Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
CaesarGREG2
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.11.16 22:54:41 -
[151] - Quote
they shouldnt be effective beyond falloff. CCP made it wrong.
Moac Tor wrote:CaesarGREG2 wrote:5.Most important module should disable automaticly if beyond Fallof range like now beyond optimal. U shouldnt activate it when beyond range!!!!!!!! Your nos and nuet is still effective beyond falloff range though, so that would be a nerf if we cannot neut or nos beyond falloff. Also why would you not want to activate nos / neut beyond falloff and yet be happy to do the opposite with guns and other EWAR?
|
Madrax573
Bastion of Mad Behaviour
17
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 00:59:43 -
[152] - Quote
they are just bringing them inline with guns. You can open fire at any range if you can lock them.
IMO apart from the large variants this change is just a nerf to small and medium cap warfare. Less effectiveness across the board. Is small/med cap warfare that OP it requires a nerf? Not IMO. Just another nail in the coffin of minnie ships that were somewhat useful with nos/neut fitted....
The universe is my playground
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3458
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 04:12:00 -
[153] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Bienator II wrote:neuts (assuming nos too) turn off automatically when you are completely out of range - thats great thanks for listening ccp. http://i.imgur.com/PLP6nJy.png This is stupid, the whole point was having neuts and nos behave more like guns and other ewar. The pilot should have the freedom to choose when to activate or deactivate their nos / neuts without needing CCP to implement a mechanic to nanny them. And I can think of many situations where it will be favourable to leave nos or neuts running when out of range so it is reducing the potential of options available in the sandbox. It is a good point about the icon showing when they are out of range though, but perhaps it could be greyed out such as the case with other EWAR effects.
i am not sure if that was the point of the module rebalance (the goals are not even mentioned in the OP). I assume it is more likely to make it less binary and add the incentive to come closer to your targets. Having mods not turning off makes piloting easier, a sentinel can set up the neuts once and kite around with less module micro management. "enable everything and see what happens" is also not the most exciting gameplay.
the ewar icons are very important in combat. They allow you to make choices what to engage. Having a neut icon on everything on grid is just as if there would be no icons at all. If those icons could communicate how much you are actually neuted from what, maybe it would be different, but i am not sure if eve's spreadsheet based UI could do that. The easiest fix to that is to make them turn off just like currently on TQ once they are ineffective.
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
Zockhandra
Jewish Zeppelin Mafia
20
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 13:28:20 -
[154] - Quote
Just curious, is this going to effect neuting drones at all? It just seems that if your changing the neutraliser modules (which im still not really fully sure as to the why, though i like the potential it brings battleships to neut out those annoying ceptors and slicers at 32km) It would be a good idea to fix some of the more....less useful utility drones.
|
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
180
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 01:14:12 -
[155] - Quote
This isn't just a tiericide, it's a giant nerf to energy neutralizers for anyone that can't afford the new deadspace mods. Is there a reason for this? Some data to say that neuting ships were overpowered? Or is this just another CCP YOLO balance pass? |
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
278
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 02:39:54 -
[156] - Quote
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:Neuts were indirectly nerfed when nos was made more effective against them by increasing their cycle time, this further nerf is entirely unnecessary.
I know balancing is sort of a give and take thing. But I find it sadly hilarious that CCP's reasoning for this balance pass seems to be, "Well, we're going to take some range off of your neuts. But don't worry! To balance that, we're going to give you the opportunity to embarrassingly cap yourself out in the middle of combat!"
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
HeXxploiT
Big Diggers Get Off My Lawn
189
|
Posted - 2015.11.19 04:21:13 -
[157] - Quote
Rather surprised this hasn't been discussed more.
This is the most interesting tiericide yet because it's not only moving into popular offensive weapons but because the tiericide project is being combined with actual changes to module functionality which I would think would be a no brainer but for whatever reason these two were previously done at different times.
I'll assume the lack of discussion is a good thing. |
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
283
|
Posted - 2015.11.19 19:01:14 -
[158] - Quote
The Armageddon fit that I used to use can no longer fit the full rack of neuts without a PG implant. Currently it does all that with room to spare, but not with the new modules (tested on SiSi). Since that is a ship centered around those modules, and it used to be able to before this incoming nerf, is there any plan to increase it's PG to compensate? The neuts themselves are still getting nerfed, so there's no reason this ship needs a double nerfing - of the modules it can use and a nerf of those modules itself.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Perkutor Jakuard
YUHU - FRENTE POPULAR DE JUDEA Mordus Angels
0
|
Posted - 2015.11.20 19:45:46 -
[159] - Quote
In my opinion this is a nerf for ships that doesn't have neut bonus. If you neut at fallof you'll expend more cap that your oponent, so you can end without cap faster. So you must fly under their optimal range.
I know I'm a Minmatar freak.
Minmatar frigs ships really needs the assistance of NOS and neuts to survive in 1vs1 and small gangs. I you don't uses a Nos your cap will run out before your Armor Ancilliary ends the nanite, so you'll probably die. Neuts has been an also standard for slashers and rifters, making able to dry active tank ships and kill them.
Slasher and rifters are already quite difficult to fly. The flexibility that you need in these weak ships will be reduced as your range get reduced.
Many cruisers uses neuts to counter-attack frigates, with links and overheat you can be webbed at 16km where your medium neuts will be under 50% of effect.
Neuts/Nos was already fine.
|
aldhura
Bartledannians
18
|
Posted - 2015.11.20 20:28:49 -
[160] - Quote
Will this see the introduction of scrips to improve range in the future ?
Bartledannians are recruiting.. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6150832#post6150832
|
|
Alexis Ford
Good Names All Gone
3
|
Posted - 2015.11.22 11:51:13 -
[161] - Quote
Realy ?
i am not commenting on the Values or Fall off or Optimal.
Doesn't anybody realise that this Tiricide is again MASSIVLY reducing Isk from Loot again AND removing several 100b Isk out of the game ?.
again we crumbled the Meta 4 moduls with a nerfbat . Armorplates ... Meta 4 changed into ISK worth crap Inertia Stabs .... Meta 4 changed into ISK worth crap some Launchers .. Meta 4 changed into worthless crap Bulkheads ... etc.
and cause we removed 2 Meta levels we doubled the droprate .
lets get it on .. we have plenty more meta 4 which needs to be smashed to crap. Moduls worth 3-4 million ISK went down to its minerals value over night. Thats the new way to "silently" remove several 100b of isk in worth out of the game, and no one seems to react to it.
Beside these "Isk deleting": Its taking so much of the game when loosing these "special Meta 4" Items. You were able to get neraly T2 moduls power without training for weeks to it. And of course these had a pricetag, and they didn't drop like candy.
Now we have: T1, Compact , Scoped, T2, "The rare ****" ... so we are getting more and more so you can explain a no brainer on his first day: ... go for T2 or buy *bling bling*
Eve was so special with these "special hidden items" and not: 1-C-S-2-Expensive
We loose more than we get each tiericide goes "online".
It feels like the only use for "below T2" will be "for the minerals" in the future. Last time this happend was for the drone regions which then got a "small" loot-nerf. |
Zen Dad
Solitary Sad Bastard in Space II
292
|
Posted - 2015.11.22 12:08:44 -
[162] - Quote
Current PG and skills let me fit 3-4 unstable meta 4's and a small nos on my Curse - whats going to be in my hangar after the patch ?
|
Xavior Harkonnen
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2015.11.22 22:57:44 -
[163] - Quote
Alexis Ford wrote:Realy ?
i am not commenting on the Values or Fall off or Optimal.
Doesn't anybody realise that this Tiricide is again MASSIVLY reducing Isk from Loot again AND removing several 100b Isk out of the game ?.
...
lets get it on .. we have plenty more meta 4 which needs to be smashed to crap. Moduls worth 3-4 million ISK went down to its minerals value over night. Thats the new way to "silently" remove several 100b of isk in worth out of the game, and no one seems to react to it.
Beside these "Isk deleting": Its taking so much of the game when loosing these "special Meta 4" Items. You were able to get neraly T2 moduls power without training for weeks to it. And of course these had a pricetag, and they didn't drop like candy.
...
We loose more than we get each tiericide goes "online".
It feels like the only use for "below T2" will be "for the minerals" in the future. Last time this happend was for the drone regions which then got a "small" loot-nerf. I don't see how this is ISK deleting, unless I haven't noticed, you can't sell stuff to EVE someone has to buy it from you with their ISK. All that is being done is potential ISK making is being reduced to where it should be. T1 should be the cheapest, named T1 should be slightly more expensive because they can't be manufactured (this could take a while to achieve because day one we will see a lot of the same named modules saturating the market), and T2 should cost a lot more then T1 stuff due to invention, time, and materials needed to manufacture. The rest follows risk reward. As to the reason people are not reacting to this is probably because it was not a secret to begin with. CCP wrote a dev blog back in September 2014 about the new meta structure of modules. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
910
|
Posted - 2015.11.22 23:55:58 -
[164] - Quote
Zen Dad wrote:Current PG and skills let me fit 3-4 unstable meta 4's and a small nos on my Curse - whats going to be in my hangar after the patch ?
Have you seen the powergrid requirement for deadspace ones? Those are even worse
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2829
|
Posted - 2015.11.23 04:41:41 -
[165] - Quote
Alexis Ford wrote:AND removing several 100b Isk out of the game ?. its not going anywhere other than some lucky man's wallet. |
Torei Dutalis
IceBox Inc.
37
|
Posted - 2015.11.23 10:16:54 -
[166] - Quote
As the op doesn't state what the actual goal of this change is it's hard to have a basis on the efficacy of this change in regards to a buff or nerf. However, from a superficial look I feel like this is somewhat of a nerf. As already stated by multiple persons, ships with a range bonus to these systems are hit the hardest as they suffer a relatively significant optimal range reduction. I also feel that due to the scaling of falloff, the use of small energy neutralizers on non-range bonuses ships may be less desirable, but this is only my gut feeling. Essentially, I am personally not in favor of trading absolute neuting range for variable neuting range. However, I may be in the minority on this one.
My other slight issue with these changes is that I am unsure of whether the new versions of the meta modules will be much desired. I would recommend one of the meta modules have the same neuting ability as t2 but less range, and vice versa for the other meta module. I wouldn't say these changes are heavy handed towards the meta modules, but I feel that previous module "tieracides" have been more generous to the stats on rebalanced meta items. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
910
|
Posted - 2015.11.23 17:59:47 -
[167] - Quote
And while we are at it, can we put a fitting restriction on neuts so that only go on ships they are supposed to go on? That would be awesome.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
aldhura
Bartledannians
18
|
Posted - 2015.11.23 20:05:24 -
[168] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:And while we are at it, can we put a fitting restriction on neuts so that only go on ships they are supposed to go on? That would be awesome.
Everything is working as intended, otherwise.. well errr it wouldn't work
Bartledannians are recruiting.. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6150832#post6150832
|
Captain Cean
Holy Cookie
43
|
Posted - 2015.11.26 13:20:35 -
[169] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:And while we are at it, can we put a fitting restriction on neuts so that only go on ships they are supposed to go on? That would be awesome.
yeah better remove more fitting freedom.
How about that is only possible to fit shield extender on caldari ships or Armor repairer on gallente ships. cause thats for what they desinged for .... |
Samaz Ralan
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2015.11.27 19:12:17 -
[170] - Quote
how about removing the reduction in energy turret activation cost on amarr laser boats to "role bonus' territory and replace it with a neutralizer and energy leech reflect amount per level -a built in cap battery resistance. this would keep laser boats viable and fit into the amarr fight against blood raiders fiction a bit. |
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3467
|
Posted - 2015.11.27 21:42:08 -
[171] - Quote
can you please update the OP and add the goals section. so that we know what those changes are supposed to solve.
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1249
|
Posted - 2015.12.02 16:35:01 -
[172] - Quote
still no response too feedback then , please tell me you are considering making the meta 4 a restrained version instead of just deleting it please that and scoped should have better range then the T2 version
T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely.
ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 highslots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
|
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Phoenix Company Alliance
223
|
Posted - 2015.12.02 17:02:57 -
[173] - Quote
the figures on the page are wrong for present neutralisers.
present Dark Blood Heavy Energy Neutralizer is 29.4km the sheet says its having 3.4km removed down to 24km but 29.4 - 3.4 is 26
which figure is correct?
|
Vailen Sere
The Oasis Group TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2015.12.02 23:55:22 -
[174] - Quote
Niriel Greez wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Niriel Greez wrote:While I think 1050GJ alpha from a geddon at 96km is good, it's just not quite enough and could really use a little buff. As OP as the deadspace mods are, I think you might've screwed up your maths just a little there. X-types on a geddon are 48km+20km (and tons of people will have this). Effectiveness at 96km is not 25%, it's 1.84%. You have 1050 GJ neut alpha at 76km. You're right; falloff bonus is 'only' 50%. Either way it makes no difference, 76km 1050GJ alpha is still utterly ******* stupid. Another clear case of CCP having long lost touch with their own game to please those who fail to catch the evil nano ship because approach spam simply isn't working. We already have 95k webs, amazing ECM mechanics and this abomination, 40K scrams and neuts that alpha almost any cruiser's cap beyond its locking range will create one of the most enjoyable PVP experiences seen in any game to-date. The fact that the alliance tournament is still used to advertise PVP in EVE is one of the biggest deceits in marketing I have ever seen. Have you actually tried to ECM at the battlehsip level? Unless your in a widow, it's a lot less than 33%. And in order to make it about 50%, your sacrificing all your tank.
The nuet problem should be looked at, but fly ECM and count your failures and sucessful jams before you throw it in here.ECM isn't in a good place unless its in a T2. |
Anthar Thebess
1382
|
Posted - 2015.12.03 07:57:17 -
[175] - Quote
I think neut range could be a bit longer. This provide interesting options , especially for new players that are fighting kiting ships. We are talking about battleships , this is mostly for big fleets and HD.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Faren Shalni
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
157
|
Posted - 2015.12.03 11:23:58 -
[176] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:I think neut range could be a bit longer. This provide interesting options , especially for new players that are fighting kiting ships. We are talking about battleships , this is mostly for big fleets and HD.
Battleships are used in all scales of combat, from micro nano stuff through to 500+ fleets which alpha everything
With the logi nerfs and new DS neuts I expect to see super blinged armageddons roaming wspace....
So Much Space
|
Vailen Sere
The Oasis Group TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2015.12.03 17:29:59 -
[177] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:removing the unstable meta 4 neut which is the most used is a bad idea when you could make it a restrained version so uses less cap too activate is a good role for a neut how have you missed this?
And powergrid is a big problem on full nueting ships. But none of that got touched across the board. The deep cut to the T2's with the hefty price of PGD means alot of fitting decisions will have to be made especially with the cut to optimal. |
Vailen Sere
The Oasis Group TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2015.12.03 17:32:18 -
[178] - Quote
Faren Shalni wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:I think neut range could be a bit longer. This provide interesting options , especially for new players that are fighting kiting ships. We are talking about battleships , this is mostly for big fleets and HD.
Battleships are used in all scales of combat, from micro nano stuff through to 500+ fleets which alpha everything With the logi nerfs and new DS neuts I expect to see super blinged armageddons roaming wspace....
Yeah, but if your going in knowing a gheddon will be there, a celestis can shut down the range and than you can pew at the drones. When drone bay in empty explosion will occur. |
Vailen Sere
The Oasis Group TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2015.12.03 17:34:11 -
[179] - Quote
Torei Dutalis wrote:As the op doesn't state what the actual goal of this change is it's hard to have a basis on the efficacy of this change in regards to a buff or nerf. However, from a superficial look I feel like this is somewhat of a nerf. As already stated by multiple persons, ships with a range bonus to these systems are hit the hardest as they suffer a relatively significant optimal range reduction. I also feel that due to the scaling of falloff, the use of small energy neutralizers on non-range bonuses ships may be less desirable, but this is only my gut feeling. Essentially, I am personally not in favor of trading absolute neuting range for variable neuting range. However, I may be in the minority on this one.
My other slight issue with these changes is that I am unsure of whether the new versions of the meta modules will be much desired. I would recommend one of the meta modules have the same neuting ability as t2 but less range, and vice versa for the other meta module. I wouldn't say these changes are heavy handed towards the meta modules, but I feel that previous module "tieracides" have been more generous to the stats on rebalanced meta items.
I think it is more of it somehow ties into energy transfer arrays, and remote repairer's which also are getting a falloff. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1249
|
Posted - 2015.12.03 20:14:18 -
[180] - Quote
Capacitor Emission Systems V should be mandatory for T2 neuts/nos's of all sizes not just the large sized version
T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely.
ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 highslots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |