| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Elite Saiyajin
Negative Transversal
Forsaken Asylum
1
   |
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:21:00 -
[31] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Since we're giving TDs, RSDs, and Painters the ability to overheat in Rubicon 1.1, we are also going to be reducing their base strength slightly to compensate.
The TL:DR is that all Tracking Disruptors, Remote Sensor Dampeners, and Target Painters will have their base effectiveness reduced by 10%, and at the same time be given the ability to get a 20% effectiveness through overheating.
This means that compared to current TQ values, these modules will be 10% worse when not heated, and 8% better when heated.
If you are going to reduce the base strength then you should also reduce base capacitor costs. None of these modules are overly effective, and they all use extreme amounts of cap for already minimal benefit.
I like the idea of adding the option of overheating to these modules, but not at the cost of losing effectiveness. It really upsets me when a module is nerfed to the point that even when overheated it is less effective than before. My suggestion would be to do a 5% nerf for base effectiveness AND cap use, then make it a 10% increase effectiveness for overheating. That makes a fair trade off.
|
KiithSoban
Big Johnson's
PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
25
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:22:00 -
[32] - Quote
I am not familiar with the formulas for heat generation (as many of are not), so about how long can you overheat for each of these ewar modules for?
For benchmark purposes, use the t2 version.
We know that not all overheat is created equal. (ex: ECCM vs webs)
I want to see logi appear on killmails! (by just repping)-á See CSM "reasonable things" |
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
1201
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:27:00 -
[33] - Quote
KiithSoban wrote:I am not familiar with the formulas for heat generation (as many of are not), so about how long can you overheat for each of these ewar modules for?
For benchmark purposes, use the Meta 4 version.
We know that not all overheat is created equal. (ex: ECCM vs webs)
Fixed that for you as who uses T2?
Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee"
Undocking - More Routes Out of Station
Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up! |
KiithSoban
Big Johnson's
PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
25
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:38:00 -
[34] - Quote
Maximus Aerelius wrote:KiithSoban wrote:I am not familiar with the formulas for heat generation (as many of are not), so about how long can you overheat for each of these ewar modules for?
For benchmark purposes, use the Meta 4 version.
We know that not all overheat is created equal. (ex: ECCM vs webs) Fixed that for you as who uses T2?
Agreed, but I said T2 for the reason that not every newbro knows that meta heats longer than T2. I was requesting that our dev quoted T2 instead of meta so that that "not so well kept" secret would remain "not so well kept" instead of "common knowledge" As an eve player, it is ingrained in me to keep my foes as uneducated as possible while keeping my allies and myself as educated as possible.
I want to see logi appear on killmails! (by just repping)-á See CSM "reasonable things" |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
177
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:39:00 -
[35] - Quote
TPs are nearly useless, if you CCP nerf them further more you can remove them from the Game. |
Gimme more Cynos
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
120
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:40:00 -
[36] - Quote
I think Fozzie is affraid that TP's might provide more of a benefit than webs if TP's are left alone.
I can't imagine that this could happen, but If it's not that, I can't explain the TP nerf :/ |
Iudicium Vastus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
227
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:50:00 -
[37] - Quote
As plenty mentioned already, unbonused ewar could use the nerf, but the dedicated and specialized ships however should not feel this nerf.
Maybe go through with the reduction across the board on the modules, but then up the bonuses of the dedicated hulls such as Keres Sensor Dampener effectiveness from 7.5% per level to 8-10% as to perform the same on cold SDs as it did before, while shining even more as a true ewar platform when they do decided to overheat for short bursts.
Again, toss my vote with the growing sentiment of unbonused ewar needing a nerf. Not the dedicated platforms running cold.
Nerf stabs/cloaks in FW? No, just..
-Fit more points
-Fit faction points
-Bring a friend or two with points (an alt is fine too) |
handige harrie
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
182
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:58:00 -
[38] - Quote
So you make modules worse 90% of the time, so they can be slightly better 10% of the time, making pilotting Solo PVP ships for newbs even harder (dealing with more possiblities), giving experienced players even more of an advantage.
Seems CCP forgot modules aren't only used in PVP. There is this thing called PVE I know it's not your fort+¬ Fozzie, but balancing everything for PVP only seems like a dumb thing to do, when the majority of your playerbase only does PVE.
Baddest poster ever |
Jelani Akinyemi Affonso
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
66
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:57:00 -
[39] - Quote
Hi
Is there any plans in the future of iterating or buffing the TP?
As a Minmatar pilot, I feel like our racial primary ewar is weak compare to the others. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
633
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 19:03:00 -
[40] - Quote
Gimme more Cynos wrote:I think Fozzie is affraid that TP's might provide more of a benefit than webs if TP's are left alone.
I can't imagine that this could happen, but If it's not that, I can't explain the TP nerf :/
well i think TP's are fine actually .. the problem is that webs are so much better... i have a rapier myself and it is armour tanked so it has plenty of free mids to use TP's .. but guess what it is full of webs instead ... and people say webs aren't OP .. please
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.. remove drone assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1951
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 19:06:00 -
[41] - Quote
handige harrie wrote:So you make modules worse 90% of the time, so they can be slightly better 10% of the time, making pilotting Solo PVP ships for newbs even harder (dealing with more possiblities), giving experienced players even more of an advantage.
Seems CCP forgot modules aren't only used in PVP. There is this thing called PVE I know it's not your fort+¬ Fozzie, but balancing everything for PVP only seems like a dumb thing to do, when the majority of your playerbase only does PVE.
That fact is lost on him.
It is no wonder the question of the week in the blogsphere is why is Eve online rate plateauing.
Of course, the answer is so obvious, when we have announcements from CCP like we have had in the past 48 hours.
Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning.
The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Tarek Raimo
Eleutherian Guard
Villore Accords
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 19:14:00 -
[42] - Quote
Hello Fozzie
Have you considered rebalancing armor plates for more realism when it comes to heat. I mean, by even the most liberally stretched rules of physics it makes no sense that a 1600mm plate would melt as easily as a 200mm one. Shouldn't the heavier plates have more structure hitpoints to absorb more heat? |
Canthan Rogue
The Graduates
RAZOR Alliance
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 19:16:00 -
[43] - Quote
Your stealth Tengu/Golem/SNI nerf is a really bad idea, please change it back. Thx in advance. |
Oh Takashawa
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
9
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 19:23:00 -
[44] - Quote
Good changes all in all - care to offer your thoughts on why ewar effectiveness is much more bound up in the modules than the hulls, comparatively speaking? I happen to think unbonused ewar is a bit too strong, but it doesn't seem to be something CCP wants to change, so I'm curious as to why you feel unbonused ewar is acceptable in its current state. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
909
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 19:31:00 -
[45] - Quote
Nerfing TP's is unnecessary and bad(imo). Everything else is fine assuming you can't get TD'd over 100% with the changes.
A tp nerf is a:
nerf to PvE missile boats. (drones seem to be way more common these days anyway)
nerf to torp bombers (which in the current meta are only really used against structures anyway).
nerf to any other pvp boat dumb enough to use torps.
None of those things are good, imo. |
trader joes Ichinumi
Perkone
Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 19:48:00 -
[46] - Quote
Gimme more Cynos wrote:I think Fozzie is affraid that TP's might provide more of a benefit than webs if TP's are left alone.
I can't imagine that this could happen, but If it's not that, I can't explain the TP nerf :/
TPs should give a bigger boost to damage as thats most of what they do. Webs are amazing for dictating range. |
Jason Itiner
Fleet of Fog
46
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 19:53:00 -
[47] - Quote
I agree with all those saying that a reduction of Target Painters is unnecessary. Overheating them for a greater signature bloom on the target is all well and good, but since they are most used in missions, which aren't 30 second things usually, overheating to regain the lost functionality would quickly destroy the module.
The only way I can see this resolved is by making the target painters exceedingly hardy (lots of structure HP, like in a Bastion module, and giving them very low heat emission values). |
Onslaughtor
Alexylva Paradox
74
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:06:00 -
[48] - Quote
I would agree with the TP statements. I like the new direction, but I feel that a 10% nerf is a bit to harsh to start off with for them. I would recommend trying a 5% nerf and still have the 8% gain. If that proves to not be effective then you can change it, and no one will likely disagree. |
Tilde Keys
RedHat Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:11:00 -
[49] - Quote
CCP I "really" hate to make this statement but, you seem to be making nerf choices when it comes to PVE/PVP like another company we all know...
http://blizzard.com |
Katrina Oniseki
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
2907
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:14:00 -
[50] - Quote
TP nerf was entirely unnecessary. Leave them as is and offer a 15% overheat increase if you're worried about them being better than webs, or even just 10%.
Ch+½j+ì Katrina Oniseki
~ (RDC) Chief Operations Officer
~ [I-RED] Director of Public Relations |
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
629
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:14:00 -
[51] - Quote
Target painters don't need a nerf. That's not the best decision. CCP should rethink it.
Remove insurance. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
8519
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:33:00 -
[52] - Quote
TD and SD nerf is fine, TP nerf doesn't really make any sense. If you really think overheated TP would be overpowered with this change then just reduce the overheat gain. People will still use it from time to time even if it's only a 10% gain.
My EVE Videos |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland
Test Alliance Please Ignore
480
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:52:00 -
[53] - Quote
For the mathematically challenged, the new heat bonus amount of 18% is figured as follows (1-.1)*1.2=1.08. This is .18 (18%) above the new base sigRad modifier.
tl;dr: These modules will be only gain 8% more effectiveness than it has now, and that is only while overheated. Not impressed.
Free Ripley Weaver! |
Kasumi 'Goto
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:55:00 -
[54] - Quote
Please CCP dont nerf the TP. It is one of the few modules that can be used to help missiles, especially torps which need extra help. Mean while turrets still have many modules to help them. If your going to nerf TP's can you atleast do it when you give missiles the precision modules you have mentioned ? |
Theon Severasse
SniggWaffe
WAFFLES.
62
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:04:00 -
[55] - Quote
TPs need a slight buff really not a nerf.
Also while you're at it the faction TPs could probably do with getting a more significant increase in their performance, as is, you only gain 2-3% in strength (soon to be reduced apparently), for an extra 10 CPU and increased cap use. I would suggest at they should be 5-6% stronger and have the same cap use as the meta 4 ones do, for maybe 5 CPU more.
Maybe give the T2 variant a 2% strength increase over the meta 4, but leave it's fitting and cap use as is. |
trader joes Ichinumi
Perkone
Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:15:00 -
[56] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello again! This thread will cover the changes to the base stats of Tracking Disruptors, Remote Sensor Dampeners, and Target Painters alongside the expansion of heat to these modules. I advise reading the Heat Iterations post before this one. Since we're giving TDs, RSDs, and Painters the ability to overheat in Rubicon 1.1, we are also going to be reducing their base strength slightly to compensate. The TL:DR is that all Tracking Disruptors, Remote Sensor Dampeners, and Target Painters will have their base effectiveness reduced by 10%, and at the same time be given the ability to get a 20% effectiveness through overheating.
This means that compared to current TQ values, these modules will be 10% worse when not heated, and 8% better when heated.The fact that this change reduces the power of these modules a bit for extended engagements and increases their power for shorter bursts is intended. Ewar already lends itself well to longer fights, and now with the ability to increase effectiveness in short bursts more player decision making can play a part in the use of these modules. These changes will be live on SISI very soon for you to try for yourself, and we look forward to your feedback on these changes and the others we have announced for Rubicon 1.1. Thanks!
Your calculations don't account for people with bonuses to ewar already. Those all get nerfed too. For instance, someone with a 50% to ewar normally is only doing 3% better when overheating than they are currently. A 75% bonus brings that down to 1.43% better.
This also significantly bridges the gap between an ewar ship and regular ship. A perfect skilled hugenn, for instance, is only 42% better than a regular pilot with a target painter(if neither have any TP skills, investing in that makes the ewar ship look even worse).
If your goal was to nerf ewar ships and skills, this will accomplish that. |
Del Vikus
Gradient
Electus Matari
111
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:47:00 -
[57] - Quote
I don't mind the changes to Damps and Disruptors, but with Painters, you're just digging them a deeper grave. Their use-value is already incredibly situational. And what EWAR ship, in a big fleet fight, is going to risk burning out their painter? For a measly sig bloom bonus that, in balance, is less than where it was to begin with?
I understand the need to keep things simple -- as a design philosophy, simple is almost always better. But in this case, you've out-simplified the problem, and created a new one.
|
Lucas Quaan
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
67
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:47:00 -
[58] - Quote
The first two minutes of every tournament match ever just got 8% less lock range. |
Oxide Ammar
Equilibrium Tech Labs
37
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:48:00 -
[59] - Quote
You think Fozzie care about nerfing missile boats with this TP change ? absolutely not...he only here to inform you what they are going to do either you like it or not.
so much for feedback ..eh ? |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS type X
122
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:49:00 -
[60] - Quote
pve nerfed TPs is a horrible idea. How about leaving them as they are and just adding in the 8% bonus when overheated. Then pve retains what it needs and pvp gets a bit of a boost.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |