EVE Search - Sticky:[December] Module Tiericide

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[December] Module Tiericide - Neutralizers and Nosferatu

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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

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

CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 291	Posted - 2015.11.05 13:31:00 - [1] - Quote Hi M8s! As part of our December release, we're doing a module tiericide pass on Neutralizers and Nosferatu. Tell us what you think! Goals Changes Added Effectiveness Falloff This works by reducing the effectivness of the module when in falloff. Formula is the same as gun falloff formula at 100% Optimal + 0% Falloff = 100% Effectivness (approx figures only) at 100% Optimal + 100% Falloff = 50% Effectivness (approx figures only) at 100% Optimal + 200% Falloff = 6% Effectivness (approx figures only) Renamed Market Group to 'Energy Neutralizers' & 'Energy Nosferatu' Neutralizers & Nosferatu won't activate on targets it can have no effect on Ships with existing bonuses to Neut/Nos Optimal Range will receive a 2nd half strength bonus to Falloff Added Deadspace Neutralizers Stats Neutralizer Image Link Neutralizer Google Docs Link Nosferatu Image Link Nosferatu Google Docs Link Q&A Game Designer \| Team Five-0 \| https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin

Drechlas Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance 22	Posted - 2015.11.05 13:32:37 - [2] - Quote thanks for the google doc links :)
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 2242	Posted - 2015.11.05 13:37:30 - [3] - Quote Very interesting. This gives supercaps the ability to neut hictors pointing them no matter what. Before, you needed a meta 15+ officer neut to be able to reliably neut out a hictor (for the range.) Now, you can at least add some cap pressure to a hictor tackling you at any range. I guess Capital Energy Neutralizers would have done that too. Maybe. I'm assuming they'd have longer range than Heavies. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Shala Raan Trillionaire.pro 26	Posted - 2015.11.05 13:40:35 - [4] - Quote I'll miss the 5W 50W and 500W named variants (They were super cheap compared to other meta levels) but I think the new deadspace ones make up for it Göî[ Gùö -£ -û Gùö ]GöÉ (püñGÿ»ßù£Gÿ»)püñ TRILLIONAIRE.PRO
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 2242	Posted - 2015.11.05 13:44:14 - [5] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Goals Changes Neutralizers & Nosferatu won't activate on targets it can have no effect on Does this include targets who are out of capacitor (for neutralizers,) or are below the level of capacitor where a nosferatu would be effective? This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Minchurra Perkone 23	Posted - 2015.11.05 13:44:26 - [6] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Ships with existing bonuses to Neut/Nos Optimal Range will receive a 2nd half strength bonus to Falloff Could you clarify this point please? Do you mean that the Sentinel bonus will now read: 80% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer optimal and falloff range Or 80% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer transfer optimal range 40% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer transfer falloff range
Anthar Thebess 1370	Posted - 2015.11.05 13:45:37 - [7] - Quote Will faction versions will be added to respective LP store? Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1237	Posted - 2015.11.05 13:47:04 - [8] - Quote so you have basically added a big chunk of extra range too these mods like they actually needed more range. 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
Aquila Sagitta Blue-Fire Great Blue Balls of Fire 667	Posted - 2015.11.05 13:47:46 - [9] - Quote This is a massive buff too neuts/nos. 80km neuts on geddon is gonna be nuts. Not to mention bhaalgorns 50km super nos Blue-Fire Best Fire
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 2371	Posted - 2015.11.05 13:48:37 - [10] - Quote I'm not sure geddons needed this kind of buff to be frank.

Lilith5 Black Omega Security The OSS 37	Posted - 2015.11.05 13:48:52 - [11] - Quote Bhaalgorn superiority Looking forwards to Dead space heavy neuts.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1237	Posted - 2015.11.05 13:49:23 - [12] - Quote Aquila Sagitta wrote: This is a massive buff too neuts/nos. 80km neuts on geddon is gonna be nuts. Not to mention bhaalgorns 50km super nos it seems ill thought out like the WDFG thread changes 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
Lugh Crow-Slave 1296	Posted - 2015.11.05 13:49:55 - [13] - Quote does this mean neuts will not activate on rats that don't actually have cap? Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis

CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 296	Posted - 2015.11.05 13:51:07 - [14] - Quote Querns wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Goals Changes Neutralizers & Nosferatu won't activate on targets it can have no effect on Does this include targets who are out of capacitor (for neutralizers,) or are below the level of capacitor where a nosferatu would be effective? No, they will activate on a ship regardless, and most NPCs. But stuff like Structures, Asteroids etc, they will not activate on. Minchurra wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Ships with existing bonuses to Neut/Nos Optimal Range will receive a 2nd half strength bonus to Falloff Could you clarify this point please? Do you mean that the Sentinel bonus will now read: 80% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer optimal and falloff range Or 80% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer transfer optimal range 40% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer transfer falloff range The second one. Good questions, let me put them into the Q&A Game Designer \| Team Five-0 \| https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin

Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1237	Posted - 2015.11.05 13:52:48 - [15] - Quote shouldn't the compact mod get more reduced pg and cpu? .. and small neuts are hard enough too fit anyway surely they all should get reduced fittings 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
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1899	Posted - 2015.11.05 13:53:48 - [16] - Quote This is going to be interesting. When I viewed these changes on my phone, I was all annoyed at how you lowered the ranges on the faction variants so much. Now that I am looking at the spreadsheet on my laptop, I can see the real effect. This is going to be good... Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here? I'm stubborn.
Aquila Sagitta Blue-Fire Great Blue Balls of Fire 667	Posted - 2015.11.05 13:54:34 - [17] - Quote Between this and the hic changes kiting is getting the nerf bat hard! Blue-Fire Best Fire
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1899	Posted - 2015.11.05 13:56:53 - [18] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Will faction versions will be added to respective LP store? Do you plan to create capital versions of this modules? They already announced that Capital versions would be forthcoming. Which had the potential to massively wreck the demand for the Large variants... But now, the Large variants will continue to be in demand because Bhaalgorns will be even sexier (and Armageddons too!). Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here? I'm stubborn.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1899	Posted - 2015.11.05 13:58:51 - [19] - Quote Aquila Sagitta wrote: Between this and the hic changes kiting is getting the nerf bat hard! That's a good thing. I was already using a Curse to decent effect to counter some of the long range Orthrus action, now it will be a bit more effective at Orthrus point range. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here? I'm stubborn.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1237	Posted - 2015.11.05 14:00:56 - [20] - Quote 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? 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

Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1237	Posted - 2015.11.05 14:02:00 - [21] - Quote amarr laser kiters are getting shafted here big time. 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
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1237	Posted - 2015.11.05 14:04:15 - [22] - Quote anyone noticed how skewed the cpu too pg requirement is on small neuts/nos's compared too medium and larges are? and who has 10pg too spare on a frig too put a T2 small neut on it? , i bet the sentinel/neut based ships can't fit them without sacrificing a ton of fittings on fitting mods 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
Anthar Thebess 1370	Posted - 2015.11.05 14:06:25 - [23] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: Will faction versions will be added to respective LP store? Do you plan to create capital versions of this modules? They already announced that Capital versions would be forthcoming. Which had the potential to massively wreck the demand for the Large variants... But now, the Large variants will continue to be in demand because Bhaalgorns will be even sexier (and Armageddons too!). This is why i am asking about it. If we have rebalanced now , why we don't have capital mods balanced as well. They don't need to be seeded, but stats can be known already and modified thanks to community feedback. Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
Eti Skywalker What Could Go Wrong Snuffed Out 2	Posted - 2015.11.05 14:08:35 - [24] - Quote Can you please tweak the neut icons a bit, to indicate the size? For example a slightly lesser icon for the small neut, and a slightly bigger for the heavy? Or 1 lightnings for small, 2 for medium, 3 for heavy? Would be cool in situtations when you fit neuts of differnt sizes.
Lloyd Roses Artificial Memories 1304	Posted - 2015.11.05 14:11:07 - [25] - Quote With 100+km neuts and 40km scrams avaiable, kiting might take a hit :<
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1237	Posted - 2015.11.05 14:12:12 - [26] - Quote -T2 nos's/neuts need too have higher strength in the cap transfer/neuted but normal meta range - scoped should have the highest range comfortably or its obsoleted by T2 what happened too everything having its role instead of being obsloted? - compacts need lower fittings -unstable meta 4 should be converted too restrained instead of being deleted 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
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1237	Posted - 2015.11.05 14:13:07 - [27] - Quote Eti Skywalker wrote: Can you please tweak the neut icons a bit, to indicate the size? For example a slightly lesser icon for the small neut, and a slightly bigger for the heavy? Or 1 lightnings for small, 2 for medium, 3 for heavy? Would be cool in situtations when you fit neuts of differnt sizes. it would be nice if the neut and nos icons got a different look the tiny icon difference is a bit lame 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
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 2372	Posted - 2015.11.05 14:21:19 - [28] - Quote The range hits on the NOS are a bit heavy, given how generally useless they are outside of a) small things holding tackle on large and b) blood raider hulls. Also NOS grid usage has always been contentious....is there any scope to give them some help there?
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1237	Posted - 2015.11.05 14:24:07 - [29] - Quote afkalt wrote: The range hits on the NOS are a bit heavy, given how generally useless they are outside of a) small things holding tackle on large and b) blood raider hulls. Also NOS grid usage has always been contentious....is there any scope to give them some help there? range hits? have you seen the amount of falloff added too them? 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
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 2372	Posted - 2015.11.05 14:28:22 - [30] - Quote Harvey James wrote: afkalt wrote: The range hits on the NOS are a bit heavy, given how generally useless they are outside of a) small things holding tackle on large and b) blood raider hulls. Also NOS grid usage has always been contentious....is there any scope to give them some help there? range hits? have you seen the amount of falloff added too them? Yes, I have. Let's look at the Corpus X-Type Heavy Energy Nosferatu because it is what I have highlighted. Today: 120 drain at 42km. Tomorrow: 80% of 120 at 40km. A small percentage of an already low amount beyond my original 42km range is not something I'm happy to trade.

Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1237	Posted - 2015.11.05 14:30:17 - [31] - Quote afkalt wrote: Harvey James wrote: afkalt wrote: The range hits on the NOS are a bit heavy, given how generally useless they are outside of a) small things holding tackle on large and b) blood raider hulls. Also NOS grid usage has always been contentious....is there any scope to give them some help there? range hits? have you seen the amount of falloff added too them? Yes, I have. Let's look at the Corpus X-Type Heavy Energy Nosferatu because it is what I have highlighted. Today: 120 drain at 42km. Tomorrow: 80% of 120 at 40km. A small percentage of an already low amount beyond my original 42km range is not something I'm happy to trade. ah i see, what they have done is give neuts and nos the range 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
Amakish Snipes Incorporated UK Mercenary Coalition 16	Posted - 2015.11.05 14:31:24 - [32] - Quote im just glad that the ashimmu can finally have a neuting fot that can take advantage of the web range bonus :)
Phoenix Jones Small-Arms Fire 1578	Posted - 2015.11.05 14:33:11 - [33] - Quote So now my hictor will have double cap injectors now... Does sig radius reduce neut amounts? I remember them saying something about that. Yaay!!!!
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 2372	Posted - 2015.11.05 14:41:28 - [34] - Quote Amakish wrote: im just glad that the ashimmu can finally have a neuting fitthat can take advantage of the web range bonus :) And it'll neut less than a small neut near the end of those webs. You'll just be burning your cap for nothing. Hell at 15kms you're neuting at 50% effectiveness.
Anthar Thebess 1370	Posted - 2015.11.05 14:49:23 - [35] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: With 100+km neuts and 40km scrams avaiable, kiting might take a hit :< When you commit to the battlefield ..... Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
Amakish Snipes Incorporated UK Mercenary Coalition 16	Posted - 2015.11.05 14:49:26 - [36] - Quote still better than not neuting at all.... also 16500 meter optimal range on the medium a-type is not bad and then comes falloff... im happy...
Carthereon Crust EVE University Ivy League 0	Posted - 2015.11.05 14:52:03 - [37] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Stats Neutralizer Image Link Neutralizer Google Docs Link Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but in-game the faction Heavy Energy Neutralizers has a range of 29.4k. In your chart it says it's now 24k (-3.4k), which leaves 2k range unaccounted for.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 2372	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:01:13 - [38] - Quote Carthereon Crust wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Stats Neutralizer Image Link Neutralizer Google Docs Link Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but in-game the faction Heavy Energy Neutralizers has a range of 29.4k. In your chart it says it's now 24k (-3.4k), which leaves 2k range unaccounted for. The deadspace nos is in a similar position.
M3phistopheles Oruze Cruise White Stag Exit Bag 4	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:02:06 - [39] - Quote I'm not a fan of the meta names; Quote: Heavy Gremlin Compact Energy Neutralizer Quote: Heavy Infectious Scoped Energy Neutralizer They seem very WoW to me. I would suggest changing them to; Heavy Gremlin Compact Energy Neutralizer -> Heavy Compact Energy Neutralizer Heavy Infectious Scoped Energy Neutralizer -> Heavy Ranged Energy Neutralizer These simpler names make their function easier to understand. You do not need the sick nasty descriptive word in the module name.
Rivr Luzade Kenshin. DARKNESS. 2077	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:08:19 - [40] - Quote M3phistopheles wrote: I'm not a fan of the meta names; Quote: Heavy Gremlin Compact Energy Neutralizer Quote: Heavy Infectious Scoped Energy Neutralizer They seem very WoW to me. I would suggest changing them to; Heavy Gremlin Compact Energy Neutralizer -> Heavy Compact Energy Neutralizer Heavy Infectious Scoped Energy Neutralizer -> Heavy Ranged Energy Neutralizer These simpler names make their function easier to understand. You do not need the sick nasty descriptive word in the module name. Get lost! We do not need simpler names, we want flavor! The entire game becomes mindnumbingly boring if you only have items with the name pattern you suggested and I do not need that. UI Improvement Collective My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

M3phistopheles Oruze Cruise White Stag Exit Bag 5	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:13:26 - [41] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: Get lost! We do not need simpler names, we want flavor! The entire game becomes mindnumbingly boring if you only have items with the name pattern you suggested and I do not need that. How is calling a neut a gremlin going to give the game more flavour? Or do you want CCP to introduce high-sec raids where you can roll need for a Heavy Dastardly Prone Energy Neutralizer of the Fang?
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1238	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:16:26 - [42] - Quote M3phistopheles wrote: Rivr Luzade wrote: Get lost! We do not need simpler names, we want flavor! The entire game becomes mindnumbingly boring if you only have items with the name pattern you suggested and I do not need that. How is calling a neut a gremlin going to give the game more flavour? Or do you want CCP to introduce high-sec raids where you can roll need for a Heavy Dastardly Prone Energy Neutralizer of the Fang? if only you could give names to your neuts 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
Lloyd Roses Artificial Memories 1306	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:17:06 - [43] - Quote M3phistopheles wrote: Rivr Luzade wrote: Get lost! We do not need simpler names, we want flavor! The entire game becomes mindnumbingly boring if you only have items with the name pattern you suggested and I do not need that. How is calling a neut a gremlin going to give the game more flavour? Or do you want CCP to introduce high-sec raids where you can roll need for a Heavy Dastardly Prone Energy Neutralizer of the Fang? The of the fang wizardry enchantment is reserved for NOS you nerd.
Rivr Luzade Kenshin. DARKNESS. 2077	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:18:34 - [44] - Quote M3phistopheles wrote: Rivr Luzade wrote: Get lost! We do not need simpler names, we want flavor! The entire game becomes mindnumbingly boring if you only have items with the name pattern you suggested and I do not need that. How is calling a neut a gremlin going to give the game more flavour? Or do you want CCP to introduce high-sec raids where you can roll need for a Heavy Dastardly Prone Energy Neutralizer of the Fang? The flavor names actually make it easier to look things up. Take the neuts for instance: If you enter "unstable" in the market (or after the changes "Infecti", you get only these neuts displayed in the market and nothing else. Whereas with your system, you would need to enter a lot more text in the search box to get relatively limited results. So get lost with your ignorance! What you just suggested is a daft exaggeration with no merit. The current naming scheme has lots of benefits, as outlined above. If you cannot see it, that's your problem and no reason to ruin the game. UI Improvement Collective My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
DmitryEKT AMMO INC Phoebe Freeport Republic 131	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:19:43 - [45] - Quote Will the Curse/Pilgrim receive any powergrid increases to compensate for making T2 neuts now mandatory? They're already stupidly tight on fittings as is...
Rek Seven Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering 2100	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:19:48 - [46] - Quote Smells like OP... Why is this change needed? The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Bai Neu Mercurial Partei 3	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:21:38 - [47] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: Smells like OP... What does OP smell like?
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1238	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:22:28 - [48] - Quote DmitryEKT wrote: Will the Curse/Pilgrim receive any powergrid increases to compensate for making T2 neuts now mandatory? They're already stupidly tight on fittings as is... personally i would like too see the curse be a proper khanid ship and swap drone bonuses for missile bonuses, might encourage missiles+neut fits it might even make armour tanking it possible or using T2 neuts, but defo needs more pg either way. 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
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1238	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:23:14 - [49] - Quote Bai wrote: Rek Seven wrote: Smells like OP... What does OP smell like? like T3 ships 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
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1162	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:25:52 - [50] - Quote sorry if I can't read effectiveness falloff, right. you're making it so the neut amount is like 50% at optimal + 1 falloff, correct? as opposed to all the other falloffs in game where it's accuracy falloff, giving you a chance to miss, right?

Soldarius Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore 1416	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:26:02 - [51] - Quote Nice to see T2 neuts will now actually be worth using over meta 4. I would like to see more variations though. Compact and restrained especially. http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Rek Seven Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering 2100	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:27:06 - [52] - Quote Bai wrote: Rek Seven wrote: Smells like OP... What does OP smell like? a curse The wishlist is pretty much complete...
M3phistopheles Oruze Cruise White Stag Exit Bag 5	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:27:27 - [53] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: The flavor names actually make it easier to look things up. Take the neuts for instance: If you enter "unstable" in the market (or after the changes "Infecti", you get only these neuts displayed in the market and nothing else. Whereas with your system, you would need to enter a lot more text in the search box to get relatively limited results. So get lost with your ignorance! What you just suggested is a daft exaggeration with no merit. The current naming scheme has lots of benefits, as outlined above. If you cannot see it, that's your problem and no reason to ruin the game. Then how about CCP use a descriptive word, that is unique to neuts/nos, that doesn't sound like some raid gear? It is far from a daft exaggeration when you initially said these awful words add "flavour" and that the game would become "mindnumbingly boring" if heaven forbid, the names did not sound like WoW rejects.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1162	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:36:43 - [54] - Quote wait, all the faction ones are just the same except with tiers?
Rivr Luzade Kenshin. DARKNESS. 2078	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:41:39 - [55] - Quote M3phistopheles wrote: Rivr Luzade wrote: The flavor names actually make it easier to look things up. Take the neuts for instance: If you enter "unstable" in the market (or after the changes "Infecti", you get only these neuts displayed in the market and nothing else. Whereas with your system, you would need to enter a lot more text in the search box to get relatively limited results. So get lost with your ignorance! What you just suggested is a daft exaggeration with no merit. The current naming scheme has lots of benefits, as outlined above. If you cannot see it, that's your problem and no reason to ruin the game. Then how about CCP use a descriptive word, that is unique to neuts/nos, that doesn't sound like some raid gear? It is far from a daft exaggeration when you initially said these awful words add "flavour" and that the game would become "mindnumbingly boring" if heaven forbid, the names did not sound like WoW rejects. For instance the existing Unstable Power Flucturator and 5/0/00W. However, I do not see why Gremlin is a bad descriptive word for one of the neuts. The description in the link fits the purpose of this mod quite well. UI Improvement Collective My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Tineoidea Asanari Trojan Legion Goonswarm Federation 90	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:59:15 - [56] - Quote Something not related to this directly: Will you add the same optimal/falloff behaviour to existing EWar modules with optimal/falloff? Or will it be one big mess that new players start crying when you try to explain it?
l0rd carlos Brotherhood of Purity 1255	Posted - 2015.11.05 16:02:03 - [57] - Quote Will neut drones change in any way? Will they get the falloff? Youtube Channel about Micro and Small scale PvP with commentary: Fleet Commentary by l0rd carlos
Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Paisti Syndicate 564	Posted - 2015.11.05 16:02:04 - [58] - Quote I'm not exactly sure what's the intended effect of this change, it just seems that cap-using fits are even less viable after this goes live, which wasn't really necessary.
imnotangry CORPSE COLLECTORS LTD 0	Posted - 2015.11.05 16:26:43 - [59] - Quote Is there any chance of buffing the officer versions of these mods a little more than their deadspace counterparts to better reflect the postion in the whole meta system? like reduced fitting requirements? or more ewar power? but the other changes are awesome tbh
Cristl 257	Posted - 2015.11.05 16:38:51 - [60] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: M3phistopheles wrote: Rivr Luzade wrote: The flavor names actually make it easier to look things up. Take the neuts for instance: If you enter "unstable" in the market (or after the changes "Infecti", you get only these neuts displayed in the market and nothing else. Whereas with your system, you would need to enter a lot more text in the search box to get relatively limited results. So get lost with your ignorance! What you just suggested is a daft exaggeration with no merit. The current naming scheme has lots of benefits, as outlined above. If you cannot see it, that's your problem and no reason to ruin the game. Then how about CCP use a descriptive word, that is unique to neuts/nos, that doesn't sound like some raid gear? It is far from a daft exaggeration when you initially said these awful words add "flavour" and that the game would become "mindnumbingly boring" if heaven forbid, the names did not sound like WoW rejects. For instance the existing Unstable Power Flucturator and 5/0/00W. However, I do not see why Gremlin is a bad descriptive word for one of the neuts. The description in the link fits the purpose of this mod quite well. I'd just ignore ignorant twits like this guy. Some people, young and with small intellectual scope, try to relate everything to computer games. World of Warcraft (WoW) is a common target. I know this because recently what are now known as 'polarised' weapons, prior to their release, were to be called 'blighted' weapons. While I agree this is a poor choice of name, a huge number of people objected because it made them think of 'Dungeons & Dragons' themes (rather than objecting to space-themed weapons being compared to diseases of plants!) It turns out that was also the fault of WoW (I lacked the patience to figure out the exact connection; one hopes it's nothing to do with skeletons and the Irish potato blight, that would be repugnant).

Somethingski Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 3	Posted - 2015.11.05 16:56:57 - [61] - Quote Could you clarify the effect of Nos and Neut on NPC ships the rumor has always been that they have a chance on interupting a repair cycle but we never had an official word on it and do i get cap from a Nos when i use it on an NPC it seemed that i always got cap back but since a few weeks it seems no cap gets returned.
Callduron Aliastra Gallente Federation 631	Posted - 2015.11.05 17:05:11 - [62] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Changes [list] Added Effectiveness Falloff This works by reducing the effectivness of the module when in falloff. Formula is the same as gun falloff formula at 100% Optimal + 0% Falloff = 100% Effectivness (approx figures only) at 100% Optimal + 100% Falloff = 50% Effectivness (approx figures only) at 100% Optimal + 200% Falloff = 6% Effectivness (approx figures only) The last one is a typo, isn't it? Should =0% Effectiveness. Or is Falloff not linear? I write http://stabbedup.blogspot.co.uk/ I post on reddit as /u/callduron.
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 304	Posted - 2015.11.05 17:32:03 - [63] - Quote Wow don't you think you've gone a bit overboard with the deadspace stats? Those are officer level ranges. Deadspace modules aren't exactly rare drops, these will be used very widely.
DeadDuck The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 176	Posted - 2015.11.05 17:32:42 - [64] - Quote Callduron wrote: The last one is a typo, isn't it? Should =0% Effectiveness. Or is Falloff not linear? Probably correct tbh. Only at 201% or higher will be 0% For a tec2 Med Neut you will neut at max capacity within 10km. Between 10Km and 15Km at 50% capacity and between 15K-20Km only 6%
Chessur Wilderness 618	Posted - 2015.11.05 17:46:42 - [65] - Quote wrong thread.
Cyrek Ohaya Perkone Caldari State 19	Posted - 2015.11.05 17:52:19 - [66] - Quote With the falloff addition to these modules, just like turrets work in the same manner, they will be able to fire from any range that their targeting range allows a ship albeit to the point when it becomes useless such as for example 100% optimal + 300% fallof and beyond. The module, a small neutralizer for example will be kept worthlessly attempting to drain a target orbiting at 20km. My question is do you seriously intend for your players to now fully pay attention to neutralizers not draining because of range issues, much like Microwarpdrives requiring de-activation because of high activation costs? A player can't have them activated for long or else their capacitor will run dry, and this change makes it look like a new important module besides MWDs players will need to look after in the middle of intense Player versus Player action.
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 305	Posted - 2015.11.05 18:04:47 - [67] - Quote Other than the craaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazy out of whack deadspace stats (they are going to be completely oppressive with these stats), I'm liking this... but one point needs clarification: you say that the "effectiveness" will decrease in falloff in accordance with the turret miss frequency. Please clarify whether this is a chance of failure or whether they will consistently work but drain less GJ.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1240	Posted - 2015.11.05 18:13:43 - [68] - Quote it would be great if the module could tell you what you're getting at any time and how far into your falloff you are. 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
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1902	Posted - 2015.11.05 18:30:20 - [69] - Quote imnotangry wrote: Is there any chance of buffing the officer versions of these mods a little more than their deadspace counterparts to better reflect the postion in the whole meta system? like reduced fitting requirements? or more ewar power? but the other changes are awesome tbh Dead space and officer usually have the same stats, at least for hardeners. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here? I'm stubborn.
Syri Taneka Un4seen Development Sev3rance 121	Posted - 2015.11.05 18:51:44 - [70] - Quote M3phistopheles wrote: I'm not a fan of the meta names; Quote: Heavy Gremlin Compact Energy Neutralizer Quote: Heavy Infectious Scoped Energy Neutralizer They seem very WoW to me. I would suggest changing them to; Heavy Gremlin Compact Energy Neutralizer -> Heavy Compact Energy Neutralizer Heavy Infectious Scoped Energy Neutralizer -> Heavy Ranged Energy Neutralizer These simpler names make their function easier to understand. You do not need the sick nasty descriptive word in the module name. Dude... they're already there on the existing modules. Heavy Rudimentary Energy Destabilizer I Heavy 'Gremlin' Power Core Disruptor I 500W Infectious Power System Malfunction Heavy Unstable Power Fluctuator I

Syri Taneka Un4seen Development Sev3rance 121	Posted - 2015.11.05 19:01:06 - [71] - Quote So, to clarify: A Sentinel with t2 neuts is going from 31,500m absolute neut range, with 108 cap drain/6/mod, to 25,000m optimal (full) drain of 110/6/mod, with 32,500m to first falloff and 40,000m to second falloff, losing neut effectiveness with distance past 25,000m? I can accept this.
Styphon the Black Forced Euthanasia Soviet-Union 44	Posted - 2015.11.05 19:11:50 - [72] - Quote Off topic - Where is the discussion about adding a falloff for remote assistance modules? Because I want to weigh in on how that is a terrible idea. I know it was announced at the same time adding a falloff to neuts. BTW - What about POS Weapon System Neuts will these also have a falloff added or remain unchanged?
Roddex Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 5	Posted - 2015.11.05 19:16:14 - [73] - Quote When you state the effectiveness at range is that a reduction in the capacitor removed or a chance of the cycle not removing any capacitor? I.E. is it hit/miss or scaled effect?
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1240	Posted - 2015.11.05 19:17:13 - [74] - Quote Syri Taneka wrote: So, to clarify: A Sentinel with t2 neuts is going from 31,500m absolute neut range, with 108 cap drain/6/mod, to 25,000m optimal (full) drain of 110/6/mod, with 32,500m to first falloff and 40,000m to second falloff, losing neut effectiveness with distance past 25,000m? I can accept this. i think its OP the range bonus on sentinels 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
Bienator II madmen of the skies 3442	Posted - 2015.11.05 19:18:39 - [75] - Quote will make flying a sentinel easier after the change. You don't have to worry about cycling your neuts if you drop out of range you just keep them running and kite around the blob. scram kiting ships with neuts will be tough now however. but what i will dislike most is that you will see that neut ewar icon all the time on your ship. constantly. you won't know however if you actually get neuted with any noteworthy amount. edit: you will see tristans neuting you from 50k hiding the fact that something else is actually neuting you you will see a curse neuting you from 88k and you won#t know if its a heavy neut curse or not ... 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
Somethingski Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 4	Posted - 2015.11.05 19:18:46 - [76] - Quote Small question do they stop working if you get past optimal+falloff or will they still cycle when a ship is out of range can i use a small neut on a ship thats 100km away and basicly cap myself out?
Chainsaw Plankton Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave 1986	Posted - 2015.11.05 19:22:55 - [77] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Added Effectiveness Falloff This works by reducing the effectivness of the module when in falloff. Formula is the same as gun falloff formula at 100% Optimal + 0% Falloff = 100% Effectivness (approx figures only) at 100% Optimal + 100% Falloff = 50% Effectivness (approx figures only) at 100% Optimal + 200% Falloff = 6% Effectivness (approx figures only) is this will work at those percentages, or will apply at those percentages? in other words at 100% optimal + 100% falloff will it have a 50% chance to hit, or will it hit for 50% of transfer amount? @ChainsawPlankto
Chainsaw Plankton Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave 1986	Posted - 2015.11.05 19:26:12 - [78] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: imnotangry wrote: Is there any chance of buffing the officer versions of these mods a little more than their deadspace counterparts to better reflect the postion in the whole meta system? like reduced fitting requirements? or more ewar power? but the other changes are awesome tbh Dead space and officer usually have the same stats, at least for hardeners. overall that has been true for many item groups, but they seem to be giving officer some special extra boosts here and there, like on prop mods getting a 60% heat bonus compared to the 50% heat bonus on all other groups of prop mods. @ChainsawPlankto
Feodor Romanov Blitzkrieg Federation NEOS FLEET 29	Posted - 2015.11.05 19:46:50 - [79] - Quote This changes is a nerf for neuts specialized ships. For example my Armageddon with t2 neut have optimal range 37,8 km. After the patch it will be 30km+12,5km. Neuts at falloff range will neut me more then my target! More then half of second faloff range will be useless even for the ships with neuts strength bonuses. All this falloff is usefull only when you have Cap Booster and your target has not.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1240	Posted - 2015.11.05 19:59:14 - [80] - Quote Feodor Romanov wrote: This changes is a nerf for neuts specialized ships. For example my Armageddon with t2 neut have optimal range 37,8 km. After the patch it will be 30km+12,5km. Neuts at falloff range will neut me more then my target! More then half of second faloff range will be useless even for the ships with neuts strength bonuses. All this falloff is usefull only when you have Cap Booster and your target has not. 30km op 15km falloff you mean 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

Circumstantial Evidence 235	Posted - 2015.11.05 20:05:26 - [81] - Quote Somethingski wrote: Small question do they stop working if you get past optimal+falloff or will they still cycle when a ship is out of range can i use a small neut on a ship thats 100km away and basicly cap myself out? We can run out of ammo shooting at things in our lock range, but beyond effective range, so... i'd say yes.
Feodor Romanov Blitzkrieg Federation NEOS FLEET 29	Posted - 2015.11.05 20:09:11 - [82] - Quote Harvey James wrote: Feodor Romanov wrote: This changes is a nerf for neuts specialized ships. For example my Armageddon with t2 neut have optimal range 37,8 km. After the patch it will be 30km+12,5km. Neuts at falloff range will neut me more then my target! More then half of second faloff range will be useless even for the ships with neuts strength bonuses. All this falloff is usefull only when you have Cap Booster and your target has not. 30km op 15km falloff you mean "Ships with existing bonuses to Neut/Nos Optimal Range will receive a 2nd half strength bonus to Falloff" For Geddon it will be 5% for skill lvl, so 12,5 km falloff.
Alexis Nightwish 340	Posted - 2015.11.05 20:14:57 - [83] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Stats Neutralizer Image Link Neutralizer Google Docs Link Nosferatu Image Link Nosferatu Google Docs Link Other tiericide threads have docs that show the current modules, and we are also told what the current modules will be turned into. For example I have no clue what my Small Infectious Power System Drain will become after the change. Could we please get an updated doc showing this? CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge EVE Online's "I win!" Button Fixing bombs, not the bombers
Alexander McKeon Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion 133	Posted - 2015.11.05 20:18:27 - [84] - Quote It definitely seems like officer neuts are getting hit rather hard here; both in terms of effective neuting capability at current ranges where they're an important defensive tool for capitals and relative to the (presumably) far more prevalent deadspace variants. Is there any possibility of a decreased cycle time or something to distinguish the officer modules? 10 less CPU and 9% more neut power seem like a very small benefit over other variants as compared to that enjoyed smartbombs or tackle modules over their non-officer counterparts.
Alexis Nightwish 340	Posted - 2015.11.05 20:18:58 - [85] - Quote I'm not a fan of making NOS and Neuts have the exact same range. I think you'll see from usage statistics that neuts are used FAR more than NOS are, and by reducing the range of NOS (to be equal to neuts) people will be even less inclined to fit them. I mean it's bad enough that NOS cost more to fit. Was really hoping for a NOS buff, not a nerf. CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge EVE Online's "I win!" Button Fixing bombs, not the bombers
Chainsaw Plankton Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave 1986	Posted - 2015.11.05 20:36:42 - [86] - Quote M3phistopheles wrote: I'm not a fan of the meta names; Quote: Heavy Gremlin Compact Energy Neutralizer Quote: Heavy Infectious Scoped Energy Neutralizer They seem very WoW to me. I would suggest changing them to; Heavy Gremlin Compact Energy Neutralizer -> Heavy Compact Energy Neutralizer Heavy Infectious Scoped Energy Neutralizer -> Heavy Ranged Energy Neutralizer These simpler names make their function easier to understand. You do not need the sick nasty descriptive word in the module name. they tried that on the first round of tiericide, we didn't like it very much. they took the "arbalest" out of the compact light missile launcher. and later added it back. as someone else said searching unstable gives all the meta 4 neuts, being able to search like that is a good thing imo. or searching for 100mm for all 100mm plates, or 100mn for all 100mn afterburners. however I do think the flavor and description names should go on the outside of the name so "heavy energy neut" will search for ALL heavy energy neuts, and not skip over the meta 1 variants. they seem to be pretty inconstant with that overall. @ChainsawPlankto
Lijhal Innoruuks Wrath 17	Posted - 2015.11.05 20:52:34 - [87] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Hi M8s! As part of our December release, we're doing a module tiericide pass on Neutralizers and Nosferatu. Tell us what you think! Goals Changes Added Effectiveness Falloff This works by reducing the effectivness of the module when in falloff. Formula is the same as gun falloff formula at 100% Optimal + 0% Falloff = 100% Effectivness (approx figures only) at 100% Optimal + 100% Falloff = 50% Effectivness (approx figures only) at 100% Optimal + 200% Falloff = 6% Effectivness (approx figures only) Renamed Market Group to 'Energy Neutralizers' & 'Energy Nosferatu' Neutralizers & Nosferatu won't activate on targets they can have no effect on Ships with existing bonuses to Neut/Nos Optimal Range will receive a 2nd half strength bonus to Falloff Added Deadspace Neutralizers does that mean nos&neuts are going to have reduced effectivness when NOT at optimal range or will they always have 100% effectivness as long they are in optimal range ? your girlfriend
Moac Tor Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation 301	Posted - 2015.11.05 21:25:47 - [88] - Quote Interesting........ Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
Tappits North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion 195	Posted - 2015.11.05 23:31:14 - [89] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: Wow don't you think you've gone a bit overboard with the deadspace stats? Those are officer level ranges. Deadspace modules aren't exactly rare drops, these will be used very widely. Yer most X-Type mods are better than 90% of officer gear anyway now.
Tappits North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion 195	Posted - 2015.11.05 23:33:14 - [90] - Quote Alexis Nightwish wrote: I'm not a fan of making NOS and Neuts have the exact same range. I think you'll see from usage statistics that neuts are used FAR more than NOS are, and by reducing the range of NOS (to be equal to neuts) people will be even less inclined to fit them. I mean it's bad enough that NOS cost more to fit. Was really hoping for a NOS buff, not a nerf. Something something were is my 42.0km optimal X-type nos?

Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 21	Posted - 2015.11.05 23:45:53 - [91] - Quote Aquila Sagitta wrote: This is a massive buff too neuts/nos. 80km neuts on geddon is gonna be nuts. Not to mention bhaalgorns 50km super nos edit: I'm bad at math. Geddons will get ~10km more range than current. 80/40 becomes something like 40/20.. so max range would be ~60km. still under the bling overheated points on a certain recon ship.
XIII Badluck JINRO The Wolves Brigade 0	Posted - 2015.11.06 00:07:09 - [92] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Hi M8s! As part of our December release, we're doing a module tiericide pass on Neutralizers and Nosferatu. Tell us what you think! Goals Changes Added Effectiveness Falloff This works by reducing the effectivness of the module when in falloff. Formula is the same as gun falloff formula at 100% Optimal + 0% Falloff = 100% Effectivness (approx figures only) at 100% Optimal + 100% Falloff = 50% Effectivness (approx figures only) at 100% Optimal + 200% Falloff = 6% Effectivness (approx figures only) Renamed Market Group to 'Energy Neutralizers' & 'Energy Nosferatu' Neutralizers & Nosferatu won't activate on targets they can have no effect on Ships with existing bonuses to Neut/Nos Optimal Range will receive a 2nd half strength bonus to Falloff Added Deadspace Neutralizers Stats Neutralizer Image Link Neutralizer Google Docs Link Nosferatu Image Link Nosferatu Google Docs Link Q&A Q) Can you clarify 'Ships with existing bonuses to Neut/Nos Optimal Range will receive a 2nd half strength bonus to Falloff'? A) Sure, the Sentinel bonus is currently - 80% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer Range After the patch it will be - 80% bonus to Energy Nosferatu and Energy Neutralizer transfer optimal range 40% bonus to Energy Nosferatu and Energy Neutralizer transfer falloff range Q) 'Neutralizers & Nosferatu won't activate on targets it can have no effect on' Does this include targets who are out of capacitor (for neutralizers,) or are below the level of capacitor where a nosferatu would be effective? A) No. Nos and Neuts will always activate on Ships, and NPCs. But, you can't activate them on Asteroids, Stargates, etc. Q) What happens to my existing meta 1-4 modules? A) They will get changed into the new meta modules (A list will be posted above) I hate you CCP
Sizeof Void Ninja Suicide Squadron 613	Posted - 2015.11.06 00:07:25 - [93] - Quote I've suggested this previously, but here it is again.... Under the current system/schedule of module tiericide, it is going to take years to get all of the modules under the new naming scheme. The current mix of tiericided and un-tiericided modules is confusing for new players - and unnecessary. I recommend that CCP first do a "pure and fast" tiericide pass on all modules, to (a) standardize naming conventions and (b) remove unnecessary metas. This should be done quickly, without worrying about redesigning how the modules work, nor doing any rebalancing of stats - preferably within one release cycle; two cycles at most. There isn't any need to solicit much player feedback for simple tiericide. After all of the modules have been tiericided, CCP and players can leisurely spend more time on specific module redesign and rebalancing.
Madrax573 Bastion of Mad Behaviour 16	Posted - 2015.11.06 01:21:51 - [94] - Quote I only have used the small/medium NOS/Neuts and with these changes it just looks like apart from the new deadspace modules there will be an overall reduction in effectiveness. All they have done is split the overall range into Op and falloff and reduced base neut amount. This is just a nerf to overall effectiveness. e.g. Current unstable power fluct (Meta4) neut: 6.3km range 54GJ - 100% effective unto that range New Infectious scoped neut : Optimal 4.5km and fall off of 2.25km so total range seems better at 6.75km however it only neuts 50GJ and at 6.3km it would be the equivalent of 80% or 50GJ = 40GJ neutralised. I don't see how this is anything but a nerf to the small neutraliser range. The new DED modules however are great but I can't see them being that common. Unless I have my maths wrong (quite possible) this just seems a nerf to standard neut combat. At least for smalls and mediums. Are neuts THAT powerful to require a nerf to balance them? The universe is my playground
Rockstara Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion 50	Posted - 2015.11.06 01:32:22 - [95] - Quote for neuts - deadspace power level seems pretty high relative to officer versions. It'd be nice to have a broader range of options between the officer versions maybe some really long falloff but low base range or really really compact fittings in the meta 11-5 range instead of C/B-type range with 8% stronger effect. Actually all X-type modules are easily available and cheap. Most are sub 100M isk.
elitatwo Eve Minions The-Company 906	Posted - 2015.11.06 02:17:42 - [96] - Quote Cool changes, so when are you releasing the new capless laser turret stats or the new capacitor demand on air conditioners and artilleries? Oh and while we are at it, when can we see the Curse and Pilgrims new powergrid stats with those "changes"? Did someone else also ever got confused that the only class of ships that can fit medium deadspace nos's are battleships and up? And why would enyone ever want to fly anything else but an aircondition boat after this? Sure the small missle pirate faction boat that gets neuted and scramed and missile deactived from 1000AU away. So no more missiles in 2016? So it will be an almost awesome sentry drone and aircondition online in farmville-lands online. Yeay?? 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.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2706	Posted - 2015.11.06 02:58:54 - [97] - Quote Querns wrote: Very interesting. This gives supercaps the ability to neut hictors pointing them no matter what. Before, you needed a meta 15+ officer neut to be able to reliably neut out a hictor (for the range.) Now, you can at least add some cap pressure to a hictor tackling you at any range. I guess Capital Energy Neutralizers would have done that too. Maybe. I'm assuming they'd have longer range than Heavies. Capital neuts should have a very long cycle time, and neut resistance modules (like the capacitor battery) should protect a small amount of capacitor at the bottom of the pool. Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm The Succubus looks meaner But the Revenant cleaner Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
Musashibou Benkei Combined Imperial Fleet Darwinism. 62	Posted - 2015.11.06 10:20:08 - [98] - Quote Why does CCP insist on homogenizing all the faction variants? They really ought to take a lesson from the shield extender and armor plate playbook and given different properties to different faction nos' and neuts. Blood raider ones should obviously nos/neut the most at the cost of increase powergrid etc etc. There are plenty of other modules which are completely ignored because they are identical to a cheaper variant. Differentiation will re-invigorate disenfranchised faction mods.

CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 314	Posted - 2015.11.06 12:28:10 - [99] - Quote Chainsaw Plankton wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Added Effectiveness Falloff This works by reducing the effectivness of the module when in falloff. Formula is the same as gun falloff formula at 100% Optimal + 0% Falloff = 100% Effectivness (approx figures only) at 100% Optimal + 100% Falloff = 50% Effectivness (approx figures only) at 100% Optimal + 200% Falloff = 6% Effectivness (approx figures only) is this will work at those percentages, or will apply at those percentages? in other words at 100% optimal + 100% falloff will it have a 50% chance to hit, or will it hit for 50% of transfer amount? 50% Effectiveness, or 50% Transfer. Not a chance-to-hit. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 \| https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin


CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 314	Posted - 2015.11.06 12:28:48 - [100] - Quote Lijhal wrote: does that mean nos&neuts are going to have reduced effectivness when NOT at optimal range or will they always have 100% effectivness as long they are in optimal range ? If they are within optimal range they will be 100% effective. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 \| https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin


Cristl 257	Posted - 2015.11.06 12:58:45 - [101] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Chainsaw Plankton wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Added Effectiveness Falloff This works by reducing the effectivness of the module when in falloff. Formula is the same as gun falloff formula at 100% Optimal + 0% Falloff = 100% Effectivness (approx figures only) at 100% Optimal + 100% Falloff = 50% Effectivness (approx figures only) at 100% Optimal + 200% Falloff = 6% Effectivness (approx figures only) is this will work at those percentages, or will apply at those percentages? in other words at 100% optimal + 100% falloff will it have a 50% chance to hit, or will it hit for 50% of transfer amount? 50% Effectiveness, or 50% Transfer. Not a chance-to-hit. A quick question: why don't mods such as tracking disruptors use this? Why are they chance to hit based? Simpler server calcs?
Fourteen Maken Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance 242	Posted - 2015.11.06 13:12:35 - [102] - Quote Small neuts can be effective even on cruisers, the only thing that justifies the fitting cost of medium neuts is the range. Support a fairer loyalty point market for faction war: The sinews of war; infinite money.
elitatwo Eve Minions The-Company 907	Posted - 2015.11.06 13:34:34 - [103] - Quote Cristl wrote: A quick question: why don't mods such as tracking disruptors use this? Why are they chance to hit based? Simpler server calcs? While valid, a question can neither ne quick or slow but long or short. 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.
To mare Advanced Technology 426	Posted - 2015.11.06 14:02:16 - [104] - Quote this is one of the changes i`m having a hard time deciding if it`s a buff or a nerf, i guess time will tell.
Cristl 257	Posted - 2015.11.06 14:29:31 - [105] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Cristl wrote: A quick question: why don't mods such as tracking disruptors use this? Why are they chance to hit based? Simpler server calcs? While valid, a question can neither ne quick or slow but long or short. Keep up Charles Dickens. Here's a graph showing the relative frequencies of quick/short/brief/small question. 'quick question' pulled ahead in 1990 and hasn't looked back, mate. My apologies, I can't make the link work. This is a copy of the url: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=quick+question%2Cshort+question%2Csmall+question%2Cbrief+question&year_start=1800&year_end=2015&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cquick%20question%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cshort%20question%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Csmall%20question%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cbrief%20question%3B%2Cc0 I'm aware frequency isn't necessarily the best metric, but saying 'quick question' is incorrect is positively Jurassic. edit: I think the link works!
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2817	Posted - 2015.11.06 15:09:00 - [106] - Quote Cristl wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Chainsaw Plankton wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Added Effectiveness Falloff This works by reducing the effectivness of the module when in falloff. Formula is the same as gun falloff formula at 100% Optimal + 0% Falloff = 100% Effectivness (approx figures only) at 100% Optimal + 100% Falloff = 50% Effectivness (approx figures only) at 100% Optimal + 200% Falloff = 6% Effectivness (approx figures only) is this will work at those percentages, or will apply at those percentages? in other words at 100% optimal + 100% falloff will it have a 50% chance to hit, or will it hit for 50% of transfer amount? 50% Effectiveness, or 50% Transfer. Not a chance-to-hit. A quick question: why don't mods such as tracking disruptors use this? Why are they chance to hit based? Simpler server calcs? Tracking disruptors are chance to hit based? Or the turrets they disrupt?
imnotangry CORPSE COLLECTORS LTD 0	Posted - 2015.11.06 15:15:42 - [107] - Quote Alexander McKeon wrote: It definitely seems like officer neuts are getting hit rather hard here; both in terms of effective neuting capability at current ranges where they're an important defensive tool for capitals and relative to the (presumably) far more prevalent deadspace variants. Is there any possibility of a decreased cycle time or something to distinguish the officer modules? 10 less CPU and 9% more neut power seem like a very small benefit over other variants as compared to that enjoyed smartbombs or tackle modules over their non-officer counterparts. Yeah this is my point i made earlier.. they really kind need to give officer versions something else.. they should have lower fitting requirements or more neut power the higher you go on the meta scale like a chelms neut having 900 neut power or something.. or giving them their old range back + fall off i mean like its meta17?? it should have a edge over a deadspace counterpart
Cristl 257	Posted - 2015.11.06 15:19:42 - [108] - Quote Rowells wrote: Cristl wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Chainsaw Plankton wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Added Effectiveness Falloff This works by reducing the effectivness of the module when in falloff. Formula is the same as gun falloff formula at 100% Optimal + 0% Falloff = 100% Effectivness (approx figures only) at 100% Optimal + 100% Falloff = 50% Effectivness (approx figures only) at 100% Optimal + 200% Falloff = 6% Effectivness (approx figures only) is this will work at those percentages, or will apply at those percentages? in other words at 100% optimal + 100% falloff will it have a 50% chance to hit, or will it hit for 50% of transfer amount? 50% Effectiveness, or 50% Transfer. Not a chance-to-hit. A quick question: why don't mods such as tracking disruptors use this? Why are they chance to hit based? Simpler server calcs? Tracking disruptors are chance to hit based? Or the turrets they disrupt? At optimal + falloff there is a roughly 50% chance that the tracking disruptor effect (whether range or tracking) gets applied. I just want to know why the magnitude of the penalties aren't reduced to about 50% of their value instead.
Xe'Cara'eos A Big Enough Lever 343	Posted - 2015.11.06 17:48:38 - [109] - Quote so just to clarify, they will be 0% effective at optimal +2x falloff? For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Harumi Akiga Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 6	Posted - 2015.11.06 17:55:49 - [110] - Quote More buffs for already vastly overpowered sentinel and curse ... well played CCP.

Harumi Akiga Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 6	Posted - 2015.11.06 17:57:03 - [111] - Quote Xe'Cara'eos wrote: so just to clarify, they will be 0% effective at optimal +2x falloff? Opposite its still gonna neut you there just for small amounts , but yeah i can clarify opposite to what you said. Read first post in the thread again.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2709	Posted - 2015.11.06 18:24:38 - [112] - Quote Cristl wrote: A quick question: why don't mods such as tracking disruptors use this? Why are they chance to hit based? Simpler server calcs? Older server calcs. If CCP built them today, they would use the modern system they are using for neutralizers. Likely they will update the other modules to do it this way as well. Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm The Succubus looks meaner But the Revenant cleaner Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
Cearain Goose Swarm Coalition 1429	Posted - 2015.11.06 18:26:25 - [113] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Changes [list] Added Effectiveness Falloff This works by reducing the effectivness of the module when in falloff. Formula is the same as gun falloff formula at 100% Optimal + 0% Falloff = 100% Effectivness (approx figures only) at 100% Optimal + 100% Falloff = 50% Effectivness (approx figures only) at 100% Optimal + 200% Falloff = 6% Effectivness (approx figures only) So I if I am neuting someone at 100% optimal and 100% falloff do I still lose all of my cap even though the neut is only 50% effective? If so then this combined with the reduced falloff seem like a nerf. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Moac Tor Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation 303	Posted - 2015.11.06 19:06:09 - [114] - Quote Cearain wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Changes [list] Added Effectiveness Falloff This works by reducing the effectivness of the module when in falloff. Formula is the same as gun falloff formula at 100% Optimal + 0% Falloff = 100% Effectivness (approx figures only) at 100% Optimal + 100% Falloff = 50% Effectivness (approx figures only) at 100% Optimal + 200% Falloff = 6% Effectivness (approx figures only) So I if I am neuting someone at 100% optimal and 100% falloff do I still lose all of my cap even though the neut is only 50% effective? If so then this combined with the reduced falloff seem like a nerf. This is a small nerf, slightly more so to ships which have a bonus to nuet / nos range. Most people would be using the unstable power fluctuator which is getting a range and nuet amount nerf. The range nerf is slightly less if you use the scoped version although that uses extra CPU which will make it unviable for a lot of current fits. To keep things pretty much as they are you now need to use the T2 version which uses quite a bit of extra PG and CPU which again will make it unviable for a lot of current fits. Ships with bonuses will be getting a very small extra nerf as they will have half the bonus to the falloff range although this is quite insignificant as falloff is only a small part of the total range. On the other hand being able to activate the Nos/Nuet when outside of range is a big advantage and being able to have the option to Nos/Neut when a ship is at falloff or beyond is again a big advantage particularly for heavy versions which are still going to be effective against smaller ships. All in all these are good changes, although I think the scoped versions should have the same range as the T2 versions as they need more of a benefit over the compact version for the extra PG and CPU. T2 will still be preferred due to the extra nuet amount. (Also please have a look again at T2 MWDs, I said it before that they were going to be useless compared to the Quad-Lif versions, and as of yet I have not had any reason to use a T2 MWD on any of my fits over the Quad-Lif) Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
Moac Tor Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation 303	Posted - 2015.11.06 19:13:22 - [115] - Quote Harumi Akiga wrote: More buffs for already vastly overpowered sentinel and curse ... well played CCP. Read my post above. This is a nerf and more so for ships with bonuses. Being able to activate outside of range is a quality of life improvement, but in terms of raw performance they will take a small hit. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
Cearain Goose Swarm Coalition 1429	Posted - 2015.11.06 19:51:13 - [116] - Quote Its interesting that the goal portion of the op was left blank. I'm not sure I understand the goal other than: 1) Nerf tech one mods. 2) Help larger ships deal with smaller kiting ships. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Lyron-Baktos Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 489	Posted - 2015.11.06 23:56:14 - [117] - Quote Deadspace neut Bhaalgorn :)
Jus'not N'miFace Sheep Teet Industries 2	Posted - 2015.11.07 00:44:16 - [118] - Quote the optimal should stay the same its not as if neuts are over powered -1
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 307	Posted - 2015.11.07 00:55:58 - [119] - Quote Jus'not N'miFace wrote: the optimal should stay the same its not as if neuts are over powered -1 Oh they will be overpowered soon enough.
Trinkets friend Sudden Buggery 2886	Posted - 2015.11.07 01:00:43 - [120] - Quote This is awesomesauce. Heavy neuts are going to be the deadliest part of BS arsenals now - 24 +12 for normal, and 38 + 18 for a Geddon at 50% effectiveness is going to make some mid-range cruisers really, really sore in the pants zone. The deadspace Nos/neuts are going to be deadly on the Sentinel, curse and Bhaal. Yus. Doctor Prince Field Marshall of Prolapse. Alliance and Grand Sasquatch of Bob We take Batphones. Contact us at Hola Batmanuel - Free call 1800-UR-MOMMA ~~ Localectomy Blog ~~

Niriel Greez Specimen 794 Project.Mayhem. 44	Posted - 2015.11.07 18:21:37 - [121] - Quote Could we make links affect neut range too please? 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. Thanks CCP.
Justin Cody Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 325	Posted - 2015.11.07 22:28:48 - [122] - Quote Querns wrote: Very interesting. This gives supercaps the ability to neut hictors pointing them no matter what. Before, you needed a meta 15+ officer neut to be able to reliably neut out a hictor (for the range.) Now, you can at least add some cap pressure to a hictor tackling you at any range. I guess Capital Energy Neutralizers would have done that too. Maybe. I'm assuming they'd have longer range than Heavies. now that other sub caps can tackle supers this won't even be an issue.
Justin Cody Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 325	Posted - 2015.11.07 22:29:34 - [123] - Quote Niriel Greez wrote: Could we make links affect neut range too please? 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. Thanks CCP. sarcasm noted.
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 307	Posted - 2015.11.07 23:11:13 - [124] - Quote 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.
Niriel Greez Specimen 794 Project.Mayhem. 44	Posted - 2015.11.08 00:53:39 - [125] - Quote 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.
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 307	Posted - 2015.11.08 03:05:06 - [126] - Quote Oh if you think that's stupid I'd just like to remind you that you can with some fiddling fit a single heavy neut on a curse.
Niriel Greez Specimen 794 Project.Mayhem. 44	Posted - 2015.11.08 04:20:37 - [127] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: Oh if you think that's stupid I'd just like to remind you that you can with some fiddling fit a single heavy neut on a curse. Heavy neut Curse has terrible cap life, terrible tank, terrible speed and is overall very gimmicky. Due to that, it's also extremely rare. It can be useful in the right circumstances, but overall, it's a highly specialized fit that usually is overshadowed by other alternatives. After these changes, the above will be achieved by ships going 4k m/s, or that have 200k+ EHP. The only setting in which this change makes any kind of sense, is from a single neut solo/small gang battleship because it adds some utility and defensive capabilities. The moment bonused ships or blobs are factored in, it becomes ridiculous.
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 307	Posted - 2015.11.08 07:20:48 - [128] - Quote Oh I absolutely agree with you, the deadspace neuts should not be introduced with these insane stats, and while probably beyond gimmicky an A-type heavy (X-type is impossible) curse would get 90+30 range. On a more reasonable (ha) note, a-type mediums give 49.5+16.5 instead of the current 44km with faction. Officer neuts are balanced by extreme rarity, no deadspace mods are rare at all. Giving deadspace mods officer stats then buffing the officer mods a little to preserve their value is not the way to go. They need much more modest stats than proposed.
Tex Raynor The High and Mighty Carebear Abortion Clinic 16	Posted - 2015.11.08 15:25:47 - [129] - Quote Can't wait to see the final iteration! This might be slightly off-topic concerning the changes, but since neuts/nos are getting a balance pass I think this might be the right thread. More so than other mods which come in different sizes, a lot of people will often use different sized neuts/nos on the same ship. Sometimes because of fitting restrictions, sometimes to obtain different cycle times. Therefore, could we get a small yellow-orangeish "S", "M" and "H" on the bottom left corner of the module icon for small, medium and heavy variants, respectively? All hail the neut Domi!
Cearain Goose Swarm Coalition 1431	Posted - 2015.11.09 12:32:53 - [130] - Quote Niriel There is no doubt that ogb are breaking eve. But the buff to large neuts is a good thing. Battleships needed some love. That little frigate buzzing around with links can't permanently hold a battleship anymore. Plus longer range neuts helping to counter logistics I think is a great change. I'm not thrilled about the nerf to smaller and medium neuts though. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Niriel Greez Specimen 794 Project.Mayhem. 44	Posted - 2015.11.09 21:58:29 - [131] - Quote Cearain wrote: Niriel There is no doubt that ogb are breaking eve. But the buff to large neuts is a good thing. Battleships needed some love. That little frigate buzzing around with links can't permanently hold a battleship anymore. Plus longer range neuts helping to counter logistics I think is a great change. I'm not thrilled about the nerf to smaller and medium neuts though. You are delirious if you believe this is a 'buff' to battleships. Your battleship is going to get scrammed from 40k away now by a HIC that has the same (or more) EHP as you, while you get neuted dry for good measure from 70k+. I have already explained this, but the only setting in which this change can be considered balanced, is from a solo/small gang battleship that has a single heavy neut fitted. We don't need more stupidly overpowered mechanics in this game; just because Svipuls (and T3Ds in general), logistics, ECM and so on are beyond broken, doesn't mean that the solution is to make everything else equally overpowered too. A single Curse already counters almost anything in the game, and the best CCP can come up with is to almost double the range? The neuting power itself is already completely overkill, falloff just means that instead of one cycle, it's two. As for your example of a frig holding a battleship, that's your own fault if you let it happen. You have the option to fit an MJD and you also have drones. If it wants to stop your MJD, it will have to get into your web/neut range. Yes, the average battleship is rather bad right now, but there are also plenty of battleships that are extremely good if used correctly and this is an issue with everything being buffed and battleships being left behind.
Tex Raynor The High and Mighty Carebear Abortion Clinic 17	Posted - 2015.11.10 05:25:22 - [132] - Quote Niriel Greez wrote: Cearain wrote: Niriel There is no doubt that ogb are breaking eve. But the buff to large neuts is a good thing. Battleships needed some love. That little frigate buzzing around with links can't permanently hold a battleship anymore. Plus longer range neuts helping to counter logistics I think is a great change. I'm not thrilled about the nerf to smaller and medium neuts though. You are delirious if you believe this is a 'buff' to battleships. Your battleship is going to get scrammed from 40k away now by a HIC that has the same (or more) EHP as you, while you get neuted dry for good measure from 70k+. I have already explained this, but the only setting in which this change can be considered balanced, is from a solo/small gang battleship that has a single heavy neut fitted. We don't need more stupidly overpowered mechanics in this game; just because Svipuls (and T3Ds in general), logistics, ECM and so on are beyond broken, doesn't mean that the solution is to make everything else equally overpowered too. A single Curse already counters almost anything in the game, and the best CCP can come up with is to almost double the range? The neuting power itself is already completely overkill, falloff just means that instead of one cycle, it's two. As for your example of a frig holding a battleship, that's your own fault if you let it happen. You have the option to fit an MJD and you also have drones. If it wants to stop your MJD, it will have to get into your web/neut range. Yes, the average battleship is rather bad right now, but there are also plenty of battleships that are extremely good if used correctly and this is an issue with everything being buffed and battleships being left behind. Maybe there is more features coming up concerning battleships?
Captain Cean Holy Cookie 38	Posted - 2015.11.10 09:05:54 - [133] - Quote 10 PWG on the T2 Small ? Wtf i mean they are already nearly impossible to fit with 9 PWG This is a massive Nerf on small Neuts if you want to hold nearly the same stats (range neut amount) like meta 4/3 you need a T2 that is now even harder to fit. Example a Sentinel have now a Optimal of 31 km Neut range with a Neut amount of 108 GJ and need 8/8 fitting res. After this changes (with scoped) 22,5km - 100GJ and only 50GJ on 29km (end Falloff) but need already 8/10 With T2 it not look realy better 25km optimal - 110GJ and 55GJ on 32km with 10/10 what is nearly impossible to fit on a sentinel cause it already have a lack of PWG
Cristl 257	Posted - 2015.11.11 12:28:01 - [134] - Quote Due to the nature of capacitor warfare and how it scales with vessel size, big ships having larger cap, and the weapons not being affected by sig-radius etc., I find it strange that smaller modules aren't getting a nice buff in fitability.
Cartheron Crust Matari Exodus 186	Posted - 2015.11.11 20:16:01 - [135] - Quote Decrease the PG (and probably cpu) needed for Nosferatu's please. Why they take the same amount (and in cpu terms more) of fitting as Neuts is ridiculous.
Cearain Goose Swarm Coalition 1432	Posted - 2015.11.12 00:14:08 - [136] - Quote Cartheron Crust wrote: Decrease the PG (and probably cpu) needed for Nosferatu's please. Why they take the same amount (and in cpu terms more) of fitting as Neuts is ridiculous. That may be a holdover from when noses would drain cap even if the target ship had a lower percentage of cap. That is they may have nerfed their effect but kept the fitting requirements high. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Flyinghotpocket Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica 522	Posted - 2015.11.12 02:38:45 - [137] - Quote grid and cpu need to be removed from nos'es. they dont serve the same use that they did when they were released. always draining cap. now they dont always drain cap. they need to have less fitting than a neut Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro
Cartheron Crust Matari Exodus 187	Posted - 2015.11.12 16:37:53 - [138] - Quote Cearain wrote: Cartheron Crust wrote: Decrease the PG (and probably cpu) needed for Nosferatu's please. Why they take the same amount (and in cpu terms more) of fitting as Neuts is ridiculous. That may be a holdover from when noses would drain cap even if the target ship had a lower percentage of cap. That is they may have nerfed their effect but kept the fitting requirements high. Good point. Was before I started playing so I only here fairy tales of NanoNosDomis/Phoons ruling the skys. Now would seem like a good time to rebalance their archaic fitting requirements.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2712	Posted - 2015.11.12 19:43:21 - [139] - Quote I wish to clear up a misconception on the range of these modules. The small "nerf" to optimal range is not really much of a nerf. For instance, the Tech 2 heavy version will have its optimal reduced by 5200m but will gain 10,000m falloff. So when neuting at the old max range, you'll be 52% into falloff. This will not reduce your effective neuting by 26% like some folks seem to think, but rather will probably reduce it by no more than 10-15%. It's not until well past half of falloff that you really start to notice the amount diminish. The Ammatar Navy Heavy Neutralizer will be "nerfed" even less. It loses 3400m optimal but gains 12,000m falloff. At its old optimal you'd be 28.33% into falloff, which will only diminish the effect by probably under 5%. Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm The Succubus looks meaner But the Revenant cleaner Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
Cearain Goose Swarm Coalition 1437	Posted - 2015.11.12 20:21:59 - [140] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: I wish to clear up a misconception on the range of these modules. The small "nerf" to optimal range is not really much of a nerf. For instance, the Tech 2 heavy version will have its optimal reduced by 5200m but will gain 10,000m falloff. So when neuting at the old max range, you'll be 52% into falloff. This will not reduce your effective neuting by 26% like some folks seem to think, but rather will probably reduce it by no more than 10-15%. It's not until well past half of falloff that you really start to notice the amount diminish. The Ammatar Navy Heavy Neutralizer will be "nerfed" even less. It loses 3400m optimal but gains 12,000m falloff. At its old optimal you'd be 28.33% into falloff, which will only diminish the effect by probably under 5%. Thanks for the numbers. I think at the old optimal you are hurting your own capacitor almost as much as your opponents capacitor. And if you don't notice that they really pull some range this module will basically kill your own capacitor for you. With the larger neuts against smaller ships it can often make sense to do that. But with the smaller neuts it seems like a nerf. That's why I think this is a buff to larger neuts especially the battleship sized ones. Which IMO is good. I guess it gives you more options with the small neut. I mean there may be circumstances where you would trade more of your cap for less of your opponents. This allows you to do that even if you can't get in optimal. I wish ccp would consider helping amarr ships by giving them larger capacitors like they used to have. There was a time where balancing meant every ship must be the same. This was to make balancing easier. So they reduced the size of the punisher's capacitor and gave it a bonus to cap use of energy guns (and made all the turrets closer in cap usage). They also greatly reduced the amount of utility highs from ships. I did not like those moves because it decreased the uniqueness of ships. If ships use cap intensive guns just give them a larger capacitor and let the players do their own thing with fittings. But after thinking about these changes, on the whole I think this mechanic will require some more pilot attention and offer a buff for larger neuts. Both are good changes. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Mad Abbat Talon Swarm NEOS FLEET 9	Posted - 2015.11.13 11:00:47 - [141] - Quote Dear CCP Devs, may we have option of stacking Neuts/Reps/Smartbombs as we do with guns? Reason: When I pilot dedicated neut ship (as we talk neuts in that topic) and I want to neut "that guy" I have to press up to 8 buttons for essentially, one action "neut X". That is not a good UI.
DrysonBennington Aliastra Gallente Federation 242	Posted - 2015.11.14 10:25:00 - [142] - Quote I like the fact that you wake up every morning telling us how this will be the day to make us millions of ISK...but at the end of every day its always the same....ships broke again....
Pelle Wittewoa University of Caille Gallente Federation 17	Posted - 2015.11.15 16:23:32 - [143] - Quote Gud stuff! Wehn are smartbombs comming up?
Bienator II madmen of the skies 3457	Posted - 2015.11.16 19:45:34 - [144] - Quote 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 means we won't see neut icons for tristans neuting you from 60k. i have no clue however how the "turnoff range" is calculated 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
Bienator II madmen of the skies 3457	Posted - 2015.11.16 19:56:22 - [145] - Quote plus maybe consider swapping the unstable power fluctuator with he infectious thingie to better retain current market values. You swapped performance with a meta 4 module there. http://i.imgur.com/1iGFRnN.png 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
Moac Tor Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation 316	Posted - 2015.11.16 20:45:42 - [146] - Quote 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. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
CaesarGREG2 Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.11.16 22:23:12 - [147] - Quote hi In my opinion, to compansate effectivness loss , they should have greater fallof to compansate loss of effectivness. 1. T1 modules have 50% less optimal , u cant consider replace them by T2 (-20% optimal) because T2 module uses more PowerGrid. 2. T1 modules in most cases amount Neutralized is lower. For example mediums 165GJ befor 180GJ . 3. recons Curse , pilgrim now with bonuses to fallof, have edge of range asame but less efective, that's why this fallof range should be beyond Old optimal renge. 4.other electronic modules like ecm have greater fallof than optimal. 5.Maybe Neutralizers should have skill to increase fallof like ECM's have. 6.Energy neutralizers uses much more GJ than other EW modules. Pls reconsider , to compensate somhow loss of effectivness.
CaesarGREG2 Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.11.16 22:39:37 - [148] - Quote in my opinon they should get greater fallof to compansate effectivness loss. 1.T1 modules have -50% optimal, u cant think like replacing them T2(-20%optimal) because they use more PowerGrid. 2.T1 modules have lowered Amaunt of neutralized. For example mediums 165GJ insted 180GJ. 3.Ships with bonuses like Curses, now when u add fallof have asame range like before on optimal, but less efective. 4.For example ECM's have greater fallof than optimal , maybe neutralizers should have skill to increase Fallof like ECM's have. 5.Most important module should disable automaticly if beyond Fallof range like now beyond optimal. U shouldnt activate it when beyond range!!!!!!!! thx thats my opinion
Moac Tor Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation 317	Posted - 2015.11.16 22:46:10 - [149] - Quote 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? Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
CaesarGREG2 Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.11.16 22:52:07 - [150] - Quote PPl forget that T1 modules Have optimal 2/3 like before!!! Mediums had 12600 now have 8000m optimal. Feodor Romanov wrote: Harvey James wrote: Feodor Romanov wrote: This changes is a nerf for neuts specialized ships. For example my Armageddon with t2 neut have optimal range 37,8 km. After the patch it will be 30km+12,5km. Neuts at falloff range will neut me more then my target! More then half of second faloff range will be useless even for the ships with neuts strength bonuses. All this falloff is usefull only when you have Cap Booster and your target has not. 30km op 15km falloff you mean "Ships with existing bonuses to Neut/Nos Optimal Range will receive a 2nd half strength bonus to Falloff" For Geddon it will be 5% for skill lvl, so 12,5 km falloff.

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

Sitting Bull Lakota Ministry of War Amarr Empire 34	Posted - 2015.12.04 06:25:47 - [181] - Quote Judging from the charts, nos will siphon gj instead of "points" now?
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1249	Posted - 2015.12.04 14:12:47 - [182] - Quote so this thread was totally ignored as patch notes are out , awesome stuff, all those meta 4 neuts everyone runs right now will just be deleted then, instead of making them restrained as would have made sense. 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
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 4266	Posted - 2015.12.04 20:00:00 - [183] - Quote Interesting change. As a side note, how have we considered the impact this will have on Fleet Interceptors? One of the traditional uses for fleet inties involved tackling ratting BS's and Carriers and holding them until the fleet arrived. They utilized their warp disruption range bonus to stay out of heavy neut range, and their speed to mitigate drone damage. While MJD's have encroached on this role before, this change feels like the final nail in the coffin for such a role, as a Heavy Neut will now neut out any interceptor within 50 km's. Does CCP plan to revisit the role of fleet interceptors in the not to distant future, as this change leaves the Crusader in particular rather gimped in fulfilling this role (as it lacks 3 mids to fit a cap booster, mwd, and point).
MAS0RAKSH Viziam Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 00:01:45 - [184] - Quote Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Interesting change. As a side note, how have we considered the impact this will have on Fleet Interceptors? One of the traditional uses for fleet inties involved tackling ratting BS's and Carriers and holding them until the fleet arrived. They utilized their warp disruption range bonus to stay out of heavy neut range, and their speed to mitigate drone damage. While MJD's have encroached on this role before, this change feels like the final nail in the coffin for such a role, as a Heavy Neut will now neut out any interceptor within 50 km's. Does CCP plan to revisit the role of fleet interceptors in the not to distant future, as this change leaves the Crusader in particular rather gimped in fulfilling this role (as it lacks 3 mids to fit a cap booster, mwd, and point). gimps amarr laser ships even more. remove the energy turret cap usage for a resistance to nos/neut like a built in cap battery (fits well with the amarr adapting to blood raider systems) interceptors... get a few more ceptors -did you really want to live forever? Legion electronic system -tracking disruptor bonus Legion offensive drone -nos/neut range and amount bonus instead of medium energy turret cap use Legion offensive covert -launcher slots and nos/neut range and amount bonus Legion engineering augmented -nos/neuts only partially effective against legion with this system. Amarr -solved and playable with these changes.
Kystraz Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 29	Posted - 2015.12.06 00:04:01 - [185] - Quote The crusader never used its range bonus to stay out of range of heavy neuts because it doesn't have a range bonus.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1251	Posted - 2015.12.08 18:23:04 - [186] - Quote meta 4 neuts were converted too compacts instead of scoped 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
FT Cold The Scope Gallente Federation 34	Posted - 2015.12.09 20:24:14 - [187] - Quote Cap warfare is still too powerful when stacked. Neuts need to have a stacking penalty when applied to subcaps.
Zockhandra Jewish Zeppelin Mafia 22	Posted - 2015.12.10 14:33:30 - [188] - Quote FT Cold wrote: Cap warfare is still too powerful when stacked. Neuts need to have a stacking penalty when applied to subcaps. Stacking penalty against the 10,000 Cap Raven navy issue with a capacitor battery and booster. Can see alot of bhaalgorns shedding tears about how the raven neuts better by just being the target
Zockhandra Jewish Zeppelin Mafia 22	Posted - 2015.12.10 14:36:45 - [189] - Quote MAS0RAKSH wrote: Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Interesting change. As a side note, how have we considered the impact this will have on Fleet Interceptors? One of the traditional uses for fleet inties involved tackling ratting BS's and Carriers and holding them until the fleet arrived. They utilized their warp disruption range bonus to stay out of heavy neut range, and their speed to mitigate drone damage. While MJD's have encroached on this role before, this change feels like the final nail in the coffin for such a role, as a Heavy Neut will now neut out any interceptor within 50 km's. Does CCP plan to revisit the role of fleet interceptors in the not to distant future, as this change leaves the Crusader in particular rather gimped in fulfilling this role (as it lacks 3 mids to fit a cap booster, mwd, and point). gimps amarr laser ships even more. remove the energy turret cap usage for a resistance to nos/neut like a built in cap battery (fits well with the amarr adapting to blood raider systems) interceptors... get a few more ceptors -did you really want to live forever? Legion electronic system -tracking disruptor bonus Legion offensive drone -nos/neut range and amount bonus instead of medium energy turret cap use Legion offensive covert -launcher slots and nos/neut range and amount bonus Legion engineering augmented -nos/neuts only partially effective against legion with this system. Amarr -solved and playable with these changes. That Sir, Is the best and most practicle soloution to Amarr that i have ever seen. EVER
FT Cold The Scope Gallente Federation 38	Posted - 2015.12.10 20:31:52 - [190] - Quote Zockhandra wrote: FT Cold wrote: Cap warfare is still too powerful when stacked. Neuts need to have a stacking penalty when applied to subcaps. Stacking penalty against the 10,000 Cap Raven navy issue with a capacitor battery and booster. Can see alot of bhaalgorns shedding tears about how the raven neuts better by just being the target Well maybe they should have to spread their neuts out, or be willing to accept a penalty if they want to have maximum neuting power.

Shelick Addicted To Chaos Archetype. 3	Posted - 2015.12.14 18:06:06 - [191] - Quote Aquila Sagitta wrote: Between this and the hic changes kiting is getting the nerf bat hard! Good, we need brawling back.
Alexis Nightwish 379	Posted - 2015.12.14 18:56:04 - [192] - Quote Harvey James wrote: meta 4 neuts were converted too compacts instead of scoped I'm pretty sure that with every tiericide pass they're just going to convert all meta modules to 'Compact' so that it doesn't break fits. CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge EVE Online's "I win!" Button Fixing bombs, not the bombers
Fird Eve Minions The-Company 14	Posted - 2015.12.20 18:54:51 - [193] - Quote Seriously though, what happens to the isk invested in the meta versions? Imagine being a big supplier and suddenly you are out billions because ccp changed a few stats. Is there some sort of reimbursement for having expensive meta mods replaced with cheaper renamed modules with different stats?
d0cTeR9 Oceanic Death Squad SpaceMonkey's Alliance 304	Posted - 2016.01.02 03:57:52 - [194] - Quote Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Interesting change. As a side note, how have we considered the impact this will have on Fleet Interceptors? One of the traditional uses for fleet inties involved tackling ratting BS's and Carriers and holding them until the fleet arrived. They utilized their warp disruption range bonus to stay out of heavy neut range, and their speed to mitigate drone damage. While MJD's have encroached on this role before, this change feels like the final nail in the coffin for such a role, as a Heavy Neut will now neut out any interceptor within 50 km's. Does CCP plan to revisit the role of fleet interceptors in the not to distant future, as this change leaves the Crusader in particular rather gimped in fulfilling this role (as it lacks 3 mids to fit a cap booster, mwd, and point). About time those near-invincible, near-untackle, fight-dictating fleets/gangs got nerfed. Been around since the beginning.
Kasia en Tilavine School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 69	Posted - 2016.01.17 05:26:47 - [195] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Stats Neutralizer Image Link Neutralizer Google Docs Link Nosferatu Image Link Nosferatu Google Docs Link Fird wrote: Seriously though, what happens to the isk invested in the meta versions? Imagine being a big supplier and suddenly you are out billions because ccp changed a few stats. Is there some sort of reimbursement for having expensive meta mods replaced with cheaper renamed modules with different stats? I geniunely laughed for like... 10 minutes. Thanks. Question about the dragoon and geddon bonus. Now that range values have been changed, the geddon/dragoon bonus is substantially weaker at providing small gang grid coverage and also weaker at allowing the neuts to hit other neut ships outside their range. With the old bonus there was a 10-12.5 km range where the neut differential between a geddon and Dominix/typhoon was 100%\0%. Post changes, there is only an 8-10 km 100%\50% effect differential. With a 6-10 km 50/25% effect ratio. This is a huge nerf to the value/applicability ratio on that particular bonus. Would you consider upinng the 10%\5% per level to a 15%\7.5% per level? This would bring the ratio to 100%\42.5%, and pushed into falloff the geddon could manage a 50%\12.5% effect ratio.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one 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.