| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dub Step
Death To Everyone But Us
38
   |
Posted - 2013.05.01 15:13:00 -
[1] - Quote
I assume the devs are aware of the prevalence of TD condors and other ships. It's particularly evident in Factional Warfare.
With this in mind, it seems maddening that they are considering a nerf to TE's which are becoming somewhat mandatory for certain kinds of PVP. In particular, low sec soloing, or low sec frigate PVP in general.
Suggestions I have heard since the general agreement is this is mostly an issue with frigates using these modules freely include increasing their cap requirement, or fitting requirements (obviously with some bonus applied to the smaller hulls that are supposed to fit them).
Does anyone else think this needs to be reconsidered?
|
Bad Messenger
Nasranite Watch
454
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 15:16:00 -
[2] - Quote
it does not matter how CCP nerfs or boost things, players just use setups that will work. |
Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin
Amarrian Commandos
908
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 15:17:00 -
[3] - Quote
i guess some guns still work too well with TDs on them that tend to fit TEs?
dunno, good point i guess.
Cosmic signature detected. . . .
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4375/mynewsig2.jpg
CCP Hilmar CEO > "why am i sweating, why is the game doing this to me"
|
Haulie Berry
566
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 15:20:00 -
[4] - Quote
Dub Step wrote:I assume the devs are aware of the prevalence of TD condors and other ships. It's particularly evident in Factional Warfare.
With this in mind, it seems maddening that they are considering a nerf to TE's which are becoming somewhat mandatory for certain kinds of PVP. In particular, low sec soloing, or low sec frigate PVP in general.
Suggestions I have heard since the general agreement is this is mostly an issue with frigates using these modules freely include increasing their cap requirement, or fitting requirements (obviously with some bonus applied to the smaller hulls that are supposed to fit them).
Does anyone else think this needs to be reconsidered?
TEs aren't the inverse of TDs. Tracking computers are the inverse of TDs.
|
Dub Step
Death To Everyone But Us
38
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 15:22:00 -
[5] - Quote
That depends on which scripts are used, but TE's are more commonly fit and more commonly viable to fit. If TC's were mandatory that would be even worse! |
Azurae
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
46
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 15:26:00 -
[6] - Quote
Dub Step wrote:That depends on which scripts are used, but TE's are more commonly fit and more commonly viable to fit. If TC's were mandatory that would be even worse!
i heard for tracking disruptors it would depend on the script too ;-) |
Dub Step
Death To Everyone But Us
38
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 15:28:00 -
[7] - Quote
OK. I'll update the OP for those that are not aware of the current metric. |
Haulie Berry
566
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 15:33:00 -
[8] - Quote
Dub Step wrote:That depends on which scripts are used,
...uh, no it doesn't depend on which scripts at all. TDs and TCs are mid-slot, active, cap-consuming, high-cpu mods.
Tracking enhancers are a low-slot, passive, cap-free, low-cpu mod....
Quote:but TE's are more commonly fit and more commonly viable to fit.
...and are more common because they are better than TCs in almost every conceivable way.
Less fitting? Check. No script? Check. No cap? Check.
An optimal scripted TC gives:
15% optimal
30% falloff
No tracking
A TE gives the same optimal and falloff bonus and, here, have 9.5% tracking on top of it because why the **** not.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
9050
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 15:34:00 -
[9] - Quote
The solution I favour is to significantly increase the cap use of TDs. Make it the most cap expensive EW.
It's Amarr EW, after all, and they're the cap race.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Dub Step
Death To Everyone But Us
38
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 15:35:00 -
[10] - Quote
I.E. they are viable counters to TD's, thus becoming mandatory. You don't seem to be keyed in to the particular issue I am talking about so kindly refrain from posting further. |
Dub Step
Death To Everyone But Us
38
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 15:37:00 -
[11] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:The solution I favour is to significantly increase the cap use of TDs. Make it the most cap expensive EW.
It's Amarr EW, after all, and they're the cap race.
This has so far been the best resolution. If you want it, you have to fit accordingly, and it conveniently imposes on kiting fits from using it so easily. |
Haulie Berry
567
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 15:38:00 -
[12] - Quote
Dub Step wrote:I.E. they are viable counters to TD's, thus becoming mandatory.
That does not make them "mandatory" any more than the existence of ECM makes ECCM "mandatory", or the existence of scrams makes afterburners and WCS "mandatory".
Quote:You don't seem to be keyed in to the particular issue I am talking about so kindly refrain from posting further.
I think I will instead take some delight in showcasing your complete impotence with respect to telling other people who is allowed to post what. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4103
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 15:40:00 -
[13] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:The solution I favour is to significantly increase the cap use of TDs. Make it the most cap expensive EW.
It's Amarr EW, after all, and they're the cap race.
Not a bad option.
I think we also need to keep in mind that missiles have long been considered inferior for PVP work. I can see value in the advantages turret ships have being offset by the fact that there is a very common counter that does not affect missiles in the slightest.
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. |
Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin
Amarrian Commandos
908
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 15:43:00 -
[14] - Quote
Dub Step wrote:Malcanis wrote:The solution I favour is to significantly increase the cap use of TDs. Make it the most cap expensive EW.
It's Amarr EW, after all, and they're the cap race. This has so far been the best resolution. If you want it, you have to fit accordingly, and it conveniently imposes on kiting fits from using it so easily.
These posts make too much sense for this forum!
Cosmic signature detected. . . .
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4375/mynewsig2.jpg
CCP Hilmar CEO > "why am i sweating, why is the game doing this to me"
|
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
597
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 15:44:00 -
[15] - Quote
TE are overpowered. It's a big problem with the nano faceroll shadowing everything else. This change helps armor tanking alot. |
Dub Step
Death To Everyone But Us
38
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 15:49:00 -
[16] - Quote
TE's may well be overpowered but the point of this discussion is that while they are facing a nerf, they are currently inherently valuable in countering an even more prevalent issue, which is the over-abundance of TD fits; particularly frigates in low sec. |
baltec1
Bat Country
6165
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 15:55:00 -
[17] - Quote
Dub Step wrote:TE's may well be overpowered but the point of this discussion is that while they are facing a nerf, they are currently inherently valuable in countering an even more prevalent issue, which is the over-abundance of TD fits; particularly frigates in low sec.
I have met zero TD ships in the last 2 years. Seriously, when was the last time any of us saw a sentinel? |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
974
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 16:15:00 -
[18] - Quote
I'm pretty certain the TE nerf is a halfhearted attempt to fix the state of unbalance in PvE between armour/shield tanks. The ancillary armour repper wasn't even a quarterhearted attempt PVP unbalance with local tank in my eyes ( so when is armour going to get a 3200mm Xlarge plate that BS can fit? ) so I guess its an improvement.
An' then [email protected], he come scramblin outta theTerminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system'scrashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children' |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
598
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 16:17:00 -
[19] - Quote
Dub Step wrote:TE's may well be overpowered but the point of this discussion is that while they are facing a nerf, they are currently inherently valuable in countering an even more prevalent issue, which is the over-abundance of TD fits; particularly frigates in low sec.
Double TD Condor     
We just have to be patient, i bet that the electronic warfare rebalance is just around the corner. |
Corey Fumimasa
Kiith Paktu
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
349
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 16:18:00 -
[20] - Quote
Dub Step wrote:TE's may well be overpowered but the point of this discussion is that while they are facing a nerf, they are currently inherently valuable in countering an even more prevalent issue, which is the over-abundance of TD fits; particularly frigates in low sec.
Get a budy to stay aligned to you in a fast lock sniper. Use drones and missiles or damps to force the condors in closer, or just avoid those fights. It sounds like you have a preferred fit that is vulnerable to TD kiters, that's actually not a game balance issue.
Slavery is self choosen, only the unclaimed are not free.
...Book of Reclaiming: Hall of the Goat
|
Zimmy Zeta
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
16928
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 16:25:00 -
[21] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:The solution I favour is to significantly increase the cap use of TDs. Make it the most cap expensive EW.
It's Amarr EW, after all, and they're the cap race.
You mean, after removing the cap bonus for laser weapons on almost every Amarrian ship, the next logical step would be to increase the cap cost of other typical Amarrian modules, just to be in line with the new rebalancing concept ?
Sure, why not, didn't want that cap anyway...
Just think of how bad an average post by me is, and then realize half of them are even worse |
baltec1
Bat Country
6166
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 16:27:00 -
[22] - Quote
Zimmy Zeta wrote:Malcanis wrote:The solution I favour is to significantly increase the cap use of TDs. Make it the most cap expensive EW.
It's Amarr EW, after all, and they're the cap race. You mean, after removing the cap bonus for laser weapons on almost every Amarrian ship, the next logical step would be to increase the cap cost of other typical Amarrian modules, just to be in line with the new rebalancing concept ? Sure, why not, didn't want that cap anyway...
The logic in making the most cap hungry ships drink even more cap is flawless |
Berluth Luthian
Meltdown.
68
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 16:39:00 -
[23] - Quote
Isn't one counter to TDs TPs? The thing is, for half the CPU of TDs you can reduce the effectiveness of a TD by 50-60% on the TDs target, and then the rest of the gang can get bonuses.
TP is like the anti-disruption EWAR, right? |
Zimmy Zeta
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
16931
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 16:53:00 -
[24] - Quote
Berluth Luthian wrote:Isn't one counter to TDs TPs? The thing is, for half the CPU of TDs you can reduce the effectiveness of a TD by 50-60% on the TDs target, and then the rest of the gang can get bonuses.
TP is like the anti-disruption EWAR, right?
TP doesn't help against optimal range disruption, if you TD the enemy enough to be outside of optimal +2x falloff, his guns become basically useless.
Just think of how bad an average post by me is, and then realize half of them are even worse |
Andrea Griffin
343
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 16:55:00 -
[25] - Quote
Just wait until tracking disruption affects missiles, too. You won't find a PvP ship in Eve that doesn't carry a TD.
CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer. |
baltec1
Bat Country
6166
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 17:17:00 -
[26] - Quote
Andrea Griffin wrote:Just wait until tracking disruption affects missiles, too. You won't find a PvP ship in Eve that doesn't carry a TD.
Much like how you cant find any without a falcon in tow... |
Dub Step
Death To Everyone But Us
38
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 17:24:00 -
[27] - Quote
That is pure bullshit, there are plenty of engagements that dont involve a falcon. Kindly stay on topic. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4105
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 17:27:00 -
[28] - Quote
Zimmy Zeta wrote:Berluth Luthian wrote:Isn't one counter to TDs TPs? The thing is, for half the CPU of TDs you can reduce the effectiveness of a TD by 50-60% on the TDs target, and then the rest of the gang can get bonuses.
TP is like the anti-disruption EWAR, right? TP doesn't help against optimal range disruption, if you TD the enemy enough to be outside of optimal +2x falloff, his guns become basically useless.
Which touches on a related note, Target Painters.
When I think of someone "painting" a target it is to enable accurate weapons fire, usually from a position that would not normally be able to target the objective.
The current bonuses on Target Painters are fine, but perhaps they could stand a buff to also effectively increase the locking range for all vessels attempting to lock the target painted ship. This would give another (excellent) reason to mount target painters (they are a bit underused at the moment) and bring up their perceived value compared to other EW.
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. |
Spurty
V0LTA
Verge of Collapse
842
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 17:29:00 -
[29] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:
Which touches on a related note, Target Painters.
When I think of someone "painting" a target it is to enable accurate weapons fire, usually from a position that would not normally be able to target the objective.
The current bonuses on Target Painters are fine, but perhaps they could stand a buff to also effectively increase the locking range for all vessels attempting to lock the target painted ship. This would give another (excellent) reason to mount target painters (they are a bit underused at the moment) and bring up their perceived value compared to other EW.
Makes so much sense it'll never happen.
---
GÇ£If you think this Universe is bad, you should see some of the others.GÇ¥
GÇò Philip K. **** |
baltec1
Bat Country
6166
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 17:30:00 -
[30] - Quote
Dub Step wrote:That is pure bullshit, there are plenty of engagements that dont involve a falcon. Kindly stay on topic.
I see you do sacasm too well. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |