EVE Search - Sticky:Balancing Feedback: New Tech2 modules

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Sticky:Balancing Feedback: New Tech2 modules

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)

CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 17	Posted - 2011.11.04 11:16:00 - [1] - Quote This is the feedback thread for the new Tech2 module variants, please post comments in here. Thanks for your time.

Junky Juke Delta Division. 7	Posted - 2011.11.04 14:11:00 - [2] - Quote First? oh yeah! Ok updating sisi, ready to test new stuff...
Two step Aperture Harmonics K162 391	Posted - 2011.11.04 14:29:00 - [3] - Quote My reply got eaten, here goes again. T2 triage mod is still underwhelming (as mentioned on the CSM forums...). It needs to either boost local reps or remote rep range, plus it should be 2 more targets than T1. Another option would be less cap use on local/remote reps. Also, T2 siege/triage mods are too cheap to build. They are only about 10 mil over T1 costs. CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog What does CSM 6 do?
Arkady Sadik Gradient Electus Matari 168	Posted - 2011.11.04 14:40:00 - [4] - Quote The T2 siege module seems to be kind of excessive, bonus-wise - 20% more dps is harsh. But it gives an incentive to use it. The T2 triage modules on the other hand is extremely weak. +1 lockable target, 20% more target range, and slightly less LOz consumption - I'm unsure why I'd put money into this. Especially as the Archon is likely the only carrier with sufficient pg to actually fit it with no problem (carriers need a rebalance, btw, see the capital thread). No opinion on the new warfare links. I'm not sure whether I want them to be boosted while their main application in high-sec seems to be being used on an alt (or on a POS in low-sec), but the values don't seem excessive. I have not yet been able to check how the MAPC II will affect things in practice. It will make some frigate fits viable that were not possible before, which is both good and bad. It might be necessary to rebalance some frigates with this module. The Bomb Launcher II is also a bit underwhelming. Maybe give it a larger capacity so you can fit one more bomb into it? Means one more bomb run without resupply if you can fit it, which is much more of an advantage than a few seconds less cycle time. The probe launcher will make sister launchers useless - maybe give it a slightly lower bonus than Sister ones? Tractor beam bonus is great. Less annoyance during missions. Warp Disruption Field Generator II is interesting. 36km disruptor range is a true bonus - not overheatable, but it gets competetive with the Gallente recons for some fleets. Especially as the tank is much better. I'm not sure if this is good or bad. Drone modules. I'm not sure if this is going to make them used in combat. A true boost to them would be to make them all high-slot modules (lose guns/missiles for better drone efficiency), but that would require some careful thought. All in all, I liked what I saw. But all implications are difficult to tell, you should really keep an eye on the development. Especially as the availability of some modules tends to have chain reactions to some balance of some ships that were quite balanced before, but suddenly aren't anymore.
Ampoliros Aperture Harmonics K162 0	Posted - 2011.11.04 15:25:00 - [5] - Quote T2 triage is very weak and needs a buff. An extra locked target and a stront reduction is fairly weak and certainly not worth 25-30d of training. Considering carriers have 100km lockranges (and at most a rep range of 57km or so) in most systems, a 20% lockrange bonus is nearly useless, as well. I'd either recommend -additional local rep bonus (which would help with dread boosts coming in) -keep the lockrange boost and add a 20% rep range boost as well -heat generation reduction/overheat bonus something along those lines. T2 triage should be worth it in some way; as it stands on Sisi, it's really not.
Frothgar V0LTA VOLTA Corp 0	Posted - 2011.11.04 15:51:00 - [6] - Quote I'm rather pleased with the T2 siege module, Dreads might actually be something worth looking at now. Still skeptical that it will happen due to the current LOLOL Supercapital blob mechanics, but its a step in the right direction. A dreadnaught at its optimal with close range guns should have never done less damage than a supercarrier could at 200km. T2 Triage seems a bit underwhelming. Scan rez was never an issue, nor was stront consumption. Perhaps rethink the bonuses on this one.
KrakizBad Eve Defence Force Fatal Ascension 41	Posted - 2011.11.04 16:22:00 - [7] - Quote +1 For the issues with the triage module. As on sisi currently, it's not worth the train. For the bomb launcher, if regen time is the only buff for it, Bomb Deployment 4 not 5 would be a better choice imo. I might grind 4, but I sure wouldn't grind 5 for a few seconds faster launch. Perhaps give it a different attribute worth the grind? With this change to probe launchers, sisters become Meta 4's pretty much. Cool, but maybe in this case add it to the market bar like you did the probes?
Zarak1 Kenpach1 Aperture Harmonics K162 0	Posted - 2011.11.04 16:48:00 - [8] - Quote Two step wrote: My reply got eaten, here goes again. T2 triage mod is still underwhelming (as mentioned on the CSM forums...). It needs to either boost local reps or remote rep range, plus it should be 2 more targets than T1. Another option would be less cap use on local/remote reps. +1 This is something that needs to be addressed now and not next year please.
ITTigerClawIK Galactic Rangers Galactic-Rangers 38	Posted - 2011.11.04 17:39:00 - [9] - Quote Triage needs a cap reduction bonus or rep amount for local/remote reps, the thing is like putting yourself in a coffin and a lock range bonus is not much help.
Arkady Sadik Gradient Electus Matari 168	Posted - 2011.11.04 17:43:00 - [10] - Quote I'm not sure triage really needs a boost - it is as is already a major unbalancing factor for small- to mid-scale warfare, and difficult to counter. So I'd be against making T2 triage better at RR (which includes cap, the main weakness of triage). Possibly at local rep, though. Or, well, if you adjust the Archon to be closer to other carrier cap values, I guess giving the T2 triage some cap bonus would work. ;-)

Dondoran Free Masons United Inc. Fidelas Constans 0	Posted - 2011.11.04 19:25:00 - [11] - Quote CCP come on T2 gang links thats just to much 35.2% bonus from a tech3 WIN FIX off grid boosting its the right thing to do remember fleet command ships
Circumstantial Evidence 16	Posted - 2011.11.04 20:26:00 - [12] - Quote Agree with KrakizBad. Bomb launcher: timing changes don't help fleets; bombing groups have to wait for the slowest member to be repositioned and ready, for a second coordinated bomb run on target(s). Buff capacity, damage, sig rad, area of effect, or some other attribute(s). A buff to bomb resist would allow more to be used in coordinated strikes in a single run.
Kalot Sakaar CragCO 14	Posted - 2011.11.04 21:12:00 - [13] - Quote VERY much like the new gang links! Don't have a command ship yet to test them on but singles on the BC's work nicely. Interdiction Maneuvers! Hell yes! Stop complaining about off grid boosts. Just use some tactics and scan the ship down. He can't keep them on on in warp either so its totally easy to counter off gird boosters.
Laechyd Eldgorn draketrain 16	Posted - 2011.11.05 09:31:00 - [14] - Quote Repair range must never get any further than it is with current carriers with t1 triage. Repair range is essential thing to consider when you fight capital supported fleet with subcaps. Increasing repair range means a great deal in pvp. Not to mention increasing repair amount or repair cycle speed might be just game breaking change. Capital reps on subcaps are very tricky business especially on smaller scale fights. It might seem a good idea to boost capital reps when you do sanctums or C6 wh's but in pvp it's different :/
Lyria Celeste Umbrella Chemical Inc. ROMANIAN-LEGION 0	Posted - 2011.11.05 11:41:00 - [15] - Quote Quote: The probe launcher will make sister launchers useless - maybe give it a slightly lower bonus than Sister ones? Seconding this. The only advantage of the Sisters Core Proble Launcher compared to the T2 is less CPU Requirement, would be nice if there would be something else that sets them appart since CPU is seldom a Consideration when fitting Ships for probing. Edit: I think its fine for the expanded ones, the t2 has a bit more launch time and the difference in CPU Requirements is bigger so taht it actually makes a difference for fits.
Miquela Valheru Empire Science and Production Agency V3SPA Community 0	Posted - 2011.11.05 14:57:00 - [16] - Quote is there a list or dev blog about this already? I can't find it.
Hungry Eyes Ministry of War Amarr Empire 63	Posted - 2011.11.05 14:58:00 - [17] - Quote whats the cpu requirement on the omnidirectional tracking link II
Arkady Sadik Gradient Electus Matari 174	Posted - 2011.11.05 18:30:00 - [18] - Quote As I'm currently copying siege module blueprints: You probably want to look at the copy times for some of these modules :-)
Nevare Wong Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse 0	Posted - 2011.11.05 19:58:00 - [19] - Quote Hungry Eyes wrote: whats the cpu requirement on the omnidirectional tracking link II It's 39 cpu the same as the what the fed navy version is on tq, however currently on sis the fed navy is now at 36 cpu With such low fitting requirements and the same pre-reqs as the tech 1 version this will make the fed navy version worthless. This needs to be changed. A tech 2 mod should not have the same skill requirements as a tech 1 mod. I would suggest at the least that it should require drone sharpshooting 5 and possibly sentry 5. Otherwise there is no reason to ever fit the fed navy version except for slightly lower cpu, which really would only be for the ishtar since the domi has plenty of cpu for sentry fits anyways.
Nevare Wong Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse 0	Posted - 2011.11.05 20:04:00 - [20] - Quote Arkady Sadik wrote: As I'm currently copying siege module blueprints: You probably want to look at the copy times for some of these modules :-) This has been mentioned and there was a dev reply saying that they would be looking at the copy time. post 4

Lili Lu 17	Posted - 2011.11.05 23:44:00 - [21] - Quote Dondoran wrote: CCP come on T2 gang links thats just to much 35.2% bonus from a tech3 WIN FIX off grid boosting its the right thing to do remember fleet command ships Agreed. Tech III command subsystem stepped all over command ships. Possibly the increased cpu requirements of tech II links will negate some of the tech III faggotry, but probably not enough of a fitting cost to prevent the tech III idiocy. Tech III should not do command, hac, recon, etc better than tech II. You really ****** this up. Make links only work on-grid and that will restore command ships to their rightful place at the top of providing buffs.
Unforgiven Storm Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation 57	Posted - 2011.11.06 04:12:00 - [22] - Quote Last night I used my 4M points to train tactical weapon Reconfiguration to level 5 in a second. We undock a small dread fleet to kill a titan, I used the new T2 Siege module. This is my report: Differences between t1 and t2: 700 -840 damage multiplier (20% difference) -75% - 70% scan resolution bonus (6,66% difference) locket targets 2-3 (33% difference) first we can see there is no coherence between the values! The numbers seem to have been given by chance. The locket target needs to be an integer so I understand the 33%, but the scan resolution difference should be in the same percentage than the damage difference -> 20%. 6,66 is a joke, its nothing! we went to battle: First I want to report a bug, my weapons where grouped but I got the damage report in the monitor of only one gun: [ 2011.11.05 01:45:28 ] (combat) Your Rift Citadel Torpedo hits NTT Neverdie [SDG]<SOLAR>(Erebus), doing 4002,2 damage. I looked in the logs and in there I can see 3 entries separated... should I've the report sum the 3 hits and report me the total when weapons are grouped? [ 2011.11.05 01:45:28 ] (combat) Your Rift Citadel Torpedo hits NTT Neverdie [SDG]<SOLAR>(Erebus), doing 4002,2 damage. [ 2011.11.05 01:45:28 ] (combat) Your Rift Citadel Torpedo hits NTT Neverdie [SDG]<SOLAR>(Erebus), doing 4002,2 damage. [ 2011.11.05 01:45:28 ] (combat) Your Rift Citadel Torpedo hits NTT Neverdie [SDG]<SOLAR>(Erebus), doing 4002,2 damage. (I want to say that the logs I copy to here are of armor hits and the titan was stopped.) now the surprise...The titan starts aligning and I get this: [ 2011.11.05 01:45:42 ] (combat) Your Rift Citadel Torpedo hits NTT Neverdie [SDG]<SOLAR>(Erebus), doing 2579,2 damage. I will assume that the there is a bug because I do not want to belive a titan was tanking some damage by going 50m a second! It went from 4002 to 2759! no capital should tank another capital weapon just because its moving!!! please check this because that explosion velocity penalty in siege seems to be causing this!? (later the titan died in a big of fire) My final conclusions: To use weapon Reconfiguration a pilot needs level 5. This means a 32 to 40 days training depending of implants and how the pilots attributes are mapped. 32 days is a long time! the only thing this module offers is a 20% damage bonus from a t1. The scan resolution bonus is a joke! the locked target bonus nobody cares since in a cap fleet we follow the primary and lock the secondary, having 3 targets makes no difference in a dread, the time it takes to kill a capital is big so we have time to lock another target before we kill the current one, no need for more. So in the end, 32 days just for 20% more damage! For a ship that we give very few use and wen it comes out normally goes in a fleet were there are other 30 to 40 capitals, that means my 20% more damage capability makes no difference at all in the middle of all the combined fleet DPS. Sorry but I don't see any reason to train to 5 just to get this module. Having in mind that only a small % of the eve pilots fly capitals and from these pool only a even smaller %has a dread, and from that pool only a few really use them nowadays, this module is going to be very rarelly used... -> one dead horse Please review its access conditions. To be used by dread pilots re-thing the level the pilot has to train the Tactical weapon Reconfiguration before it can use it. My recommendation goes to L4. If L5 is to stay them rethink the bonus this module gives in comparation to the t1 module, because like it stands is not worted and its a total waste of training time.
Gecko O'Bac Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 2	Posted - 2011.11.06 13:43:00 - [23] - Quote erm... Just wanted to ask something... Are you saying that a TWENTY PERCENT damage boost is nothing? You do realize that most increments in eve are for 5% or 3% damage per skill level? here with just one more skill level you basically gain what other skills need 4 levels to achieve. 20% damage boost is HUGE. And it's not only that, since there are the locked targets bonus AND the resolution bonus. While the resolution bonus by itself may be small enough to be barely noticeable, it's on top of the other changes and believe me, on ANY ship, if there was a module that could grant a 20% increase in damage, everybody would be fitting it.
Vilgan Mazran Aperture Harmonics K162 0	Posted - 2011.11.06 14:00:00 - [24] - Quote T2 triage module seems really underwhelming. Ohter than that, changes look good.
Scrapyard Bob EVE University Ivy League 280	Posted - 2011.11.06 14:57:00 - [25] - Quote Lyria Celeste wrote: The only advantage of the Sisters Core Proble Launcher compared to the T2 is less CPU Requirement, would be nice if there would be something else that sets them appart since CPU is seldom a Consideration when fitting Ships for probing. CPU is actually a huge issue on certain fits (especially for fits using the expanded launcher, such as recons and covops) and the Sister expanded launcher with the lower CPU is the only one you can possibly use.
Voith Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2011.11.06 15:56:00 - [26] - Quote The T2 Drone upgrades really make it clear the Ishtar needs some more CPU.
Hungry Eyes Ministry of War Amarr Empire 76	Posted - 2011.11.06 19:26:00 - [27] - Quote Nevare Wong wrote: Hungry Eyes wrote: whats the cpu requirement on the omnidirectional tracking link II It's 39 cpu the same as the what the fed navy version is on tq, however currently on sis the fed navy is now at 36 cpu With such low fitting requirements and the same pre-reqs as the tech 1 version this will make the fed navy version worthless. This needs to be changed. A tech 2 mod should not have the same skill requirements as a tech 1 mod. I would suggest at the least that it should require drone sharpshooting 5 and possibly sentry 5. Otherwise there is no reason to ever fit the fed navy version except for slightly lower cpu, which really would only be for the ishtar since the domi has plenty of cpu for sentry fits anyways. i agree with you, and ive no issue with that considering ive both at 5. im happy it doesnt have insane CPU requirements.
Matuk Grymwal Firebird Squadron Terra-Incognita 0	Posted - 2011.11.07 02:03:00 - [28] - Quote T2 gang links seem okay. A nice boost over T1, but not too overpowered. I agree with other posters regarding T3 boosters needing a nerf though. Reducing boost amount and/or on grid boosting all seem reasonable ideas to me. New siege module looks pretty good, bonus amounts seem fine to me. Totally agree on the underwhelming triage module.
Yvan Ratamnim Phoenix Evolved Part Duo 37	Posted - 2011.11.07 02:20:00 - [29] - Quote How about for triage T2 add cap-regen 15% bonus while in siege mode, that will help more than most other things, hell i'd train for it if it did that lol and i have to agree with the siege T2... a t2 sieged dread can't hit a barely moving titan?! havent tested the others yet...
Zarak1 Kenpach1 Aperture Harmonics K162 0	Posted - 2011.11.07 03:59:00 - [30] - Quote Lili Lu wrote: Dondoran wrote: CCP come on T2 gang links thats just to much 35.2% bonus from a tech3 WIN FIX off grid boosting its the right thing to do remember fleet command ships Agreed. Tech III command subsystem stepped all over command ships. Possibly the increased cpu requirements of tech II links will negate some of the tech III faggotry, but probably not enough of a fitting cost to prevent the tech III idiocy. Tech III should not do command, hac, recon, etc better than tech II. You really ****** this up. Make links only work on-grid and that will restore command ships to their rightful place at the top of providing buffs. if you took the time to invest in your skill plan properly you would see that FCS' still are better than t3 booster



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.