What about giving a small buff to the worst tracking ammo to compensate though? I mean tremor from an artillery Nag doesn't currently even track an Archon perfectly if they are moving in the right direction and I can't see that being intended. Or just rather fix all of the ammo that have insane tracking penalties to be at least worth considering.

So you're nerfing capital turrets so that we have to Overload a module to be able to hit anything.

Yeah, I can see the logic there............

Basically, this is an awful idea, titans can't hit anything at the moment anyway, my suggestion:

Tracking Penalty when Siege Module activated.
Fin.

Oh joy making my titan even more ****. will i even be able to track a station now ?

This is what happens when a man with no formal education raised by the Amish happens to "play" internet spaceships.

@ CCP Fozzie and CCP :

You guys once more, in eve history, hear the out cry of your goon brothers and act upon it.

It's amazing how i still pay this **** tbh, every single time goons are losing, here comes the rescue team from CCP.

I hope you guys realize this is another nail in EVE coffin, slowly but surely, you will end up with nothing but goons alone in your servers because everyone else got fed up with this bias towards goons

I had tought CCP would have had the finesse of waiting until the very end of the war before doing radical changes that clearly favor one side.

wtb nag gun that fires tremor

Got my EFTs mixed up. I can't remember now what I was thinking but I'm pretty sure there is a situation where long range guns still have problems tracking capitals. Not as bad where Aeons could speed tank capital missiles but still pretty awful stuff.

@ CCP Fozzie and CCP :

You guys once more, in eve history, hear the out cry of your goon brothers and act upon it.

It's amazing how i still pay this **** tbh, every single time goons are losing, here comes the rescue team from CCP.

I hope you guys realize this is another nail in EVE coffin, slowly but surely, you will end up with nothing but goons alone in your servers because everyone else got fed up with this bias towards goons

Got my EFTs mixed up. I can't remember now what I was thinking but I'm pretty sure there is a situation where long range guns still have problems tracking capitals. Not as bad where Aeons could speed tank capital missiles but still pretty awful stuff.

Thanks!

You mean, the war where Naglfars are trying to alpha Archons ? I'm sure they will be able to handle the loss of 5% of their tracking just fine.

one important bit of info I'm missing here... WHY?


Also, "the effect would be slightly negative" so we'll nerf them further?

A phoenix can blap a hound as long as the hound has 2 non bonused tp's and 2 non bonused webs on it
capitals can speed tank a phoenix to a degree but with 2 target painters will reverse the effect of speed tanking nearly, disregarding having target painters on the capital it will hit for just over 50% damage before resists this is a nidhoggur with all speed lows

and then the changes to being able to oh different modules

just saying

its a good buff to dreads if you want to deal with overheat damage if not the tracking not ohing is not to much of a problem

can see why the nerf to guns was needed, else would need to be nerfed after everyone relises the bonus's to a dread using oh with the old tracking

As in, "the effect would be bad for the game because tracking dreads are already capable and this would increase their tracking further allowing them to blap more things".


Hooeeh! A Phoenix can blap a ship that's got around 2k EHP with a 100k+ volley as long as it's hardly moving, suffering massive sig bloat, and I'd assume it has an MWD running. Heavens, blap Phoenix doctrine, here we come!

it's time to eat drop. Tons of drop.

Hello again! This thread will cover the changes to the base tracking stats of all capital turrets alongside the expansion of heat to Tracking Computer modules.

I advise reading the Heat Iterations post before this one.

When expanding the ability to overheat to Tracking Computers, we investigated the effects that the change would have on different levels of turrets and the doctrines that use them. With the help of the CSM we have identified that the effects on Capital Turret tracking would be (slightly) negative so we're making a small tweak to them at the same time as the heat expansion.

In Rubicon 1.1 the tracking speed of all Capital Turrets will decrease by 5%.

This means tracking will be 5% down vs current TQ values when not overheating any TCs, about 2% down when overheating one T2 TC, and about 1.5% up when overheating two T2 TCs. Using higher meta TCs makes the crossover faster.

These changes will be on SISI very soon for you to try out for yourself, and as always we look forward to hearing your feedback.

Thanks!

How about adjusting the something to make the Phoenix a better dread or is it going to be the whipping child for the rest of Eve existence?

Will my Erebus even be able to hit a carrier?

- Carriers are OP, what should we do?
- NERF DREADS!! YOHOO!
facepalm

So did the Phoenix just get better?

Hello again! This thread will cover the changes to the base tracking stats of all capital turrets alongside the expansion of heat to Tracking Computer modules.

I advise reading the Heat Iterations post before this one.

When expanding the ability to overheat to Tracking Computers, we investigated the effects that the change would have on different levels of turrets and the doctrines that use them. With the help of the CSM we have identified that the effects on Capital Turret tracking would be (slightly) negative so we're making a small tweak to them at the same time as the heat expansion.

In Rubicon 1.1 the tracking speed of all Capital Turrets will decrease by 5%.

This means tracking will be 5% down vs current TQ values when not overheating any TCs, about 2% down when overheating one T2 TC, and about 1.5% up when overheating two T2 TCs. Using higher meta TCs makes the crossover faster.

These changes will be on SISI very soon for you to try out for yourself, and as always we look forward to hearing your feedback.

Thanks!

this is the most terrible ******** ******* idea ccp has had yet. you have been tyring to get more caps used so you NERF DREADS. you useless ******** dumb ******* morons. sell eve to a ******* competent company NOW you useless fucks.

this is the most terrible ******** ******* idea ccp has had yet. you have been tyring to get more caps used so you NERF DREADS. you useless ******** dumb ******* morons. sell eve to a ******* competent company NOW you useless fucks.

Please explain yourself. This change makes no sense at all. Do you even play Eve? Have you ever used a dread or Titan?

There has got to be a better way to balance overheating than this ham-fisted swipe at capital turrets.

Please explain yourself. This change makes no sense at all. Do you even play Eve? Have you ever used a dread or Titan?

I advise reading the Heat Iterations post before this one.

What are they suppose to track after changes?! Stations?

Pretty sure dreads are supposed to shoot other capitals or sov structures.

Not blap sleepers in wh and subcaps in 0.0

Oh joy making my titan even more ****. will i even be able to track a station now ?

it's time to eat drop. Tons of drop.

What do you have against close range dreads?

They only work well under very specific circumstances right now, I doubt an overloaded 6% increase in potential tracking would truly help them that much considering their range of potential targets would remain about the same..


Though I don't think this will affect titans much, From what I remember an Avatar cannot hit an Abaddon even if both ships are sitting @ 0 M/S.

and there problem solved a cheap synt drop will give 3% ish so bye bye nerf

Pretty sure dreads are supposed to shoot other capitals or sov structures.

Not blap sleepers in wh and subcaps in 0.0

This nerf makes me want to stop buying the PLEX for dreadnoughts program I've run for my corp--I use my real life money to buy PLEX form CCP and the give dreadnoughts to people who need them.

I am a C5 wormholer, and while I will definitely adapt and change, its probably going to be a hit for revenue--and not just for me, but for YOU, CCP.

If you keep making Titan's and dreads useless, there will be less and less demand for them. If there is less demand, you will loose a large source of revenue, as I know there are people affluent enough in life to PLEX for caps and super caps. I COULD, but I have no desire for one...

They are already balanced and easily fall prey to a t3 swarm. I'd just say, don't put in overheating on tracking computers... I don't really care for it...

Finally the dread nerf that all my fellow GOONOOBS have been crying for! Thank you Fozzie for listening to the mountains upon mountains of posts (never mind that I can't find them right now, I'm sure they're around here somewhere) calling for the nerfing of dreads!

I like this change. Helps to bring the other dreads inline with the phoenix. Either that or buff the phoenix.

Are you implying that tracking dreads didn't already use drop?

Clearly, the solution is to just have dozens of spare TCs in your cargohold, and just refit the burnt out ones over the course of the battle

I'm going to reserve judgment until Fozzie actually explains the reasoning.

What specific situations was 5% tracking too much, or putting dreads over the top?

Was it a specific fit? Situation?

I (and I assume others) are just wondering...Why?

It's like they're taking our sub money and using it to buy really good drugs on Silk Road with bitcoins or some **** because I don't know where the hell these ideas are coming from

The reasoning should be pretty obvious. He kinda went out of his way to make sure it was understood this was not in isolation so there wasn't any existing situation since the thing being compensated for isn't out yet.

The relevant question is, is it justified.

In Rubicon 1.1 the tracking speed of all Capital Turrets will decrease by 5%.

This means tracking will be 5% down vs current TQ values when not overheating any TCs, about 2% down when overheating one T2 TC, and about 1.5% up when overheating two T2 TCs. Using higher meta TCs makes the crossover faster.

These changes will be on SISI very soon for you to try out for yourself, and as always we look forward to hearing your feedback.

Thanks!

You all new this was coming...

Stealth Buff to Phoenix!

It is of course valid to ask for the reasons of a change, nothing wrong with that!

I can't even fly a dread and I think this is silly. I remember trying to web down a battleship for our dreads to hit and it was almost impossible which is fine but when they have trouble hitting carriers we have a problem

But you can't overheat indefinitely, so it's a net nerf.

I think this should be pretty easy to understand, so there must be some larger reason.

Things tend to be balanced off of peak performance, regardless of sustainability.

I would like to remind everyone to please stay constructive. It is of course valid to ask for the reasons of a change, nothing wrong with that! Constructive feedback is always welcome.

But this is a really strange way of approaching "peak performance."

It's based on a theoretical fit which people may or may not field.

Furthermore, by forcing players to overheat to get to where they were, you sort of artificially dictate to the players what peak performance represents to that ship, and then balance around that....Even though other players may not share that view of peak performance -- and those players get hit.

I'm OK with certain levels of fit dictating -- Cov Ops Cloak is a good example of that. Triage, Bastion. Etc.

But when it gets to a point where you're dictating a fit right down to tracking computers/enhancers it gets a little bit silly.

I think the concept of balancing around "peak performance" is good, but it needs to be a fuzzy/blurry version of peak performance, or you risk the threat of balancing around an edge case.

And if you are balancing a ship around the edge case of a fit -- it might be that specific modules are the problem rather than the ship itself.

It's a strange move to buff a module type and then nerf the ships that use the module when it's not exactly a keystone module or anything.

How about answering those questions then...

In one line with dirt you mean? Nerf 3 instead of boosting/fixing 1? lol

While reserving judgement regarding this change, it doesn't make sense to me to NOT consider edge fits, simply because those fits being edge cases now doesn't guarantee they will remain so due to being carelessly buffed.

The other issue you mention, that the mod may be the issue, I'd be more inclined to lean that direction when all affected configurations need changed. It reminds me of arguments in the resist bonus nerf thread citing RR as being the OP element, not the combination of RR and those bonuses, and suggesting RR be globally nerfed thus all non resist bonused ships under RR nerfed when they were never identified as problematic. Similarly to that situation you suggest nerfing all ships regardless of weapon size that fit TC's instead of one class. It's arguably an even more haphazard approach than what Fozzie is already announcing.

With the help of the CSM we have identified that the effects on Capital Turret tracking would be (slightly) negative so we're making a small tweak to them at the same time as the heat expansion.

You definitely have to consider edge fits, but they have to be targeted and excluded from the rest. My point about balancing around an edge case is that if you do it broadly, you can unintentionally nerf things that aren't a problem.



Hrm. I'm not sure about all this. I didn't propose any particular change. I subscribe to the RTS School of Balance -- which may or may not be derided in this community.

The school is: you change as little as possible to have the effect you want. You always divide things into smaller and smaller sections to identify the one specific number that needs to be changed -- and change it by the smallest amount to bring the offending edge case back in line.

The smaller the total set is of changed things there are, while still killing the edge case -- the better the balance change was. That's one thing I like about the RTS approach -- they always seek the most elegant/minimalist approach possible except in things like expansions or massive content changes.

You have a blurry view of what peak performance relatively represents (comparing fits to other fits), but no absolute magical power number to "balance" around.

For instance you would almost never see a change like:
"All medium units move slower."

There's a pretty big issue there for that balance method to work. With regard to tracking there is a small set of numbers: skills, base weapon tracking, and module/implant modifiers; and furthermore all but one effects a much wider range. So really, in this case "All medium units move slower." is still pretty narrow when compared to "All units move slower" or "All non-medium units move faster"

I disagree.

There's a lot of numbers.

For instance:
Each ship's individual tracking speed.
Each gun for each ship's tracking speed (the modules)
The overheat bonuses
+ all the other ones you mentioned.

I would classify "all dreadnoughts track 5% slower" as a very broad change.

Instead of nerfing to placate the CFC and Goonswarm Fozzie, maybe when the CFC picked up their CSM/CCP Batphone and whined and b!tched someone in CCP could have had the ballz to tell them to ESCALATE!


ESCALATION = PROBLEM SOVLED!



Totally disapprove of a change like this in the middle of a War! Srsly?

I'm not really in the mood for nit picking too much. I already edited my post to say the tracking speed of the ships (bonuses - if any) before you replied -- as verified by timestamps.

That'll be the end of the nitpicking on my end.

All I really stated was that I disagreed that there wasn't enough individual numbers to play with. I see a lot of numbers.

Instead of nerfing to placate the CFC and Goonswarm Fozzie, maybe when the CFC picked up their CSM/CCP Batphone and whined and b!tched someone in CCP could have had the ballz to tell them to ESCALATE!


ESCALATION = PROBLEM SOVLED!



Totally disapprove of a change like this in the middle of a War! Srsly?

I would like to remind everyone to please stay constructive. It is of course valid to ask for the reasons of a change, nothing wrong with that! Constructive feedback is always welcome.

I expect to see plenty of jetcanned, burnt out tracking computers next to my dread. v0v

Not sure why there are so many tears. It's not like tracking computers are much more expensive or larger than ammo.

You all new this was coming...

Stealth Buff to Phoenix!

I intend to refit them off a carrier, mobile depots have too few hp to be reliable place to refit. You also cant repair a burnt out module with paste, inconvenient for those that live in wormholes. Carrying more tracking computers also implies less cap sticks for injector refit v0v

Refitting isn't a new concept nor is it an exploit.

Constructive criticism: Virtually everyone posting here thinks this change is a bad idea and not needed; therefore, why make the change? Don't we essentially pay you guys for a game? Why do something a huge major of your paying customers seem to not want?

#Constructive-Criticism

Actually theres an even bigger stealth nerf to the phoenix as well, with the TP reduced by 10% in effectiveness, that means that missiles against a similar size target on average have 5% less damage projection. Against smaller targets the damage projection gets much much worse.

But no worries, you can also overheat your target painter, to get your damage up slightly again... You do realise ofcourse that Capital guns get an even better bonus from target painters then Capital missiles do in comparison....

To everyone saying "oh I'll just swap out my tracking computers when they get destroyed from overheat":

Have you not overheated before? Other modules take heat damage as well. Are you going to carry multiples of all your other midslot modules so that you can replace them as well whenever they get destroyed?

I made some graphs to demonstrate the effect of a 5% tracking nerf.

The first demonstrates the effect of the tracking nerf on chance to hit. The second demonstrates the effect of the nerf on expected dps, which is slightly different than the effect on chance to hit because :ccp:. The third shows the ratio of expected damage after the nerf to expected damage before the nerf. All three graphs assume that everything other than tracking is remaining unchanged--i.e., you are in the exact same ship, exact same fit, exact same skills, exact same target, exact same positions (optimal and falloff), etc. etc..

In the worst-case scenario, when the target's transversal is approximately 3.3x your tracking, you lose about 8.5% damage. However at that point you're only doing (pre-nerf) about 8% of your paper DPS anyway, so you should probably try to fix that. In more realistic cases the 5% tracking nerf results in a less-than-5% loss in damage, because of the way the damage formula works.

TL;DR: 5% tracking nerf is not nearly as big a deal as you think it is.

To everyone saying "oh I'll just swap out my tracking computers when they get destroyed from overheat":

Have you not overheated before? Other modules take heat damage as well. Are you going to carry multiples of all your other midslot modules so that you can replace them as well whenever they get destroyed?

Hello again! This thread will cover the changes to the base tracking stats of all capital turrets alongside the expansion of heat to Tracking Computer modules.

I advise reading the Heat Iterations post before this one.

When expanding the ability to overheat to Tracking Computers, we investigated the effects that the change would have on different levels of turrets and the doctrines that use them. With the help of the CSM we have identified that the effects on Capital Turret tracking would be (slightly) negative so we're making a small tweak to them at the same time as the heat expansion.

In Rubicon 1.1 the tracking speed of all Capital Turrets will decrease by 5%.

This means tracking will be 5% down vs current TQ values when not overheating any TCs, about 2% down when overheating one T2 TC, and about 1.5% up when overheating two T2 TCs. Using higher meta TCs makes the crossover faster.

These changes will be on SISI very soon for you to try out for yourself, and as always we look forward to hearing your feedback.

Thanks!

Why nerf again? Only few % use owerload.

I made some graphs to demonstrate the effect of a 5% tracking nerf.

The first demonstrates the effect of the tracking nerf on chance to hit. The second demonstrates the effect of the nerf on expected dps, which is slightly different than the effect on chance to hit because :ccp:. The third shows the ratio of expected damage after the nerf to expected damage before the nerf. All three graphs assume that everything other than tracking is remaining unchanged--i.e., you are in the exact same ship, exact same fit, exact same skills, exact same target, exact same positions (optimal and falloff), etc. etc..

In the worst-case scenario, when the target's transversal is approximately 3.3x your tracking, you lose about 8.5% damage. However at that point you're only doing (pre-nerf) about 8% of your paper DPS anyway, so you should probably try to fix that. In more realistic cases the 5% tracking nerf results in a less-than-5% loss in damage, because of the way the damage formula works.

TL;DR: 5% tracking nerf is not nearly as big a deal as you think it is.

You're ruining what was a perfectly good rage thread with ~FACTS~

Thanks a lot Aebe. You had to go and be that guy with the graphs and everything

It is barely a noticable nerf. Use you brain and don't jump on the brainless wagon. Blaping dreads are just OP. There needs to be a penalty on the siege module so the Dreads can't even "look at" anything smaller than a BS.

I would like to remind everyone to please stay constructive. It is of course valid to ask for the reasons of a change, nothing wrong with that! Constructive feedback is always welcome.

[snip]

Well, to be fair those aren't exactly well scaled graphs. The last one (overall DPS) is particularly offensive in that regard.

Eg he talks about an 8.5% damage difference - but nowhere on those graphs do I see what would visually represent 8.5% - that's a pretty big indicator that things are scaled funny/selectively.

The last graph is intentionally scaled from 0 to 1, which is the only reasonable scale when discussing a ratio which is bounded between 0 and 1. Anything else would be misleading.

Erm. What?

Considering the actual plots don't even traverse below .85 on the y axis I would start by not rendering anything below that so that you can see finer resolution where it's relevant - as in relative gains/losses (if you're using Excel -- right click the Y-axis and click format axis, and force the minimum to a number closer to .8)

Again - you mentioned an 8.5% damage increase in a situation. Where do I see that 8.5% difference visually with these graphs?

Is it supposed to be emphasized by that poorly scaled slight hump where 85% of the graph is white space?

Because his goal is to demonstrate the magnitude of the DPS change visually as well. A scale from 0.8-1.0 doesn't necessarily do that since it doesn't show a total range of possible reduction to compare to the actual data plotted.

You're right.

They could have just scaled the all the damages right down to zero.

What was I thinking.

Erm. What?

Considering the actual plots don't even traverse below .85 on the y axis I would start by not rendering anything below that so that you can see finer resolution where it's relevant - as in relative gains/losses (if you're using Excel -- right click the Y-axis and click format axis, and force the minimum to a number closer to .8)

Again - you mentioned an 8.5% damage increase in a situation. Where do I see that 8.5% difference visually with these graphs?

Is it supposed to be emphasized by that poorly scaled slight hump where 85% of the graph is white space?

FYI, in real life I am a statistician, and I suspect I spend a lot more time reading and thinking about data visualization than you do. The scaling you suggest would draw gasps of horror from statisticians everywhere.

Edit: Typo

So I guess this is kind of like a Phoenix buff.

If their TP fleet support wasn't just nerfed, it could be.

What is this, some kind of urination contest?

I too come from a technical background -- but never have I met a statistician worthy of his salt who emphasized white space or worried about the psychological interpretations of his data.

I believe the profession you are discussing is called marketing.

Draw grasps of horror from statisticians? What? It's like scaling the change in value of NASDAQ based on the concept that it could go to 0 at any moment. We're looking at relative change -- not some weird marketing ploy.

ou must not have met very many good statisticians. A good place to start in the literature would be with a classic like Tufte's "The Visual Display of Quantitative Information" (link)--which, by the way, heavily emphasizes the importance of whitespace.

trying too hard 0/10 troll.

thread is about dreadnoughts and titans

Yes please do tell................9 pages later and still crickets.............

> Be Pinky Hops
> Lose argument
> Accuse opponent of being troll

Why?

Seriously- this is the question we need answered first and foremost.

An argument about what?

Credentials and what your particular statistics bible is?

EVE is real...apparently.

Meanwhile carriers and domi sentry blobs get to roam free with the broken drone assist mechanic and the drone negative damage bug that allows you to instapop ships.

you guys just don't get it, do you?
this is ccp way of trying to boost the Phoenix ;

p.s. by nerfing all other dreads to the phoenix lvl

I would like to remind everyone to please stay constructive. It is of course valid to ask for the reasons of a change, nothing wrong with that! Constructive feedback is always welcome.

Here's another way to look at the tracking nerf: Link.

Given a dreadnaught that does an average of 10,000 dps under ideal conditions--this is the number that EFT/EveHQ/Pyfa will give you as the dps--this is the amount of dps lost after the 5% tracking nerf, varying with the target's radial velocity. It peaks just below 1, where you are losing about 3.6% of your paper DPS due to the nerf (4331 dps pre-nerf, 3975 dps post-nerf).

TL;DR: The 5% tracking nerf never makes you lose more than 3.6% of your paper dps.

The fact that both the CFC and N3/PL are both going OMFGWTF R U DERING CCP?!?!?!?!? has me concerned

But the CFC totally bribed CCP to make this change none of us asked for.

I would like to remind everyone to please stay constructive. It is of course valid to ask for the reasons of a change, nothing wrong with that! Constructive feedback is always welcome.

Here's another way to look at the tracking nerf: Link.

Given a dreadnaught that does an average of 10,000 dps under ideal conditions--this is the number that EFT/EveHQ/Pyfa will give you as the dps--this is the amount of dps lost after the 5% tracking nerf, varying with the target's radial velocity. It peaks just below 1, where you are losing about 3.6% of your paper DPS due to the nerf (4331 dps pre-nerf, 3975 dps post-nerf).

TL;DR: The 5% tracking nerf never makes you lose more than 3.6% of your paper dps.

waa waa waa - big PL supercap blobber wants his guns to track subcaps again.

it is getting done because otherwise you could start tracking subcaps again which is not the purpose of a dread.
fin

only if you are going 0 speed and the station are shooting hasnt been bumped you insane ******* ****. in combat, after a hot drop, the chances of you not moving are slim moron. get some experience in capitals before you try posting here again. as i have already told you.

I would like to remind everyone to please stay constructive. It is of course valid to ask for the reasons of a change, nothing wrong with that! Constructive feedback is always welcome.

So you clearly didn't read or understand his post at all.
He doesn't need any experience with capitals, all he needs to know is the math.

It would be useful if Fozzie did that, and actually explained the reasoning behind this. "Lol TCs can now be overheated so riprip everyone elses tracking" is an incredibly pisspoor arguement.

So in one day you've managed to nerf TP's and capital turrets. Your making bad decisions for all the wrong reasons. Your player base has told you what needs fixed, what needs looked at, and what doesn't need to be in the game at all. Yet you insist on adding unneeded and unwanted changes. Then you have the gaul to ask why your subscription base is dwindling?

You nerf the crap out of missiles, then a few expansions later nerf the missile boats, now it's the TP...another missile nerf.

You nerfed dreads a few expansions ago turning the Phoenix into an even more worthless heap. Now you nerf the rest of the dreads to bring the Phoenix back up to snuff but then nerf the TP at the same time effectively nerfing the Phoenix even more. Bad ideas are bad ideas CCP. These are all bad ideas. Fix what's broken and maybe you'll quit bleeding players from the game.

dat sarcasm.

I was not being sarcastic. Learn to read and learn to math.

With the help of the CSM

such pubbie much moron.