloff bonus with a script, and generally when it does the tracking bonus doesn't matter. CPU is only really the issue in a few cases and isn't a deciding factor either. Cap use is pretty much a non-issue as well, since the TC uses 7 cap every 10 seconds.
The issue here is slots. Ships don't shield tank because they use TEs. They use TEs because they shield tank. Because the ship's role, slot configuration, or bonuses and attributes lends it to being better off shield tanked. And people don't armor tank to use TCs, they use TCs because they're armor tanked.
Nerfing TEs is not going to make more people use TCs. Ever. Malcanis for CSM 8 Module activation timers are buggy - CCP please fix |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 12:41:00 -
[949] - Quote
Let's look at this from PVE standpoint, not every minmatar player have the skills or the isk to fly Vargur or Machariel and end up getting Maelstrom. For other races we have Apocalypse, Dominix and Raven as good entry pve battleships.
In many missions there will be many rats orbiting at 50km, let's see how they compare at damage projection.
Apocalypse: 593dps with 3xHSII
Raven: 598dps with 3xBCUII
Dominix: 795dps with 3xDDAII and and 2x OTLII
Maelstrom: 348dps with 3xGyros AND 2x TEII after changes.
Where is this huge damage projection of the autocannons? When you consider that not everyone have all the skills at L5 and aren't using full T2 fit it gets even worse... If you are suggesting arties have you ever actually tried to use them for something else than alpha? they suck. With AB you can move 311m/s but even then you will be dealing subpar dps at the end of your falloff most of the time. |
Gaetring Xana
Unstable Reaction Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 19:03:00 -
[950] - Quote
How about fighting at optimal instead of falloff? You're always going to lose damage in falloff anyway.
If we're talking PVE battleships then you need to be using the long range guns instead as well. (or missiles as the case may be..)
I don't like the range nerf either but at least there are options. |
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
235
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 19:11:00 -
[951] - Quote
Gaetring Xana wrote:How about fighting at optimal instead of falloff? You're always going to lose damage in falloff anyway.
If we're talking PVE battleships then you need to be using the long range guns instead as well. (or missiles as the case may be..)
I don't like the range nerf either but at least there are options.
Long range guns often take a massive damage dump for middle ground you often get much better dps with short range guns and some TE/TCs even when shooting in falloff not to mention the tracking differences.
Its still a complete mystery to me why this change is needed in this way I've not seen any good arguement so far other than "because". It is a little odd they don't have a penalty as other low slot mods of this nature have, tho there are other exceptions to, and TCs probably need some minor tweaking to balance them with the TE tho I've not seen anyone complaining about TCs much. |
Akonnen
Birds of Prey Inc.
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 11:01:00 -
[952] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Seriously as a PvE vargur pilot i have to say if you find yourself having to switch ammo all the time then you're doing it wrong.
Also, if youre using a vargur in PvP . . . youre still doing it wrong . . .
Lot's of valid point you brought there. You're a ******* genius. |
Akonnen
Birds of Prey Inc.
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 11:15:00 -
[953] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:Akonnen wrote:As a Vargur pilot using 2 TE to be effective without having to fly all over the ******* space i call BS on this. If you want to nerf a Ship, the machariel in particular, then nerf it. not the modules everyone else uses to be effective. The range on projectiles are already a problem because of falloff, not to mention you have to switch ammo all the times. there's no reason to nerf it even lower if you won't increase the speed to get in range faster or add something else to compensate. if your doing L4s, fit an Afterburner. You'll be ridiculously overtanked anyway. Afterburner even adds to that too. when you are doing sites in 0.0 you should not have to switch ammo and certainly enough range with two TEs. even after patch. choosing ammo for autocannons is a non-issue. load fusion, emp or phased. when doing angels use hail. just considering that you still have 44km falloff with hail (falloff penalty n'stuff) and 2 TEs. How can you possibly be lacking range?
I actually have about 75km range with AC's and normal ammo but with falloff i start shooting at about 40-50km anything higher is a waste of ammo, max range for frigates. Vargur can't use Arty. Who doesn't fit an afterburner on a Vargur anyway? It's still slow boating. Some ship don't even need to move to clear the entire area at much higher range. Why not nerf the Arty or ships themself instead of TE? |
TheFace Asano
Deadly Execution
3
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 13:15:00 -
[954] - Quote
I don't think the effects of the TE nerfs are a bad thing. What I do feel needs to happen is that AC's could use a buff to optimal range to compensate in a more appropriate way. At this point when are you ever at optimal even on large AC's? Never |
DeLindsay
Galaxies Fall
23
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 17:02:00 -
[955] - Quote
So if this isn't a Galente nerf then who has thought about Incursion fits? By further reducing the range of Blasters (which could BARELY reach the ~30km orbit for Vanguards even WITH Falloff unless using the horribly inferior Null) what Gallente BS's (Including the Vindi which is is really just a super Mega) will even be allowed into Incursion fleets? Hell you rarely find them being allowed in now. This will effect the Rokh as well, since missile boats are discouraged due to Incursion mechanics only paying out to the fleet that kills it first.
By reducing the TE range bonus, CCP is saying that if you want to really run Incursions your choices are Nightmare, Mach, and maybe Maelstrom, as even after the nerf the Falloff of Large ACs will still be rediculous. That's pretty crappy that in order to participate in an added part of the game that CCP will further be reducing the ship types allowed in such activities to so few choices.
In order to keep this nerf and still allow blaster boats some ability to get into non-friend Incursion fleets how about you just reduce the orbit range to say 22-25km. This would allow you to screw Minmatar while not removing ANY chance that players still had to run Incursions in a Gallente BS.
Check out my post about some Drone lovin: Proposed Drone Improvement |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
92
|
Posted - 2013.04.17 13:09:00 -
[956] - Quote
CCP Fozzie perhaps whilst you're you could fix T2 mods that are worse than the meta 4 versions - TD's -RSD -Neuts -Ecm
Theres plenty to fix 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place..... where is the TD missile change?-á ,...projectiles should use capacitor. |
Galmas
United System's Commonwealth R.E.P.O.
91
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 13:24:00 -
[957] - Quote
DeLindsay wrote:...tired of hearing whiny ass pansies crying...
You hit the nail right on the head there mate.
If you feel like beeing pushed around while trying to creep up the backside of some PVE FC then maybe try to start your own thing. And maybe think about how bad 5% less isk/hour really is.
BTW have you ever thought about what happens to your ISK/hour rate when suddenly everyone stops doing PVP in eve?
Ah nvm, just keep doing what the quote says, that requires way less drive anyway... |
DeLindsay
Galaxies Fall
24
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 14:21:00 -
[958] - Quote
Galmas wrote:DeLindsay wrote:...tired of hearing whiny ass pansies crying... You hit the nail right on the head there mate. If you feel like beeing pushed around while trying to creep up the backside of some PVE FC then maybe try to start your own thing. And maybe think about how bad 5% less isk/hour really is. BTW have you ever thought about what happens to your ISK/hour rate when suddenly everyone stops doing PVP in eve? Ah nvm, just keep doing what the quote says, that requires way less drive anyway...
I'm sorry, you must have misunderstood my post. I could care less if CCP nerfs TE's. I was making a valid point about how the 'balance' to PvP (a direct result of player base complaints) would effect PvE, which most players don't see and some Devs wouldn't catch, at first. I have played 4 diff MMO's and it's always the same. PvP balancing always effects PvE negatively, then they have to fix that side which messes up the original balancing act, then they have to fix it again, etc. In the end everyone loses. What Trion Worlds did better than most (Rift) was figure out how to code abilities to act differently against players than it did against NPCs, which other game devs should jump on. Check out my post about some Drone lovin: Proposed Drone Improvement |
CinaneK
ZOMBIEBEACHPARTYPATROL Circle-Of-Two
2
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 06:14:00 -
[959] - Quote
Well, when you finally decide to buff gallente class ships to make them worth to fly u nerf TEs to get them back where they were before. Another excellent example how u CCPs dont unerstand this game. Instead of nerfing specific ammo type - to get an optimal balance between ships / races, is way better to nerf tracking enhancers that affects all ships and races.
Again "Good Job" CCPs |
Anya Klibor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
295
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 06:44:00 -
[960] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:*Give Machariel and Cynabal a 10% bonus to falloff per level* OMFG MACHARIEL AND CYNABAL DAMAGE PROJECTION TOO HIGH WAT DO *Nerf TE O/F by 33%*
I think we'll still see the nerfs to the hulls in the near future, anyways.
As a player with three characters who can fly Minmatar (two can fly up to the Vargur, and one can fly all sub-BC hulls for all races), I am not too upset with this. I will admit, however, that you have designed hulls specifically to kite, and I hope you keep that in mind when you look at the Cynabal, Vagabond, and many other ships. The falloff is needed to make them viable. Otherwise, those ships sit in station, replaced by other ships. |
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
548
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 07:15:00 -
[961] - Quote
Anya Klibor wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:*Give Machariel and Cynabal a 10% bonus to falloff per level* OMFG MACHARIEL AND CYNABAL DAMAGE PROJECTION TOO HIGH WAT DO *Nerf TE O/F by 33%* I think we'll still see the nerfs to the hulls in the near future, anyways. As a player with three characters who can fly Minmatar (two can fly up to the Vargur, and one can fly all sub-BC hulls for all races), I am not too upset with this. I will admit, however, that you have designed hulls specifically to kite, and I hope you keep that in mind when you look at the Cynabal, Vagabond, and many other ships. The falloff is needed to make them viable. Otherwise, those ships sit in station, replaced by other ships. And when you think about it. Those ships are made for kiting, but the short range runs using short range ammo, are not made for kiting. I can't believe my eyes when I se forumwarriors cry about this nerf. The self entitlement is too damn high. Want to kite? Fit long range guns or use long range ammo like every other damn race in the game.
Tracking is bad with artillery or Barrage? Well ****, I guess that's the tradeoff you have to deal with when fighting in perfectly safe, untouchable distance. |
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
139
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 08:04:00 -
[962] - Quote
As I recall, the pre-buff TEs were all but identical to the current ones with the exception of the falloff bonus (which is what was added). It is the falloff bonus which effects ships like the Macherial, and is also one of the primary drivers on the increased value of lowslots leading to shield gank Brutix and so forth.
I would have thought it better for the changes to be more along the lines of 15%Opt (unchanged)/15%Fall (-15%). This would reduce the value in short ranged fits (including the Mach, Vargur...etc.) but not reduce them to below their pre-buff state. It would also maintain the tension between sensor boosters for lock-range and tracking computers/enhancers in long ranged fits. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4610
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 08:21:00 -
[963] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Anya Klibor wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:*Give Machariel and Cynabal a 10% bonus to falloff per level* OMFG MACHARIEL AND CYNABAL DAMAGE PROJECTION TOO HIGH WAT DO *Nerf TE O/F by 33%* I think we'll still see the nerfs to the hulls in the near future, anyways. As a player with three characters who can fly Minmatar (two can fly up to the Vargur, and one can fly all sub-BC hulls for all races), I am not too upset with this. I will admit, however, that you have designed hulls specifically to kite, and I hope you keep that in mind when you look at the Cynabal, Vagabond, and many other ships. The falloff is needed to make them viable. Otherwise, those ships sit in station, replaced by other ships. And when you think about it. Those ships are made for kiting, but the short range runs using short range ammo, are not made for kiting. I can't believe my eyes when I se forumwarriors cry about this nerf. The self entitlement is too damn high. Want to kite? Fit long range guns or use long range ammo like every other damn race in the game. Tracking is bad with artillery or Barrage? Well ****, I guess that's the tradeoff you have to deal with when fighting in perfectly safe, untouchable distance. Except the hilarious thing is you're not even talking about the best guns for kiting, which are usually used with tracking computers. Malcanis for CSM 8 Module activation timers are buggy - CCP please fix |
OldWolf69
IR0N. SpaceMonkey's Alliance
24
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 09:01:00 -
[964] - Quote
How about letting things how they are for a year and see what happens? People starting to train other things, improve their skills, and all the sh*t that should usually happen. I really have enuf of the stupid "if i can't use it, it's OP" thing. Hit the TE's, and hybrid buff gets anulated at same time. Then we will see a nerf hitting all the rest of the ships because "baaad bad customers won't fly useless gallente ships"? The "it could be worser" example is for the poor minded and non-pro's to give. *** I want my EvE back. You know, the one wich used to be awesome, and really nice to play. And in wich you needed to TRAIN to use things, or win, and noone was complaining about lacking free cookies. |
DeLindsay
Galaxies Fall
24
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 15:34:00 -
[965] - Quote
OldWolf69 wrote: How about letting things how they are for a year and see what happens? People starting to train other things, improve their skills, and all the sh*t that should usually happen. I really have enuf of the stupid "if i can't use it, it's OP" thing. Hit the TE's, and hybrid buff gets anulated at same time. Then we will see a nerf hitting all the rest of the ships because "baaad bad customers won't fly useless gallente ships"? The "it could be worser" example is for the poor minded and non-pro's to give. *** I want my EvE back. You know, the one wich used to be awesome, and really nice to play. And in wich you needed to TRAIN to use things, or win, and noone was complaining about lacking free cookies.
As much as I agree with the "leave it alone, it's fine now" type of statement, one part of your comment is understated. The incoming TE nerf is not from recent PvP complaints about kiting, people have been yelling at CCP to fix that since shortly after Eve started, almost a decade ago. Giving it a year more won't change anything as the same idiots will complain that they can't figure out how to counter kiters so CCP has to do something or potentially lose subs. And after all, money is the ONLY reason we are still playing this game. If it weren't for the subs, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I don't at all agree with the way most game developers "fix" the game (which ever MMO it is) as most times it skews another part of the game just to keep a few people happy. ALL of them need to start acting like Trion Worlds (Rift) and learn how to code abilities/skills/weapons/etc to act differently in PvP from PvE. Although it's likely a difficult task, that one concept would help tremendously to balance the game without a perceived nerf to it.
I also agree with one of the above poster, if CCP removed 15% of the Falloff bonus to TE's that'd be a reasonable change. Conversely, they should ACTUALLY look at the very few ships that are the issue and maybe try and balance those few ships instead of an across the board change, since we're only talking 3-5 ships in Eve that people **** and moan about in PvP. Just because some players learned to adapt their ship(s) to outperform yours doesn't make that ship/fitted modules OP, it means either learn to counter said ships or your bad at Eve, simple.
Check out my post about some Drone lovin: Proposed Drone Improvement |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4621
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 16:15:00 -
[966] - Quote
To those who say that the TE is overpowered because its falloff and optimal bonus are the same as the scripted tracking computer:
I really believe this is compensated by the fact that the TE's tracking speed bonus is less than 2/3 that of the unscripted TC and less than 1/3 that of the tracking scripted TC, as well as by the fact that the module takes up a low slot that could be used for another damage mod or DC II on ships that don't always have many low slots to begin with. What does a tracking computer displace? Generally utility modules, cap modules... generally things that don't affect survivability or utility. My point here is that low slots on shield-tanking ships have more value than mid-slots on armor-tanking ships. That's part of why even though the TE looks imbalanced from its stats, it really isn't because of slot value.
So when you consider that, does the entire module really need to have only 2/3 of the effectiveness of the TC, especially since it can't compensate with scripts?
It's been almost two weeks since the last dev reply to the subject. Malcanis for CSM 8 Module activation timers are buggy - CCP please fix |
Sergant Steel
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.21 01:37:00 -
[967] - Quote
Aww lol you can kinda hear the machariels and the minmatar pilots screaming... "No we are no longer op" |
Katsami
Sancta Terra
19
|
Posted - 2013.04.21 03:10:00 -
[968] - Quote
Do I get to roll my eyes when the post nerf 'ACs are still too strong crowd' starts to spout off?
Change TEs, I'm cool with that. I'm just not okay with TCs being the point of reference for the balance. |
Aznwithbeard
OMGROFLSTOMP
17
|
Posted - 2013.04.21 05:32:00 -
[969] - Quote
Minmatar dominance? Have you flown minmatar since you started messing around with ships?
And another thing, why do armor tanks need help? They are SOO much easier to use then shield (especially active tanks) . Ever try to fight a harbinger with a cyclone? not fun.
You've boosted the speed to buffer armor already with the honeycomb skill which i think is great, i think you guys really need to work on active shield/brawling shield.
Example - dual web armor rupture engages 4 brawl frigates. they all die. Try that with a moa.
If you REALLY wanna do something constructive, get rid of off grid boosts. sure you'll lose a lot of money from alt accounts but..... yea ur never gunna nerf off grid boosting are you :(
I <3 you ccp, but dont mess with TEs, please, gallente already have horrible range compared to all other races, and minnies best tank IS range, which you are nerfing.
OMGROFLSTOMP
"We sort of mean business 75% of the time" |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4636
|
Posted - 2013.04.21 06:59:00 -
[970] - Quote
Sergant Steel wrote:Aww lol you can kinda hear the machariels and the minmatar pilots screaming... "No we are no longer op" Stick to constructive, logical arguments, please. Malcanis for CSM 8 Module activation timers are buggy - CCP please fix |
|
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
130
|
Posted - 2013.04.21 07:16:00 -
[971] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:To those who say that the TE is overpowered because its falloff and optimal bonus are the same as the scripted tracking computer:
I really believe this is compensated by the fact that the TE's tracking speed bonus is less than 2/3 that of the unscripted TC and less than 1/3 that of the tracking scripted TC, as well as by the fact that the module takes up a low slot that could be used for another damage mod or DC II on ships that don't always have many low slots to begin with. What does a tracking computer displace? Generally utility modules, cap modules... generally things that don't affect survivability or utility. My point here is that low slots on shield-tanking ships have more value than mid-slots on armor-tanking ships. That's part of why even though the TE looks imbalanced from its stats, it really isn't because of slot value.
So when you consider that, does the entire module really need to have only 2/3 of the effectiveness of the TC, especially since it can't compensate with scripts?
It's been almost two weeks since the last dev reply to the subject.
I've already said that I do believe the TE needs this change, and that I'd go further. You've separated the bonuses in your comparison but failed to allow for the fact that the TE gets the range AND tracking bonuses at all times, the TC has to be either much the same as the TE with both bonuse at a greater fitting cost and, being an active module, using cap and being susceptible to neuts or it has to lose either it's range or tracking bonus with a script present. The TE has all the advantage to my eyes (and I use them a lot so a nerf to TEs is a change to my current playstyles). |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4636
|
Posted - 2013.04.21 07:32:00 -
[972] - Quote
No, I didn't fail to allow for it. The TC gets the higher tracking bonus while unscripted but still getting a decent range bonus. The TE in return gets the higher range bonus while getting a tracking bonus that's less than the unscripted TC. TC CPU use should really be reduced, IMO. Cap is really a non-issue. The TC uses 7 cap every 10 seconds. Unless you're being really heavily neuted this isn't going to matter a whole lot.
This change simply affects far too many ships disproportionally. Some ships which didn't need a nerf are getting hit. Other ships that do need a nerf will shrug it off because their damage projection is so overpowered that even this won't make a difference. Malcanis for CSM 8 Module activation timers are buggy - CCP please fix |
Sylvous
Bigger than Jesus
116
|
Posted - 2013.04.21 08:53:00 -
[973] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:No, I didn't fail to allow for it. The TC gets the higher tracking bonus while unscripted but still getting a decent range bonus. The TE in return gets the higher range bonus while getting a tracking bonus that's less than the unscripted TC. TC CPU use should really be reduced, IMO. Cap is really a non-issue. The TC uses 7 cap every 10 seconds. Unless you're being really heavily neuted this isn't going to matter a whole lot.
This change simply affects far too many ships disproportionally. Some ships which didn't need a nerf are getting hit. Other ships that do need a nerf will shrug it off because their damage projection is so overpowered that even this won't make a difference.
This.
Target problem ships, don't make a blanket fix with a module. Freeing up the mids in a armor tanked ship and allowing more EWAR to me easily seems to counterballance the nonsensical choice to fit TE's on a armor tank.
And on that note. If TE's are so OP, why do people never fit 3x TE and 1X damage mod (I see the opposite all the time)? The problem isn't that TE's are OP, its that several ships might have too much of that they boost all ready (but even that's a stretch).
100% down for reduced fitting costs on TC, and perhaps a counterballance for TE nerf as is would be a CPU requirement increase say to 20 or so. +1/3 fitting on such an OP mod would make sense seeing as multiples must be being fit making for fittings to be tight.
Though personally I see it fine as is. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1665
|
Posted - 2013.04.21 09:20:00 -
[974] - Quote
anybody else a bit scared about module rebalance part two? eve style bounties (done) dust boarding parties imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW |
smoking gun81
The Scope Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2013.04.21 23:44:00 -
[975] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote::Edit: I answered a large set of questions from the thread on April 8thGood 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!
Just bump up stacking penalties problem solved ( a lot of people in eve have no idea about stacking penalties anyway ). |
Donedy
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
41
|
Posted - 2013.04.22 22:33:00 -
[976] - Quote
Fozzie, i really dont like what you do with my game. Can someone nerf this guy? |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4663
|
Posted - 2013.04.23 12:36:00 -
[977] - Quote
smoking gun81 wrote:Just bump up stacking penalties problem solved ( a lot of people in eve have no idea about stacking penalties anyway ). You mean the stacking penalties that apply to thousands of modules? Yeah, that'll end well. Module activation timers are buggy. CCP please fix. |
lollerwaffle
Clandestine Vector THE SPACE P0LICE
40
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 12:51:00 -
[978] - Quote
HTFU and adapt, or die and GTFO.
TE's were overbuffed years ago when the projectiles were balanced against lasers (leaving hybrids out in the cold). Everyone got used to TE's being 'must-fit' modules on their ships, and now that's going away, instead of whining about losing the OP-ness of your ship, why don't you go away and look at other alternatives? Shaking up the game keeps it from stagnating.
I'm sure after these rounds of ship and module balancing, something else will emerge as the new 'OMGZZ FOTM OP IF YOU DON'T FLY THIS YOU LOSE' ship, and you crybabys can look to the more creative players to learn how to fit and fly it. |
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
59
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 23:16:00 -
[979] - Quote
CCP Thanks to the new EFT- i have done some number crunching for you and present to you some interesting results.
Ships shown are level 5 skilled. No drugs, no heat, no implants. 2 gyros and 2 TE's are used with barrage. The dps shown is damage applied at 28K (Or around kiting ranges) The use of the word kiting in my semantics is this:
Kiting is flying well out of web / scram range. Kiting is a range greater than 24K.
hurricane Old TE: 226 DPS New TE: 178 DPS
Cynabal Old TE: 264 DPS New TE: 236 DPS
Vagabond: Old TE: 242 DPS New TE: 211 DPS
'New' Stabber Old TE: 157 DPS New TE: 137 DPS
'New' Hurricane Fleet issue Old TE: 233 DPS New TE: 185 DPS
As a joke: RLM Caracal 2 BCS, lv 5 skills no heat, Fury lights
DPS: 236 (Yes a t1 cruiser on par with a cynbal, and beating out every other minmitar ships at kiting range.) CCP Was this your intention?
Why are you doing this to projectile guns CCP? AAs the power creep with EHP increases in ships- using an auto cannon based weapon system to kite is becoming pointless. We are looking at abysmal dps. The lack of projection is what was already hurting minmitar ships, this will compound it more.
The stabber has always been useless. And with the TE nerf will continue to be. The new hurricane and hurricane fleet issue struggle with projection currently, and this nerf puts them in the grave.
When we look at the 'quintessential' kiting ship the vaga- again the damage is beyond anemic. The cynabal has passable damage, but its still nothing great. 236 DPS takes some time to chew through the EHP monsters that one can create with T1 cruisers.
Those ships are also going to be taking a huge drop in projected damage. Why? With the DPS you are giving the class now, they simply will not stand a chance. Please explain yourself CCP? Minmitar ships have been hurting since the days of the nano drake. Why the projection reduction? You realize that with this change, RLM missiles, and t2 pulse lasers (of any size) are going to rule?
|
Rebecha Pucontis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
212
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 23:20:00 -
[980] - Quote
Chessur wrote:CCP Thanks to the new EFT- i have done some number crunching for you and present to you some interesting results.
Ships shown are level 5 skilled. No drugs, no heat, no implants. 2 gyros and 2 TE's are used with barrage. The dps shown is damage applied at 28K (Or around kiting ranges) The use of the word kiting in my semantics is this:
Kiting is flying well out of web / scram range. Kiting is a range greater than 24K.
hurricane Old TE: 226 DPS New TE: 178 DPS
Cynabal Old TE: 264 DPS New TE: 236 DPS
Vagabond: Old TE: 242 DPS New TE: 211 DPS
'New' Stabber Old TE: 157 DPS New TE: 137 DPS
'New' Hurricane Fleet issue Old TE: 233 DPS New TE: 185 DPS
As a joke: RLM Caracal 2 BCS, lv 5 skills no heat, Fury lights
DPS: 236 (Yes a t1 cruiser on par with a cynbal, and beating out every other minmitar ships at kiting range.) CCP Was this your intention?
Why are you doing this to projectile guns CCP? AAs the power creep with EHP increases in ships- using an auto cannon based weapon system to kite is becoming pointless. We are looking at abysmal dps. The lack of projection is what was already hurting minmitar ships, this will compound it more.
The stabber has always been useless. And with the TE nerf will continue to be. The new hurricane and hurricane fleet issue struggle with projection currently, and this nerf puts them in the grave.
When we look at the 'quintessential' kiting ship the vaga- again the damage is beyond anemic. The cynabal has passable damage, but its still nothing great. 236 DPS takes some time to chew through the EHP monsters that one can create with T1 cruisers.
Those ships are also going to be taking a huge drop in projected damage. Why? With the DPS you are giving the class now, they simply will not stand a chance. Please explain yourself CCP? Minmitar ships have been hurting since the days of the nano drake. Why the projection reduction? You realize that with this change, RLM missiles, and t2 pulse lasers (of any size) are going to rule?
That is a pretty steep damage drop off there. Looks like autocannons are going to need some buffing.
|
|
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
106
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 23:24:00 -
[981] - Quote
Quote:That is a pretty steep damage drop off there. Looks like autocannons are going to need some buffing.
in exchange for cap use perhaps would be acceptable. 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place..... where is the TD missile change?-á ,...projectiles should use capacitor. |
Rebecha Pucontis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
212
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 23:32:00 -
[982] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:Quote:That is a pretty steep damage drop off there. Looks like autocannons are going to need some buffing. in exchange for cap use perhaps would be acceptable.
What!! No that is blasphemy. |
Anabella Rella
Gradient Electus Matari
668
|
Posted - 2013.04.25 01:20:00 -
[983] - Quote
That guy has made multiple posts arguing for projectiles to use cap. He's one of the people who buys into the crap argument about Minmatar ships being overpowered due to lack of cap use. It's not true now as Minmatar ships have been given more mass, less speed, had fitting options removed. Also, it's a dumb idea on the face of it and from a lore/flavor/real world physics perspective it makes absolutely no sense; projectile weapons use a chemical reaction to fire. How the hell does cap use enter into a chemical reaction of gunpowder/oxidizer?
Minmatar ships have been nerfed enough already and these TE changes will continue that trend. I'm glad that I'm training Amarr now so that I'll be able to fly any race ship and be effectively "nerf-proof" in the near future. What you want is irrelevant, what you've chosen is at hand. |
Rebecha Pucontis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
212
|
Posted - 2013.04.25 01:55:00 -
[984] - Quote
Anabella Rella wrote:That guy has made multiple posts arguing for projectiles to use cap. He's one of the people who buys into the crap argument about Minmatar ships being overpowered due to lack of cap use. It's not true now as Minmatar ships have been given more mass, less speed, had fitting options removed. Also, it's a dumb idea on the face of it and from a lore/flavor/real world physics perspective it makes absolutely no sense; projectile weapons use a chemical reaction to fire. How the hell does cap use enter into a chemical reaction of gunpowder/oxidizer?
Yeah, certified crazy indeed. You should see what he was proposing to do to the Tornado in the Minmatar balance thread. |
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
60
|
Posted - 2013.04.25 02:35:00 -
[985] - Quote
Minmitar are not OP. I just don't understand it. Sure dual neut auto cane was ok as a bralwer (sometimes) but then the nano drake came. Since that point, hurricanes (and all other minmitar ships) are suffering massively from projection issues. Minny BC's don't have amazing tanks, and compared to blasters don't have the damage for up close brawling. The minni cruisers are even worse. Stabber does no damage no matter how you fit it, and it can't kite- because it does less damage than an LML condor. The bellicose is passable.... but again this is a missile ship.
So you have the vagabond, and cynabal. The cynabal is expensive, and the vaga (as shown in my other tables) gets out damaged by a light missile caracal.
So CCP, why do you hate minmitar and kiting in general?
Are you happy with all minmitar ships that are not missile based, being forced to brawl? |
Jezza McWaffle
EVOL Command Consortium Collective
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.25 06:58:00 -
[986] - Quote
At above.
I kite with 440 dps Ruptures that have more EHP than most Omens. Its really easy to kite with autocanns provided brain cells when fitting are used. |
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
61
|
Posted - 2013.04.25 14:12:00 -
[987] - Quote
Jezza McWaffle wrote:At above.
I kite with 440 dps Ruptures that have more EHP than most Omens. Its really easy to kite with autocanns provided brain cells when fitting are used.
Im sorry 440 DPS ruptures? Doesn't exist.
Rupture, lv 5 skills, 2 gyro, 2 TE, barrage. No heat, no implants, no drugs damage projection listed at ranges:
Rupture damage (old te's)
20K: 217 DPS 24K: 188 DPS 28K: 155 DPS
Rupture damage (new TE's)
20K: 196 DPS 24K: 155 DPS 28K: 116 DPS
So where is this 440 dps? I don't see it. Its really impossible to kite with ruptures in the first place. you should use some brain cells and look at the ship bonus. I Don't see any projection bonus do you? Also A shield rupture fully shield fit, with DCU is only pushing out about 27K ehp. Way less than an armor tanked omen.
Use some brain cells before posting next time. |
Streya Jormagdnir
Alexylva Paradox
182
|
Posted - 2013.04.25 17:39:00 -
[988] - Quote
So awhile back I asked the devs how they intend for turret-using T1 "attack" frigates to kite in light of the TE nerf. At the time I suggested CCP buff the "long range" small turrets such as beams and artillery, specifically in the area of tracking. In order to see how viable such an approach would be, I began experimenting with an artillery Slasher, and this is what I've found:
Even with the tracking bonus and Depleted Uranium ammo (which gives even more tracking), you simply move too fast and out-track your guns when fighting other frigates at longpoint range. When fighting a Rifter I found I had to manually reduce my speed down to roughly 1.5 km/s, which you can obtain by using an AB rather than MWD. This makes you perilously easy to get slingshotted, however, so I also found myself using an overheated web and keeping a close eye on the target's distance. Not only that, but with Domination Depleted Uranium ammo loaded the ship simply doesn't do a lot of DPS. While I did end up killing the Rifter, this was probably only because it was piloted by a relatively new pilot and had meta mods fit.
So I recorded my artillery's tracking speed and went to work with a beam-kite Executioner, and looking at the numbers it would suffer the exact same problem. The conclusion? Long-range small turrets have too poor of tracking to keep up with the recently buffed T1 "attack" frigates' speed. And this is why we see more Condors engaging in high-speed kite fits and no other "attack" frigates doing the same.
CCP, aren't you concerned with how very easy it is to kite in a Condor but not in a Slasher, Executioner, or Atron? Why can only one race's T1 "attack" frigates engage in longpoint kiting with such ease? I am also a human, straggling between the present world... and our future. I am a regulator, a coordinator, one who is meant to guide the way. |
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
62
|
Posted - 2013.04.25 18:10:00 -
[989] - Quote
Streya Jormagdnir wrote:So awhile back I asked the devs how they intend for turret-using T1 "attack" frigates to kite in light of the TE nerf. At the time I suggested CCP buff the "long range" small turrets such as beams and artillery, specifically in the area of tracking. In order to see how viable such an approach would be, I began experimenting with an artillery Slasher, and this is what I've found:
Even with the tracking bonus and Depleted Uranium ammo (which gives even more tracking), you simply move too fast and out-track your guns when fighting other frigates at longpoint range. When fighting a Rifter I found I had to manually reduce my speed down to roughly 1.5 km/s, which you can obtain by using an AB rather than MWD. This makes you perilously easy to get slingshotted, however, so I also found myself using an overheated web and keeping a close eye on the target's distance. Not only that, but with Domination Depleted Uranium ammo loaded the ship simply doesn't do a lot of DPS. While I did end up killing the Rifter, this was probably only because it was piloted by a relatively new pilot and had meta mods fit.
So I recorded my artillery's tracking speed and went to work with a beam-kite Executioner, and looking at the numbers it would suffer the exact same problem. The conclusion? Long-range small turrets have too poor of tracking to keep up with the recently buffed T1 "attack" frigates' speed. And this is why we see more Condors engaging in high-speed kite fits and no other "attack" frigates doing the same.
CCP, aren't you concerned with how very easy it is to kite in a Condor but not in a Slasher, Executioner, or Atron? Why can only one race's T1 "attack" frigates engage in longpoint kiting with such ease?
The problem with turrets in general- is this:
Long range turrets are simply not viable for small gang / solo pvp. The tracking and fitting is just so bad that your weapon system becomes unplayable. That is where short range turrets come in. They have the tracking to still be effective- and with old TE's could still be some what usable when applying damage.
Personally I think that CCP needs to introduce three turrets for each race. A 'short range' a 'medium range' and 'long range'
Currently the medium range turrets are simply bastardized versions of the short range. So much of a ships fitting room is poured into making a short range turret that is effective at a medium range. CCP should take a step back from extremes ie. blaster / rail and auto / arty and create some type of middile ground. This would help small gang and solo players, as well as possibly making more ships viable / playable will different fitting styles. |
Gargantoi
Solar Wind Test Alliance Please Ignore
11
|
Posted - 2013.04.26 01:14:00 -
[990] - Quote
Serenety Steel wrote:If it aint broke, DON'T fix it!
Way to nerf some more stuff, well done ccp..
agreed with this ...vagabond + cynabal will be ****** to begin with barelly have 450 dps now the range will go down say goodbye autocannons also a lot of sniping ships like naga / maesltrom / rokh will suffer from this ..u want to make fleet fights from 150km to 90 km ? srsly leave the TE how they are frozzie srsly u are usless somethimes insteed of nerfing things all the time by "Balancing them" i guess when u added scripts was also a boost when u killed arazu , in 2008 an arazu would **** u up with dampners ..now all arazu pilots use shield buff + warp dis / warp scram and thats that no dampners gg scripts ..then on to sensor boosters insteed of fitting 1 sbo on your sniping bs now u got to go with 2 or 3 cuz u need scripts waste more med slots ...since i started playing this game in 2007 i swear to god u guys killed it badlly ..u **** things up then introduce new things then when that is also to ****** up u sudenly do a "balance" to undo the ******* u just did unfortunatlly u end up by making it even worse by your mentality everybody should fly officer fitted ships because the remote variants are to close to those stats ..u dont take into consideration that someone has to use an alt for that someone pays an account to actually remote sensor boost someone wastes time and money to do that ..but is easy to have the nerf hammer and press it and again ..all the feedback u get is from people who didnt get out of empire or they rat 24/7 and there best pvp is when they take on a lvl 4 mission |
|
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
142
|
Posted - 2013.04.26 14:12:00 -
[991] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:TEs and TCs give double bonuses to Falloff compared to Optimal, but rigs and implants give the same bonuses. Why not change those?This is something we do have on our radar, although I can't say for sure exactly when we'll be adjusting it. When we do I can't guarentee that it will be doubling the bonus, we may decide on a different multipler and unify the effects at that level. Personally I'm not sure this is the right way to go - as I said earlier in the thread I don't know why the optimal bonuses are being taken below their pre-boost levels in order to compensate for issues which seem to be entirely related to short ranged weapons and falloff.
And what is the point of modifying the TEs so heavily if a modification to rigs, which provides a greater weight to falloff, then returns things to the way they are anyway? |
Gargantoi
Solar Wind Test Alliance Please Ignore
11
|
Posted - 2013.04.26 15:11:00 -
[992] - Quote
Jacob Holland wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:TEs and TCs give double bonuses to Falloff compared to Optimal, but rigs and implants give the same bonuses. Why not change those?This is something we do have on our radar, although I can't say for sure exactly when we'll be adjusting it. When we do I can't guarentee that it will be doubling the bonus, we may decide on a different multipler and unify the effects at that level. Personally I'm not sure this is the right way to go - as I said earlier in the thread I don't know why the optimal bonuses are being taken below their pre-boost levels in order to compensate for issues which seem to be entirely related to short ranged weapons and falloff. And what is the point of modifying the TEs so heavily if a modification to rigs, which provides a greater weight to falloff, then returns things to the way they are anyway?
why change something if it doesent need to be change so far everything works based on tracking enhanters + rigs for faloff / optimal foozie u should come up with something constructive ..we already got problems with minmatar bs's ...tempest has 500 dps as a cruiser now u wanna kill the whole race with the tracking enhanters think ccp should move u to a diferent section u not constructive and good at "balancing" for u a balance is a nerf is like me going to wow and trying to "balance" **** there i got no clue about how it works or how it is applyed ..u should see how crap minmatar will be after this ....and how it will affect all ships also |
Streya Jormagdnir
Alexylva Paradox
183
|
Posted - 2013.04.26 15:52:00 -
[993] - Quote
Chessur wrote: The problem with turrets in general- is this:
Long range turrets are simply not viable for small gang / solo pvp. The tracking and fitting is just so bad that your weapon system becomes unplayable. That is where short range turrets come in. They have the tracking to still be effective- and with old TE's could still be some what usable when applying damage.
Personally I think that CCP needs to introduce three turrets for each race. A 'short range' a 'medium range' and 'long range'
Currently the medium range turrets are simply bastardized versions of the short range. So much of a ships fitting room is poured into making a short range turret that is effective at a medium range. CCP should take a step back from extremes ie. blaster / rail and auto / arty and create some type of middile ground. This would help small gang and solo players, as well as possibly making more ships viable / playable will different fitting styles.
See, I have no problem using up most of my fitting to slap on "medium" range turrets, since I fly faster kite ships which tend not to have tank anyway. The problem I'm seeing with this nerf is that now we'll be forced to either snipe outside of point range OR brawl, at least if you fly solo.
Solo is already hard enough, which is why so many solo PvPers tend towards kiting so they can always disengage when the blob starts coming. With this TE nerf things will be a bit more difficult; I won't say "solo/smallgang PvP will die" because missiles are completely and entirely unaffected by this nerf as well as TDs, but why should solo/smallgang PvPers be forced to use only missiles to be effective?
If I had to suggest anything, yes CCP go ahead and nerf TEs, but allow them to be scripted like TCs to retain some performance. And for the love of all that is pixelated please look over the imbalance in performance between turrets and missiles. While it is true that missiles are not often found in huge fleets because they take time to reach a target, they are amazing in smaller fleets or for solo since one need not worry about their tracking or range being TD'd. I am also a human, straggling between the present world... and our future. I am a regulator, a coordinator, one who is meant to guide the way. |
Alexander Nebula
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.26 21:37:00 -
[994] - Quote
I feel sorry for the people that have years vested in this game I just started, thank God! From the mass of opinions stated, I agree it is dumbing down the game. As a NOOB Min I started out with the Hurricane nerfs and now this. I huddle in terror to think what is next. I do think there is a disconnect with the programmers and the actual consumer. I was looking forward to just defending wormholes with 210ish days training. I thank CCP for letting me know ahead of time of these changes so I can un-sub and look at this game a few years in the future when all the nerfs are done and things have settled down. It's extremely hard to train for anything with stuff changing for the worse. So, with much ado, I will regrettably return to my free to play games in which I expect such such things, not pay for bad newsit seems every month. This isn't a rage quit, since I haven't did much other than train and buy plex from CCP. They seem not to want my business, oh well. I don't feel the need to renew my sub either With pay games there needs to be an economic statement of our disapproval. Thanks to all the pilots that gave me advice, No hard feelings, just time to move on before I train for 6 months only to be disappointed. |
Gargantoi
Solar Wind Test Alliance Please Ignore
11
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 20:10:00 -
[995] - Quote
Alexander Nebula wrote:I feel sorry for the people that have years vested in this game I just started, thank God! From the mass of opinions stated, I agree it is dumbing down the game. As a NOOB Min I started out with the Hurricane nerfs and now this. I huddle in terror to think what is next. I do think there is a disconnect with the programmers and the actual consumer. I was looking forward to just defending wormholes with 210ish days training. I thank CCP for letting me know ahead of time of these changes so I can un-sub and look at this game a few years in the future when all the nerfs are done and things have settled down. It's extremely hard to train for anything with stuff changing for the worse. So, with much ado, I will regrettably return to my free to play games in which I expect such such things, not pay for bad newsit seems every month. This isn't a rage quit, since I haven't did much other than train and buy plex from CCP. They seem not to want my business, oh well. I don't feel the need to renew my sub either With pay games there needs to be an economic statement of our disapproval. Thanks to all the pilots that gave me advice, No hard feelings, just time to move on before I train for 6 months only to be disappointed.
Tell me about it bro ******* we pay subscription and they **** us up ..again i say this tracking enhanter nerf is stupid as **** insteed of nerfing actually do yourself a favor and start boosting the faction tracking enhanters to give optimal + faloff bonus rather then just +1 more to tracking and a price tag of 150 m for that 1% u nerf it and kill minmatar as a race ...is simple as **** even a 5 year old can understand ...minmatar turret ships except sleipnir / maelstrom cant tank ...since they cant tank they use speed as advantage ..since thats the point of minmatar ..speed ...now ..speed is good but to hit your target even on a vaga u need at least 1 tracking enhanter ...vaga / cynabal already have crap dps applyed @ 20 km with curent tracking enhangers ...by nerfing them u will reduce them to have like what ..200 dps ? even a daredevil deals more dmg not to mention ..u cant engage arazu + proteus ...u get scrambled u go bye bye ..u cant engage a bs ..heavy neut on you = bye bye u cant even engage frigates anymore cuz the faloff would be so fail u cant kite it down before it enters its optimal scram range so fozzie again i tell u leave the tracking enhanters as they are ..they worked since day 1 they were in the game ..i understand u guys wanna make the game a blob fest ..but people dont like that they dont wanna fly blob vs blob some people like to solo and since u killed that 5 years ago with the nano age ...basicly the only reason why solo "works" is cuz of range + speed ..killing range ..speed will be usless since warp scram disables mwd...at 1 point in the future u guys will wake up and see that the only people who actually play r isk farmers / macro miners and new players who like shinny effects but the old brigade will just move on 2003-2007 chars wasted cuz u guys do stupid nerfs that u think "r good" |
Perihelion Olenard
156
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 20:24:00 -
[996] - Quote
Holy crap, Gargantoi. Your wall of text is a massive eyesore. People will read what you have to say if you put forth the effort to make that readable. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
Gargantoi
Solar Wind Test Alliance Please Ignore
11
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 18:11:00 -
[997] - Quote
Perihelion Olenard wrote:Holy crap, Gargantoi. Your wall of text is a massive eyesore. People will read what you have to say if you put forth the effort to make that readable.
Do Not Nerf Tracking Enhanters ! |
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
68
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 20:55:00 -
[998] - Quote
Streya Jormagdnir wrote:Chessur wrote: The problem with turrets in general- is this:
Long range turrets are simply not viable for small gang / solo pvp. The tracking and fitting is just so bad that your weapon system becomes unplayable. That is where short range turrets come in. They have the tracking to still be effective- and with old TE's could still be some what usable when applying damage.
Personally I think that CCP needs to introduce three turrets for each race. A 'short range' a 'medium range' and 'long range'
Currently the medium range turrets are simply bastardized versions of the short range. So much of a ships fitting room is poured into making a short range turret that is effective at a medium range. CCP should take a step back from extremes ie. blaster / rail and auto / arty and create some type of middile ground. This would help small gang and solo players, as well as possibly making more ships viable / playable will different fitting styles.
See, I have no problem using up most of my fitting to slap on "medium" range turrets, since I fly faster kite ships which tend not to have tank anyway. The problem I'm seeing with this nerf is that now we'll be forced to either snipe outside of point range OR brawl, at least if you fly solo. Solo is already hard enough, which is why so many solo PvPers tend towards kiting so they can always disengage when the blob starts coming. With this TE nerf things will be a bit more difficult; I won't say "solo/smallgang PvP will die" because missiles are completely and entirely unaffected by this nerf as well as TDs, but why should solo/smallgang PvPers be forced to use only missiles to be effective? If I had to suggest anything, yes CCP go ahead and nerf TEs, but allow them to be scripted like TCs to retain some performance. And for the love of all that is pixelated please look over the imbalance in performance between turrets and missiles. While it is true that missiles are not often found in huge fleets because they take time to reach a target, they are amazing in smaller fleets or for solo since one need not worry about their tracking or range being TD'd.
I fly a ton of small gang / solo as well. Kiting is really the only way to play if you have any hope of surviving the blob. We all know eve is PvPPPPPPPP. I don't have a problem flying lightly tanked kiting setups, but I do have a problem when the lightly tanked setups- even with tons of mods to help with damage and projection... Still cannot project or apply damage in any meaningful way. I agree with your post 100% RLM missiles are the wave of the future for solo / small gang. ECM and recons are just so punishing to the small gang / solo having a weapon system that can disregards ECM, TD's, and damps is nice. THe only turrets worth while for solo / small gang is large autos, blasters, pulse, or medium pulse. That is likerally it. There is no weapon system + hull combination that makes any other medium gun superior to pulse, and medium blasters have no range.
The reason when I feel so strongly about the proposed TE nerf- is the fact that you are now flying under an unbonused TD. Damage is becoming anemic, and a single unbonused TD used against the new TE"s are going to shut you down so completely- things are just going to get stupid. As you stated- either fit useless long range weapon systesm (rail, arty, beam) and fail to track anything- or brawl. And we all know what happens when you brawl, you get blobbed, ECM'd and dead in 10 seconds.
CCP please do not nerf TE's as a round about way of fixing mini ships. They are already bad- because autos already struggle to project any type of damage in the first place. |
Shade Alidiana
PROSPERO Corporation MinTek Conglomerate
38
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 01:28:00 -
[999] - Quote
Although I like TE + TC combination, this change looks more or less reasonable. Low slot modules should be worse than mid slot ones, yes... But as an arty hurricane pilot, I'd still like to have full lock optimal with tremors (call me mad at this, I'm trying to keep at optimal to apply my damage). Someone mentioned projectiles' huge alpha? Well, this is +- compensated with generally low tracking IMO. Still too many misses and weak hits... And if we speak about ammo and picking damage, I'd love something for primarily kinetic (not titanium). Forced to use mostly plasma rounds... |
Fyrhmn
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 16:31:00 -
[1000] - Quote
this is stupid we dont need a TE nerf!!!
gonna miss my talos |
|
Gargantoi
Solar Wind Test Alliance Please Ignore
11
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 21:14:00 -
[1001] - Quote
Fyrhmn wrote:this is stupid we dont need a TE nerf!!!
gonna miss my talos
don`t worry bro im sure fozzie will read this and give 0 fucks like allways and he will do as he intends ..as in kill the tracking enhanters..and in the next patch they will bring them back cuz people will either unsubscribe or just complain about it ..and we will somehow get a "boost" cuz thats how ccp doese it ..nerfs something then in the following new patch "boosts" it but is worse then the first time ..look at marauders..nerfed webs from -90 to -60% introduced marauders with web bonus ..nerfed exp velocity to missiles gave golem that bonus so thats how ccp works ..they nerf something and 1-2 patches later they bring it back under a new form and the newbs go like : wow nice patch great job but theyre blind as **** cant see that they've been cheated |
Candy Clark
Horizon Corp
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.07 01:20:00 -
[1002] - Quote
I am a pve girl 90% of the time. This TE nerf is really going to affect my play style in a negative way. (sniper Mega) I can understand WHY the TE's need adjusting because of the short range weapons thing. Proposal : why not introduce weapon specific TE's ?(IE versions for Blasters/Rails, Arty/Auto, etc) That way only the specific use cases can be balanced appropriately, instead of blanket screw you to everyone. |
Jrazor Hawke
Dark Krystal E L I T E Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.07 02:30:00 -
[1003] - Quote
This does really hurt minmatar any plans to try and make it less pain for people who fly minmatar? |
Bigg Gun
Flying Bags Inc. Bulgarian Space Federation
7
|
Posted - 2013.05.07 02:59:00 -
[1004] - Quote
fu-ük you devs for nerfing mah TE's, at least make range enhancers without the tracking benefit and tracking enhancer with the proposed change |
Gosti Kahanid
Farstriders Apocalypse Now.
14
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 12:02:00 -
[1005] - Quote
After compairing the TE with the TC I must admit, I understand this change and support it.
But there is one thing I think you should consider: A unscripted TC II has a tracking speed bonus of 15% (with script 30%), while the TE II has only has 9,5%. To bring TE in line with TC where it should be better than a unscripted TC, you should raise the tracking speed bonus to 20%, or at least at 15% (which would be the same as the unscripted TC) |
Gosti Kahanid
Farstriders Apocalypse Now.
14
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 12:05:00 -
[1006] - Quote
pls delete |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
375
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 12:06:00 -
[1007] - Quote
Jrazor Hawke wrote:This does really hurt minmatar any plans to try and make it less pain for people who fly minmatar? why would it hurt matar more than fe gallente blaster boat or anything that uses TE like most ships atm^^? |
Altimo
Homicidal Teddy Bears
39
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 12:19:00 -
[1008] - Quote
I think its silly to ruin the potential of all ships using turrets based on what only a few ships can do with them. Minmatar will suffer the least, amarr and gallente.. have fun. |
Madbuster73
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
41
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 17:43:00 -
[1009] - Quote
You are all getting it wrong....
This isnt a nerf to Turrets, this is a buff for Launchers!!!
they nerfed the Launcher range a bit ago, so now they nerf the Turrets range again. making the missile OP again....
|
Gargantoi
Solar Wind Test Alliance Please Ignore
11
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 01:41:00 -
[1010] - Quote
Madbuster73 wrote:You are all getting it wrong....
This isnt a nerf to Turrets, this is a buff for Launchers!!!
they nerfed the Launcher range a bit ago, so now they nerf the Turrets range again. making the missile OP again....
u might be right ...another way for ccp to cover up there fuckups aparently ...they want all fights to be at 10km ranges to make sure u DIE and farm few hours after to make isk or buy gtc's to get a new ship ..good business for ccp but yeah this game needs a riot tbh like goons did in jita few time ago this nerf on te is srsly making me go bananas so far i didnt care to much about the nerfs i was like ok **** it we will find another way ..but with this nerf ..minmatar is dead ...from start ...tier 3 bc's dead from start also and every other ship that used te's and no fozzie this wont make people use tracking computers.they arent used for a reason people in pvp use web / scram even in fleet fights people use rokhs now so still no need for that pice of **** tracking computer but yeah ..is pointless to keep replying here they arent following the treaths anymore they just replyed to them prob cuz fanfast was coming |
|
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
629
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 08:17:00 -
[1011] - Quote
Keep up the good work CCP. The nano facerollers tears are an indication that you are doing a good job, they simply can't see the big picture. R Tape loading error |
Gargantoi
Solar Wind Test Alliance Please Ignore
11
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 14:00:00 -
[1012] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:Keep up the good work CCP. The nano facerollers tears are an indication that you are doing a good job, they simply can't see the big picture.
nano face rollers ? really ? are u that dumb they are killing 1 race with this nerf no one will want to fly minmatar second off all hurrets will get affected by this its not that the ship has to be nano or not cuz now except fitting a te for some range / tracking u will fit something else cuz wont prob worth it anymore
|
Fyrhmn
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 15:12:00 -
[1013] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:Keep up the good work CCP. The nano facerollers tears are an indication that you are doing a good job, they simply can't see the big picture.
whats the bigger picture? all turret ships are losing range.
if Minmatar is the reason why they're nerfing TE's then they're going at it the wrong way. nerf the falloff on minnie ships. not the module that affects ships of other races as well. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5814
|
Posted - 2013.05.12 13:38:00 -
[1014] - Quote
Hey everyone, I'm all caught up on this thread now. Wanted to remind you guys that the TE and RSB changes in their current iteration are on SISI for testing now. Please give your favorite fits a try on SISI with the new module stats and let us know how it feels. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
517
|
Posted - 2013.05.12 13:49:00 -
[1015] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone, I'm all caught up on this thread now. Wanted to remind you guys that the TE and RSB changes in their current iteration are on SISI for testing now. Please give your favorite fits a try on SISI with the new module stats and let us know how it feels. I don't think the TE changes very good. In fact, I don't think the situation with TE's vs TC's have been good since the introduction of scripts. Scripts should have been a fix for sensor boosters and RSD's. Instead, they broke the balance between TC's and TE's whilst becoming a user experience nightmare. Ever since, TE's have been steadily nefered into the ground because of it, steadily increasing imbalances over the value of mids vs lows that haven't really fixed anything. Worse, the weapon systems that it nerfs really didn't need it.
Also, could you give Rise a poke to send some love to the BS threads please? Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5815
|
Posted - 2013.05.12 14:09:00 -
[1016] - Quote
Pattern Clarc wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone, I'm all caught up on this thread now. Wanted to remind you guys that the TE and RSB changes in their current iteration are on SISI for testing now. Please give your favorite fits a try on SISI with the new module stats and let us know how it feels. I don't think the TE changes very good. In fact, I don't think the situation with TE's vs TC's have been good since the introduction of scripts. Scripts should have been a fix for sensor boosters and RSD's. Instead, they broke the balance between TC's and TE's whilst becoming a user experience nightmare. Ever since, TE's have been steadily nefered into the ground because of it, steadily increasing imbalances over the value of mids vs lows that haven't really fixed anything. Worse, the weapon systems that it nerfs really didn't need it. Also, could you give Rise a poke to send some love to the BS threads please?
I completely agree that scripts as a mechanic have pretty terrible user experience. Someday I'd really like to replace them with multi-mode modules that don't require the item. However I disagree that the balance between midlots and lowslots is currently in favour of midlosts (except at the frigate level).
Rise has definitely been watching the battleship threads, just hasn't been posting as much recently. But I expect he'll have more time after he makes his next announcement. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
154
|
Posted - 2013.05.12 14:13:00 -
[1017] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Pattern Clarc wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone, I'm all caught up on this thread now. Wanted to remind you guys that the TE and RSB changes in their current iteration are on SISI for testing now. Please give your favorite fits a try on SISI with the new module stats and let us know how it feels. I don't think the TE changes very good. In fact, I don't think the situation with TE's vs TC's have been good since the introduction of scripts. Scripts should have been a fix for sensor boosters and RSD's. Instead, they broke the balance between TC's and TE's whilst becoming a user experience nightmare. Ever since, TE's have been steadily nefered into the ground because of it, steadily increasing imbalances over the value of mids vs lows that haven't really fixed anything. Worse, the weapon systems that it nerfs really didn't need it. Also, could you give Rise a poke to send some love to the BS threads please? I completely agree that scripts as a mechanic have pretty terrible user experience. Someday I'd really like to replace them with multi-mode modules that don't require the item. However I disagree that the balance between midlots and lowslots is currently in favour of midlosts (except at the frigate level). Rise has definitely been watching the battleship threads, just hasn't been posting as much recently. But I expect he'll have more time after he makes his next announcement.
faction battleships???? so part 2 of mods soon ?? be TD's missiles....?? 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place..... where is the TD missile change?-á ,...projectiles should use capacitor. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
242
|
Posted - 2013.05.12 15:15:00 -
[1018] - Quote
Pattern Clarc wrote: Ever since, TE's have been steadily nefered into the ground because of it
Never happened. TEs are just as broken OP now as when CCP did that unnecessary projectile buff. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
242
|
Posted - 2013.05.12 15:16:00 -
[1019] - Quote
Will there be module rebalancing part two? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5815
|
Posted - 2013.05.12 16:36:00 -
[1020] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Will there be module rebalancing part two?
Well we've already announced the large energy turrets and cruise missile changes. But we're working on part four (and probably five) now. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
Alexander the Great
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
29
|
Posted - 2013.05.12 16:43:00 -
[1021] - Quote
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. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5815
|
Posted - 2013.05.12 16:47:00 -
[1022] - Quote
Alexander the Great wrote: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.
Not as a part of this change, although I definitely won't rule out future changes. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon Drunk 'n' Disorderly
691
|
Posted - 2013.05.12 17:09:00 -
[1023] - Quote
torp changes/explosion radius changes plox |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
242
|
Posted - 2013.05.12 18:49:00 -
[1024] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:torp changes/explosion radius changes plox
ammo volume and cpu usage plox |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
421
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 06:22:00 -
[1025] - Quote
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) |
Rholak Khardula
Shadows Of The Requiem Li3 Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 09:00:00 -
[1026] - Quote
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. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
590
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 09:35:00 -
[1027] - Quote
Rholak Khardula wrote: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.
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? |
Fonac
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
19
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 19:19:00 -
[1028] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Will there be module rebalancing part two? Well we've already announced the large energy turrets and cruise missile changes. But we're working on part four (and probably five) now.
Hey Fozzie, do you guys have any future plans for torpedo's ?
I just noticed, that fitting a widow with torp's and cruise missiles, there's only a 100 dps difference between the two weapon systems, if you use faction torps(because of damage application + range) and furies on cruise missilies.
Seeing that the damage application on torpedo's is really poor compared to the turret systems, and the fact that their base range is 25.6 km, it could really use some love, along the lines of cruise missilies.
So, any plans? :) |
Rholak Khardula
Shadows Of The Requiem Li3 Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 20:44:00 -
[1029] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Rholak Khardula wrote: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. 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?
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. |
Major Thrasher
T.R.I.A.D
14
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 00:51:00 -
[1030] - Quote
minmatar nerfed into the ground is would seem.
only ships i fly are kite fit, TE being a key part of any build.
i fail to see why they need a nerf if anything buff the TC's, and leave te as they are.
guess ccp likes brawling, there goes my whole flying style since if i wish to stay out of web ranges, i'l left with zero dps.
already very low compared to a kiting rail fit.
i deal with frigs mainly, can't rly comment on anything bigger, but its completely screwed every AC kite fit.
. |
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
251
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 13:42:00 -
[1031] - Quote
Verity Sovereign wrote: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)
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.
Remember that just before that change LASERS were considered overpowered and peopel were asking for lasers NERFS. One of the reason was that nothing received so much love from range modules as Pulse lasers did. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
251
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 13:44:00 -
[1032] - Quote
Rholak Khardula wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Rholak Khardula wrote: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. 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? 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.pngBut 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.
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. |
DarkLander
Red-White-Warriors inc SCUM.
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 17:06:00 -
[1033] - Quote
I think Tracking Enhancer nerf is not good idea. dislike. Maybe carebears want nerf minmatar pvp ships? |
Beth Askold
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 15:57:00 -
[1034] - Quote
ccp fail yet again to notice that the faction TE's have basically the same stats as the T2... with this nerf surely you should make faction te's viable by leaving them in their current state.
Im happy to pvp with faction tracking enhancers and more than happy to loot them if that would be the case :)
i would rather spend the 70m+ isk and buy faction then leave all my minnie ships to rust in stations.
|
Xuixien
Elysium Dominion
261
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 00:24:00 -
[1035] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote: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. Everyone vs Everyone Xuixien - Space Cat, Queen of Rens |
Mirel Dystoph
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
53
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 00:29:00 -
[1036] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:Prometheus Exenthal wrote: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. "Nothing essential happens in the absence of noise."-á |
Xuixien
Elysium Dominion
261
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 01:41:00 -
[1037] - Quote
Mirel Dystoph wrote:Xuixien wrote:Prometheus Exenthal wrote: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.
I never said you did DDEURUEDUERUEDUEUDEUR.
Everyone vs Everyone Xuixien - Space Cat, Queen of Rens |
Josilin du Guesclin
University of Caille Gallente Federation
62
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 07:19:00 -
[1038] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote: 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.
Aye. Pulse lasers, even without Scorch, have a huge engagement envelope where they deliver full or almost full DPS because of their high optimal range and excellent tracking.
|
Shade Alidiana
PROSPERO Corporation MinTek Conglomerate
44
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 18:28:00 -
[1039] - Quote
DarkLander wrote:I think Tracking Enhancer nerf is not good idea. dislike. Maybe carebears want nerf minmatar pvp ships? Maybe carebears rely on TEs as well? |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 23:55:00 -
[1040] - Quote
Shade Alidiana wrote:DarkLander wrote:I think Tracking Enhancer nerf is not good idea. dislike. Maybe carebears want nerf minmatar pvp ships? Maybe carebears rely on TEs as well? While this doesn't obsolete my pve mach (yet!) it still stings... bringing stats from 4.2+52km down to 3.8+42km with hail. At 40km my dps decreases by 140.
The ships without range bonuses will be even worse off with this nerf. Yet another buff to armor tanking... |
|
Beth Askold
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 11:23:00 -
[1041] - Quote
why not make the faction TEs 12.5/25 instead of leaving them on 10/20 like the t2 and then buff the officer ones a little so they are better... im sure most people view the faction ones as broken, and rather than fixing them so we have an alternative, they are just getting beat by the nerf bat without even having the stats looked at... |
Calgrissom Torvec
1
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 16:49:00 -
[1042] - Quote
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 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. |
DeathWise
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 19:15:00 -
[1043] - Quote
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? |
Calgrissom Torvec
1
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 20:06:00 -
[1044] - Quote
DeathWise wrote: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?
The truth is they haven't. Slasher will absolutely crush any Minnie turret boat after this patch as it wasn't bad enough. |
Omega Crendraven
SISI WARRIOR RETIREMENT FUND
22
|
Posted - 2013.05.24 01:59:00 -
[1045] - Quote
Escobar Slim III wrote: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.
You sir, have the best comment in the whole thread _ARG__TEAM_ _-á |--| |--< |__, | |=== |-
|
Shade Alidiana
PROSPERO Corporation MinTek Conglomerate
46
|
Posted - 2013.05.25 00:00:00 -
[1046] - Quote
Beth Askold wrote: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?
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. |
Fyrhmn
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.05.25 01:38:00 -
[1047] - Quote
Shade Alidiana wrote:[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.
yeah the faction TE's are pretty much useless as they are now. and with the nerf. even more so |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
436
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 06:28:00 -
[1048] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Verity Sovereign wrote: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) 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.
You fail at logic.
You do half your paper DPS at 1 falloff, true, but irrelevant. If you look at your damage application curve, for a falloff based weapon it stretches 30% farther, whereas for an optimal based weapon, it only goes 15% farther.
If sans TE, the weapons are balanced with one hitting in falloff (autos) while the other hits in optimal (lasers), then by not extending this equally, the balance is strongly shifted towards the falloff weapon. (I would argue they are balanced, due to tracking, no cap use, selectable damage, and range of high damage ammo)
Furthermore, for a given range, increasing the optimal produces 0% increase in applied DPS if the base range> engagement range, however, the applied DPS of the falloff weapon goes up.
I can do math too. 1+1= 2. 2+4 = 6, therefore optimal bonuses must be larger Your "math" is about as relevant to the argument as my above "math" |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
44
|
Posted - 2013.06.02 10:10:00 -
[1049] - Quote
20% is a bit much in my opinion. I understand the module is powerful but it nerfs the turrets way too much. 80% of the cruisers I see right now are Caracals, I wouldn't be surprised if after this nerf 100% of them become Caracals (or Bellicoses). It will make missile ships way too overpowered (and I almost never use this word).
I think a better solution is 10% nerf to Tracking Enhancers and maybe a 5% buff to the scripted effects of Tracking Computers.
Quote: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.
I'm no psychologist but I doubt it will work this way. A lot of people aren't likely to keep flying the same setups if it no longer works as well. They'll likely abandon those fits altogether and deem them unviable and fly something that will do what their previous fits could do (like missiles boats). TE nerf also effects brawling setups too as range control is still very important even in scram range so it doesn't exactly make brawling any more viable or powerful, it just decreases the options on both styles of combat. So essentially it's not so much a trade off so much as it is a complete elimination of various options. |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
443
|
Posted - 2013.06.02 11:27:00 -
[1050] - Quote
Calgrissom Torvec wrote: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.
Now we'll actually have a use for aurora and tremor...
Well... not really, I found that by swapping scripts in TCs, Standard or IN Infrared would provide enough optimal (particularly using a locus coordinator 2 fr +20% optimal, since the elutriation won't be needed with the laser changes) , and IN standard outdamages and out tracks Aurora, while IN infrared does equal damage, and out tracks it (even with the TC tracking bonus discarded for more range).
So I guess its just the machs.
I'm actually looking forward to this, the machs range projection will get worse, while the NMs cap problems will get better.
I'm just annoyed that they are keeping the falloff bonus as 2x the optimal bonus. IMO, that was the problem in the first place. |
|
TRUTHY
the muppets DARKNESS.
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 13:33:00 -
[1051] - Quote
so it seems the cynaballs vagabonds shield sfi will no longer work... as they have crappy shield tank... relying more on speed and range to keep fighting..
my cynas and vagas and shield lokis goona make na abrupt stop in my hangar, dont going to risk a 500 mills cyna or a 1 bill loki or a 300 mills vaga.. to fight at ranges that a t1 gallente cruiser can do... or a amarr t1 cruiser will wreck...
so seems we all are going into a fight within noob web ranges... and then its gonna be really outraging seeing killmails of noob thoraxes killing vagas or cynas.. dont ....... plz dont try to contradict.... i know it willl happen...wait... and see a 5 millions cruiser beat the crap of a cyna....
then those rare expensive ships will be even rare to see in space as less ppl will use them.. armour cynas..... sooon????
just some ironic exemples...........
b+¦nus faction fitted arazu... points at 100km+ cruiser class---------- arty cane 110km gun range- reduced 30% ? 75km now?? b+¦nus rapier faction fitted rapier 90km web.. ------------ recent reduced tengu hevy missile range from 120 to 80km....
this just a random exemple and may not be exactlly acurate but the point is....
we are going to have some cruisers pointing and webing at ranges of noone else?????
it seems the range of engagements going to be shorter and the rules going to favour the numbers again.
it seems wen 180 heavy missile tengus were facing lots of carriers and supers.... someone sayd...we gotta stop that
it seems wen 180 rohks were facing 2x its sized fleet in bs and carriers... someone sayd we gotta stop that
small things may have big aplications..
and sometimes rules arent that inocent as we think
thx all fly safe pilots.... back to origins..... caracals ftw
|
Ro'Dauqa
SkREW CREW Local Down
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 13:36:00 -
[1052] - Quote
thanks CCP for making my favourite roaming ships complite rubish :S
sheild deimos / vigilat wich had ~30km range which wasnt overpowered or something 30km is atleast what u need for killing anything when being chased by blob... now they have 24km range ceptor tackles at 28km : ) and they have fallof bonus... what about unbonused ships? sheild 2 te thorax had ~22km range now they have ~18 which is joke...
my 100mn loki had ~ 30km range which was ok.... thanks, not going to pay bilion for a ship which wont hit frig at 25km : (
not going to fly any of those ships... just dont see the point of nerfit it. hate when ppl compare TEs to TCs, low and medium slots are different, those modules shouldnt give you same bonuses, low slot gives you dps and damage projection while mediums give a different stuff like ewar,propmod ect...
RIP kiting, were fun times. |
drake duka
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
14
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 16:51:00 -
[1053] - Quote
TE's only really made some gallente boats too strong. Minmatar, who totally relies on falloff gets shafted by the change. Even with "OP" te's, no minmatar turret boats were op except maybe mach. |
mPistoleroZ
Mythos Corp Nulli Legio
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 20:07:00 -
[1054] - Quote
Either nerfing or boosting (these few moments in EvE history) should be done 'softly'. -33% is alot and so is the boost in cruise missiles. You dont 'balance' anything like this.
PS. Nerfed is nerfed... it is not "balanced". We know it every time we see the term written and we prefer to see it written properly i.e. nerfed. |
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
129
|
Posted - 2013.06.06 20:47:00 -
[1055] - Quote
When are these going be unstickied to give Page 1 back to Player Posts? Odyssey is in and the Feedback and Issues threads are active. Why not replace these with a "Link Sticky" to those two threads?
We all know how lazy we are to go clicking...wait for it...past Page 3 of this Forum section. My Feature\Idea:-á Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee"
Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up! |
Bigg Gun
Flying Bags Inc. Bulgarian Space Federation
24
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 20:03:00 -
[1056] - Quote
we don't give a damn about tracking, why not nerf tracking and leave range bonuses alone. Balance the tracking aspect of the TE's with 33% reduction, leave the 2 more useful bonuses alone, or at least leave the falloff bonus alone |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9996
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 22:20:00 -
[1057] - Quote
TRUTHY wrote:so it seems the cynaballs vagabonds shield sfi will no longer work...
How much actual falloff have you actually lost from your "cynaballs vagabonds shield sfi"?
As in, before you had x+m optmal & falloff, and now you have y+n optimal & falloff. What are the numbers in actual metres?
(Hint: n is not 20% less than m)
1 Kings 12:11
|
Electra Magnetic
Hard Knocks Inc. Kill It With Fire
11
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 04:45:00 -
[1058] - Quote
Another major nerf aimed directly at the Amarr. Thanks for starting with weapon balancing first. Good to see that even though it has been acknowledged that one races weapons are useless... going after mid slot utility items is the place to start?
good logic. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
42
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 11:48:00 -
[1059] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:TRUTHY wrote:so it seems the cynaballs vagabonds shield sfi will no longer work...
How much actual falloff have you actually lost from your "cynaballs vagabonds shield sfi"? As in, before you had x+m optmal & falloff, and now you have y+n optimal & falloff. What are the numbers in actual metres? (Hint: n is not 20% less than m)
the problem with kiteing is that weapons of ships considered prey otdamage those of the kiteable ships... if you want to kite you have to stay in longpoint and are therefore screwed caus you barrage ac dmg for example is now not superior to the dmg of most ships at longpoint thats why im advocateing not to take back any buffs/nerfs but to make kite ships use long range weapons instead of boosted shortrange weapons so they can do the dps at range. (se hac thread and the vaga) you cant fix this mess when sticking to the old way |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
193
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 18:42:00 -
[1060] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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.
Armor tanking sucks because of the mass and speed impact. If it can't run away, it can't escape a blob. If it can't escape a blob, it won't be viable for small gang. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
678
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 19:45:00 -
[1061] - Quote
Electra Magnetic wrote:Another major nerf aimed directly at the Amarr. Thanks for starting with weapon balancing first. Good to see that even though it has been acknowledged that one races weapons are useless... going after mid slot utility items is the place to start?
good logic. TE's are low slot mods and RSB's don't directly affect weapon performance. Also since the nerf is equal to both falloff and optimal it hits all weapons equally. Really, what was your logic in that post? |
Zor'katar
Matari Recreation
138
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 20:35:00 -
[1062] - Quote
...why did this thread get stickied again? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
368
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 21:26:00 -
[1063] - Quote
Zor'katar wrote:...why did this thread get stickied again?
Maybe we'll get part 2 soon ... missiles added to TE's would be nice Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1018
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 23:16:00 -
[1064] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Zor'katar wrote:...why did this thread get stickied again? Maybe we'll get part 2 soon ... missiles added to TE's would be nice
Indeed *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 07:28:00 -
[1065] - Quote
I support this, little by little you are evening shield with armor tanking altho there is still much to go ;) btw part 2 ccp? |
Zor'katar
Matari Recreation
138
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 11:26:00 -
[1066] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Zor'katar wrote:...why did this thread get stickied again? Maybe we'll get part 2 soon ... missiles added to TE's would be nice But that would be its own thread, wouldn't you think? |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
302
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 11:41:00 -
[1067] - Quote
Zor'katar wrote:Harvey James wrote:Zor'katar wrote:...why did this thread get stickied again? Maybe we'll get part 2 soon ... missiles added to TE's would be nice But that would be its own thread, wouldn't you think?
Certainly hope so because if its one-mod to kill anything....brb training amarr recons. |
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
359
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 22:02:00 -
[1068] - Quote
A question has reached us if this thread got stickied again by mistake. The answer is no. It was re-stickied by CCP Falcon upon request.
Please do not ask why, because I honestly don't know. Time will tell.
ISD Ezwal Lt. Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
NEONOVUS
Saablast Followers
465
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 13:04:00 -
[1069] - Quote
You know maybe if you cleaned the residue of gun powder off your crystal ball from playing Minmatar you would see. Man the range near me has so much residue the ground has a metallic sheen. Im getting a respirator before returning.
Part 2 : Tracking links? Differing meta 4 and t2 mods for sensor boosting? |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
722
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 15:23:00 -
[1070] - Quote
TE nerf to nerf Minmatar?
What about the other weapon systems that use TEs?
*sigh* |
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1034
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 11:55:00 -
[1071] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:TE nerf to nerf Minmatar?
What about the other weapon systems that use TEs?
*sigh*
They get nerf for as much.
And: why not add 10% missile velocity to TE's, also why not change name from "Tracking enhancers" which is silly since they do both tracking and optimal? -change it for "Weapon System Enhancers" add missile bonus and everyone is happy. Plus it's not like if missile based ships had 7 lows right? *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 18:13:00 -
[1072] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Plus it's not like if missile based ships had 7 lows right? I wonder what a torp fleet phoon would be like in a world where missiles could use tracking enhancers. |
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
137
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 18:33:00 -
[1073] - Quote
The TE nerf never should have happened. Minni ships have not been 'OP' for years. Medium AC's are a horrible weapon system even before the TE nerf. The Vaga / Stabber / Cynabal / Cane all have HORRIBLE projection outside of 20K. The vaga / stabber in particular still have anemic DPS even with the hull falloff bonus.
The TE nerf also hurt gallente badly. Talos / Demios / Shield rax got hit really hard with the TE nerf and while the demios / thorax could kite just outside scram, are now forced inside when using blasters. Talos has to get even close to gangs, which considering its tank and lack luster speed is not something that it wants to do.
The TE nerf changed so many ships, and hit them very hard. It had had some effect on large turrets (however it did not cripple them like it did for MED). I have no idea why CCP wanted to nerf TE's. It seemed that the change was out of the blue. If CCP actually thinks that minni are OP, and the TE nerf was to bring them back in line- then they are many years late. Minmitar have not had a more powerful lineup than other races for a long time. In the kiting world in particular every ship falls on its face when compared to others (Outside of the scythe fleet issue).
If CCP had in mind to tone down the tier 3 snipers, then they need to just look at Tier 3's in general. Tier3's are the most OP ship int he game currently. They have completely eclipsed so many other sips types and made them obsolete. Tier3's even after the 'nerf' are just as broken as they were from day one.
So with the re-sticky of this thread I am hopeful that CCP is going to realyl take a hard look at the numbers in regards to TE's and re-think what it is they are trying to accomplish. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
443
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 18:53:00 -
[1074] - Quote
why nerf te? cause winmatard was everywhere |
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
137
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 19:44:00 -
[1075] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:why nerf te? cause winmatard was everywhere
I really would disagree with this. Do you have any specific examples of OP minni ships in the last few years? |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
186
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 23:30:00 -
[1076] - Quote
Hurricane and Rupture are the only ones. Maybe Rifter way back before the T1 frig buff. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
273
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 23:42:00 -
[1077] - Quote
Chessur wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:why nerf te? cause winmatard was everywhere I really would disagree with this. Do you have any specific examples of OP minni ships in the last few years?
If anyone has any logs of the eve kill top20, the evidence would be found there. Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
613
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 00:07:00 -
[1078] - Quote
Minmatar pilots cry because: TE was a direct nerf to us, we can't apply decent dps past 20km with short range guns using short range ammo.
Gallente pilots cry because: Screw you, we wish we could hit out to 20km.
Ammar pilots cry because: Our guns use too much cap.
Everyones response: Lol-scorch.
Caldari pilots cries because: We have so low dps with HM's.
Everyones response: We wish we could hit for 400 dps out to 100km, stop complaining.
Caldari cry because: Missiles does not hit for full damage.
Everyones response: Tracking disruptors don't work on missiles.
Did I miss out on anything? |
Drake Doe
SVER True Blood
245
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 02:42:00 -
[1079] - Quote
Am I the only true gallente pilot? Forget range, I have dps. "The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! *pops more corn*" ---Evernub-- |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1366
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 03:39:00 -
[1080] - Quote
Drake Doe wrote:Am I the only true gallente pilot? Forget range, I have dps. Ian here with you, stasis web > tracking computer! Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
|
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
443
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 05:59:00 -
[1081] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:Chessur wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:why nerf te? cause winmatard was everywhere I really would disagree with this. Do you have any specific examples of OP minni ships in the last few years? If anyone has any logs of the eve kill top20, the evidence would be found there. yup
it was like 12 ship types matar or more 1-2 gall 1-2 amarr 3-4 caldari
but i dont have the logs to prove it :(
in most used weapon there were mostly ac-s and arties
roaming/gate camp gangs usually consisted 90% minmatar and even in huge fleet there were many
if these are not enough to show it i cant see else to prove anything to the biased ones |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
747
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 11:58:00 -
[1082] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:....if these are not enough to show it i cant see else to prove anything to the biased ones Think that when it was at its worst you had 16 Winmatar hulls on that list, with Zealot being the Amarr representative, Tengu and Drake as Caldari emissaries and Talos waving the tattered Gallente flag.
Was just the one month though and it evened out somewhat as tiericide progressed, but it matters little as CCP has their own metrics that are unfathomable to anyone not dodging geysers when commuting .. I mean they must have for such prolonged dominant fads to even exist. |
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
137
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 15:10:00 -
[1083] - Quote
I feel that it would be a mistake to use eve top kill as a measuring stick to determine if a certain race was OP. Popularity doesn't mean OP. There is a big difference. You need to take into account what nul blocks were using as fleet doctrines at the time ext ext. If you can list for me specific examples as to why the minny ships were 'too good' I would like to hear about it. Because for years now they have been sub par for the most part.
|
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
313
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 16:37:00 -
[1084] - Quote
Chessur wrote:I feel that it would be a mistake to use eve top kill as a measuring stick to determine if a certain race was OP. Popularity doesn't mean OP. There is a big difference. You need to take into account what nul blocks were using as fleet doctrines at the time ext ext. If you can list for me specific examples as to why the minny ships were 'too good' I would like to hear about it. Because for years now they have been sub par for the most part.
You should have seen the citations from it in the HML nerf thread. God you'd think it was a sponsored link or something |
Drake Doe
SVER True Blood
246
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 19:15:00 -
[1085] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Drake Doe wrote:Am I the only true gallente pilot? Forget range, I have dps. Ian here with you, stasis web > tracking computer! Agreed, definitely agreed. "The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! *pops more corn*" ---Evernub-- |
Rune Scorpio
Xion Limited Primal Force
23
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:21:00 -
[1086] - 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.
Any plan to fix the mwd cloak exploit so those of us in lowsec can actually catch bc's and haulers on gates? Or was this just a general gatecamp nerf. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1043
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:31:00 -
[1087] - Quote
Rune Scorpio wrote:Any plan to fix the mwd cloak exploit so those of us in lowsec can actually catch bc's and haulers on gates? Or was this just a general gatecamp nerf.
The only fix is needed in your comment is graveyard camping, not smart use of something working as intended. Graveyard camping should bring more penalties than it does right now, higher SS hit since with tags introduction it's an easy activity far too much rewarding for the risk taken.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
680
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:21:00 -
[1088] - Quote
Chessur wrote:I feel that it would be a mistake to use eve top kill as a measuring stick to determine if a certain race was OP. Popularity doesn't mean OP. There is a big difference. You need to take into account what nul blocks were using as fleet doctrines at the time ext ext. If you can list for me specific examples as to why the minny ships were 'too good' I would like to hear about it. Because for years now they have been sub par for the most part. My experience is limited, but from what I've seen nullblock fights typically don't make to extensive use of short range guns over their long range counterparts, yet AC's still managed to dominate those lists.
Also the hurricane, rifter, SFI, vagabond and others I'm sure I'm forgetting were go to ships in their respective classes for quite a while pre-tiericide. |
|
|
|
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] |