Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
13725
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 19:11:30 -
[1] - Quote
Hello everyone! We're planning a huge set of module tiericide in our March release and this thread will serve as the feedback location for changes to Warp Disruptors and Scramblers.
Like many old sets of modules, the Meta 4 scramblers were strictly better than T2, significantly reducing the choice involved when choosing fittings. We are correcting this issue on many module sets as we move through them for Tiericide and scramblers are no exception.
We are also making some notable changes to faction disruptors and scrams. Firstly, we're adding Federation Navy Disruptors and Scramblers because of course the Federation Navy should make points. We are splitting the faction points into three categories. Caldari, Guristas, Khanid and Dark blood have the shortest range, lowest fitting and cap use. Minmatar, Angel and Sansha have the longest range, highest fitting and cap use. Shadow Serpentis and Federation Navy fall in the middle. All faction scramblers now have 3 points of disruption strength.
Officer disruptors and scramblers now have the word "Heavy" attached to their name to indicate their high fitting costs, and have had their disruption strength increased significantly to 3 and 6 respectively. With the later Citadel expansion we plan on adding lower-meta versions of "Heavy" points aimed at capital ship usage since extra points of disruption strength will prove useful for tackling supercapitals after the expansion. The officer points are just getting in on the change early.
Here's the most recent iteration of the numbers:
We're very interested in your feedback on all these changes. We'll be releasing them to Singularity next week if all goes well, so that you can try these and all the other module changes planned for the March release. Please use this thread for passing along your feedback, and we'll be reading.
Thanks!
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
13725
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 19:19:04 -
[2] - Quote
Reserved
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Marc Scaurus
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
152
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 20:08:02 -
[3] - Quote
I approve of anything that might make stabs a little less relevant in this game.
Blogger, JustForCrits.com
Red vs. Blue - Ain't Dead Yet
|
Jazz Caden
Convicts and Savages Shadow Cartel
34
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 20:15:01 -
[4] - Quote
Interesting |
big miker
Rifterlings Zero.Four Ops
445
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 20:21:36 -
[5] - Quote
Holy **** at the Republic fleet / Domination warp disruptor CPU increase
Latest video: Ferocious 8.0 'Officer' Nightmare!
|
Arla Sarain
751
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 20:21:39 -
[6] - Quote
INB4 stealth FED UNION LP store buff.
Srsly tho.
4 CPU difference? You rip off artist xD Perhaps if they were cheaper...
Although it does look like caldari scrams are getting a small Range buff along with higher strength. |
Loki Feiht
Feiht Family Clan
208
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 20:22:01 -
[7] - Quote
No optimnal/falloff changes? Bit dull
More NPC - Randomly Generated Modular Content-áthread
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=220858
|
Gabriel Luis
Dixon Cox Butte Preservation Society Psychotic Tendencies.
14
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 20:31:25 -
[8] - Quote
Quote:Gotan's Modified Heavy Capital Warp Disruptor
[03:18:54] Zack1023 > tishu = pl, nc.
|
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
1199
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 20:45:41 -
[9] - Quote
big miker wrote:Holy **** at the Republic fleet / Domination warp disruptor CPU increase
And thus is the death of dozens of high end fits.
Why are they taking such a spanking and nothing else (webs, damage mods) are? |
big miker
Rifterlings Zero.Four Ops
445
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 20:49:12 -
[10] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:big miker wrote:Holy **** at the Republic fleet / Domination warp disruptor CPU increase And thus is the death of dozens of high end fits.
Considering the lowest range warp disruptor still uses +6 more cpu than the currunt domination / republic fleet warp disruptor we have, yes. RIP lot's of setups!
Latest video: Ferocious 8.0 'Officer' Nightmare!
|
|
Prozn Zanjoahir
Pentag Blade Curatores Veritatis Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 20:54:37 -
[11] - Quote
The cpu changes are going to ruin a lot of fits, especially at the frig end of the spectrum. What is the rationale behind the changes? |
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
920
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 20:55:56 -
[12] - Quote
Ive always felt like scrams should have more warp disrupt points when overheating.
RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
1065
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 21:04:13 -
[13] - Quote
Oh my true sansha long point just got a range increase
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.
|
Skyler Hawk
The Tuskers The Tuskers Co.
67
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 21:14:41 -
[14] - Quote
It feels like low-meta scramblers have been kind of over-nerfed. It's perfectly understandable to not want Faint Epsilon scrams to be strictly better than T2, but having the low cpu option restricted to 7.5 km range is really punishing given that the loss of a few hundred meters of scram range on going from a t2 or faint epsilon scram to a j5b is pretty noticeable. I think it'd be better if the scoped scram had a range of maybe 8.5 km and the compact/enduring scrams had ranges of 8 km. |
Mad Abbat
Talon Swarm
30
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 21:17:25 -
[15] - Quote
Dear Fozzie why do you think that 44 CPU for t2 disruptor and 36 CPU for t2 scam and 40 CPU for high end warp dis are values to keep? Don't you think that its better to use old meta4 mods as baseline (becasue, you know, they ARE the baseline for ALL current fits) and balance around that?
Don't you think that ranges of t2 web and t2 scram should match each other, because, you know, scram kiting is still a thing in FW?
because after the nerf in fitting we shall have 10km web and 7.5km scram, because you just can't fit 2 at the same time, wich is ridiculous. |
Adam Lyon
Incident Command Local Is Primary
15
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 21:17:43 -
[16] - Quote
Scram kiting in frigs is fought at the edge of scram range and this will make scram kites dubiously expensive or outright not viable.
It seems like the DC, web, and scram changes were made almost without consideration towards frigate fitting or PvP. I hope they are reconsidered. |
Anthar Thebess
1452
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 21:20:52 -
[17] - Quote
What about Pirate LP stores? Where they get some new modules?
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Dodo Veetee
Jump Drive Appreciation Society
26
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 21:22:11 -
[18] - Quote
I thought the point of doing a tiercide was to lower the number of modules of the same class, and then you go and introduce MORE points/scrams. |
Vogels
Original Sinners Tactical Narcotics Team
3
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 21:39:31 -
[19] - Quote
What's the point of having 3 groups of mods each with the exact same stats? There is no reason to have 6 redundant modules that are named differently. |
Chainsaw Plankton
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
2290
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:03:05 -
[20] - Quote
big miker wrote:Holy **** at the Republic fleet / Domination warp disruptor CPU increase I always thought it was a bit silly the 30km points were 19cpu, although not sure jumping up to 40 is the right thing to do.
@ChainsawPlankto
|
|
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders
606
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:08:32 -
[21] - Quote
fittings....
Black Fox Marauders is Recruiting
|
Warak Soal
Spousal Disapproval Inc
3
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:17:01 -
[22] - Quote
Stealth nerf to Deep Space Transports or will you bump their warp core strength to +3? |
Hairpins Blueprint
The Northerners Northern Coalition.
178
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:23:15 -
[23] - Quote
big miker wrote:Holy **** at the Republic fleet / Domination warp disruptor CPU increase Kills plenty of fits xd |
Captain Campion
Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:26:58 -
[24] - Quote
scram should always have more range than web discuss |
Theon Severasse
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
142
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:36:48 -
[25] - Quote
This is a pretty big nerf to all of the sub-T2 scrams.
The ranges should really be ~8300 for the Initiated and the J5B and ~8700 for the Faint |
Avon Salinder
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 23:39:23 -
[26] - Quote
6 points of jam strength? Sexy. |
Mad Abbat
Talon Swarm
35
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 23:48:33 -
[27] - Quote
Where is Imperial navy items? |
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
425
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 23:53:41 -
[28] - Quote
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:big miker wrote:Holy **** at the Republic fleet / Domination warp disruptor CPU increase I always thought it was a bit silly the 30km points were 19cpu, although not sure jumping up to 40 is the right thing to do. Yes, it makes a lot more sense now. I found it most strange that high meta disruptors cost less CPU thank high meta scrams. This does kill a lot of fits though.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Lady Ayeipsia
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
999
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 23:55:30 -
[29] - Quote
Will drop rates of meta modules be adjusted? |
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
425
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 23:56:03 -
[30] - Quote
Warak Soal wrote:Stealth nerf to Deep Space Transports or will you bump their warp core strength to +3? It is not as though DSTs were overpowered, so this is a bit of an unnecessary nerf to them in my opinon.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1204
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 00:11:55 -
[31] - Quote
could j5b be the compact pls
j5b 4 lyfe |
Aliventi
Adversity. Psychotic Tendencies.
915
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 00:25:48 -
[32] - Quote
Most officer modules derive from two different factions. I think this would be a good time to add warp disruptors and scrams to another faction's officers. Perhaps Serpentis would be a good pick. IMO you could also do the same for Stasis Webifiers who only come from Angel officers. |
Aaril
Noble Sentiments Second Empire.
23
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 00:38:06 -
[33] - Quote
Please rethink the scram range changes. You literally just did an across the board nerf on sub-T2 scrams. Many FW/low sec fits are generally already tight using the x5 + j5b combo. Its either that or give up over 1km of scram range. The scoped needs to be 8625 and the rest need to be 8250. Also, please make j5b scoped. |
DarkViper VI
Sapper Corporation Warp to Cyno.
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 00:54:39 -
[34] - Quote
Wondering why the faction points remain at 1 along w/ the lesser versions of the mod while the officer's are 3. There's no middle such as a strength of 2. I noticed the scrams are meta (lesser versions) 2, faction 3 and officer are 6. So why not have the same for points etc. meta 1, faction 2 and officer 3. |
Koenig Yazria
Adversity. Psychotic Tendencies.
3
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 00:57:02 -
[35] - Quote
Seriously, wtf.
The changes in the last year have become ever more puzzling. |
Amera Khan
Southern Cross Incorporated Shadow Cartel
44
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 01:10:32 -
[36] - Quote
Nerfing fitting on faction points just kills Blops fits which are extremely tight to fit. Please reconsider the CPU nerf. |
Aliventi
Adversity. Psychotic Tendencies.
915
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 01:15:27 -
[37] - Quote
Amera Khan wrote:Nerfing fitting on faction points just kills Blops fits which are extremely tight to fit. Please reconsider the CPU nerf. Or CCP could just rebalance BlOps to give them the fitting they need so they don't have to go max deadspace/faction to get a useable fit. |
Burton UnIncSR
Applied Anarchy ChaosTheory.
7
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 01:17:43 -
[38] - Quote
curios on the Gotan distributor? If it's going to be Labled as a Capital modual i would think the strength and fitting would reflect that? |
Suitonia
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
679
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 02:02:21 -
[39] - Quote
The range nerf on the Meta Scramblers seems pretty big. (Intentional?)
It makes sense to make the Tech II Warp Scrambler finally worth using over Faint Epsilon. However, dropping all scrams to the t1 base range of 7.5km changes the scram kiting meta-game quite substantially from the previous common range of 8625m from J5b. 8000 for non-scoped meta, 8500m for scoped seems a little better for progression (7.5km, 8km, 8.5km, 9km) from t1 to t2 in 500m increments. I understand you may want consistency with this class of modules though with the Meta Warp Disruptors also having the same optimal range of the T1 version.
Other than that, I think these changes look very promising and healthy.
I think the old RF point used to be overpowered with best range and CPU so I don't see it as too much of an issue going up to 40 CPU and the new 'compact' style tier of faction modules not having the old CPU. I think it's worth pointing out to people upset about the CPU increase that there are more options now (Compact Weapon Upgrades, Damage Controls not being mandatory) which can help with fitting
Contributer to Eve is Easy:
https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos
Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
|
Alexis Nightwish
406
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 02:15:55 -
[40] - Quote
Reduce the scoped, compact, and enduring by 2 CPU each, and the T2 activation cost back to 5 and it's fine. Scrams are supposed to be newbro friendly and the CPU costs are too damn high!
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
|
Aaril
Noble Sentiments Second Empire.
23
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 02:18:19 -
[41] - Quote
Suitonia wrote:The range nerf on the Meta Scramblers seems pretty big. (Intentional?)
It makes sense to make the Tech II Warp Scrambler finally worth using over Faint Epsilon. However, dropping all scrams to the t1 base range of 7.5km changes the scram kiting meta-game quite substantially from the previous common range of 8625m from J5b. 8000 for non-scoped meta, 8500m for scoped seems a little better for progression (7.5km, 8km, 8.5km, 9km) from t1 to t2 in 500m increments. I understand you may want consistency with this class of modules though with the Meta Warp Disruptors also having the same optimal range of the T1 version.
Other than that, I think these changes look very promising and healthy.
I think the old RF point used to be overpowered with best range and CPU so I don't see it as too much of an issue going up to 40 CPU and the new 'compact' style tier of faction modules not having the old CPU. I think it's worth pointing out to people upset about the CPU increase that there are more options now (Compact Weapon Upgrades, Damage Controls not being mandatory) which can help with fitting
I agree overall, but the scoped should be at 8625m, and the rest at 8250m. Also the drop rates need to change so we are not paying 5M for a scoped scram (this is half the cost of a standard T2 fitted T1 frig).
As to your second point, I have been going through all my fits in Pyfa, and the results of this tiericide (the combination of all...sensor boosters at 16 CPU instead of 10, TPs at 24 instead of 16, etc) are an across the board nerf all due to CPU. Not huge nerfs, but nearly all my fits were nerfed in some way. I cannot even fit Interdictors anymore due to their already EXTREMELY limited CPU. |
exiik Shardani
Terpene Conglomerate
46
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 03:45:16 -
[42] - Quote
J5b scram is core for most PvP fits in FW and nerf from 8625 to 7500 is so so hard. after that there is no reason to fit that. that change hurt hard most tormentor fits for example.
Faint scram needs at least 8625m (old J5b scram range), or mayby 8800m and +1cap usage
J5b and initial scrams need at least 8200m scram range. 7500m is very low and it is so hard for scram kite and it is as well hard buff for kiters (mainly inside in FW plex, much more easily getting out of scram with OH mwd after entering plex...)
or buff scram overheat range...
exiik Shardani wrote:so range/CPU metrics [NEW]
Intial compact- 7500/26= 288 J5b - 7500/30= 250 Faint - 8250/30= 275 T2 scram - 9000/36= 250
so range/CPU metrics [OLD]
Intial compact- 7875/26= 302 J5b - 8625/27= 319 Faint - 9000/28= 321 T2 scram - 9000/36= 250 as you can see from m/cpu why J5b and Faint were most popular...
I think new numbers can be more in row, but with some minimal range aka "old one" Intial compact- 7875/26= 302 J5b - 8625/30= 287 or 8400/30=280(if scram nerf is really needed) Faint - 8960/32= 280 T2 scram - 9360/36= 260
sry for my English :-(
|
Rockstara
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
51
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 04:20:38 -
[43] - Quote
The heavy versions are a bit underwhelming considering the massive PG fitting cost. With that fitting they'll only be able to be used on ships without a range bonus so they're pretty meh.
Like that the worst officer disruptors will now be better than faction. So |
Canon Makanen
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 04:46:35 -
[44] - Quote
CCP, just tell me why you increase the CPU of disruptor and ECM module, and no more Meta 4 Damage control? I dont know why your tiericide always made ppls more annoying and need them to abandon or change their fitting. You just need to give us some reason why you need to increase the cpu usage of these module and no substitution of the old meta DC |
MRxX7XxMONKEY
Sleepless Enterprises
10
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 04:58:12 -
[45] - Quote
Make sure you guys balance DSTs so that theyre in line with these changes, need more warp strength if almost everybody is going to have 3 strength scrams. Especially with the navy maulus existing |
Lena Lazair
Sefrim
553
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 06:13:59 -
[46] - Quote
Vogels wrote:What's the point of having 3 groups of mods each with the exact same stats? There is no reason to have 6 redundant modules that are named differently.
Agreed. Combine the identical faction variants into a single item with a new generic name. Sell this same item from all 3 faction LP stores. This current proposal reeks of the exact redundancy and pointless complexity I thought tiericide was supposed to address. |
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
1206
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 08:27:12 -
[47] - Quote
Aliventi wrote:Amera Khan wrote:Nerfing fitting on faction points just kills Blops fits which are extremely tight to fit. Please reconsider the CPU nerf. Or CCP could just rebalance BlOps to give them the fitting they need so they don't have to go max deadspace/faction to get a useable fit.
Heresy.
Apparently. |
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
1206
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 08:30:45 -
[48] - Quote
Suitonia wrote:I think the old RF point used to be overpowered with best range and CPU so I don't see it as too much of an issue going up to 40 CPU and the new 'compact' style tier of faction modules not having the old CPU. I think it's worth pointing out to people upset about the CPU increase that there are more options now (Compact Weapon Upgrades, Damage Controls not being mandatory) which can help with fitting
Erm, the BLOPs guys already use faction and deadspace just about everything because the fitting on those ships is absolutely ridiculous. Said faction and deadspace being even lower than the proposed compact versions.
This is a pretty substantial nerf to BLOPS, we can probably pay our way out of it by even more excessive bling but that's not really the point. |
May Arethusa
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
116
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 08:47:55 -
[49] - Quote
Awesome. You just broke Interceptors again. |
Qweasdy
Militaris Industries Northern Coalition.
97
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 09:05:54 -
[50] - Quote
Suitonia wrote:The range nerf on the Meta Scramblers seems pretty big. (Intentional?)
It makes sense to make the Tech II Warp Scrambler finally worth using over Faint Epsilon. However, dropping all scrams to the t1 base range of 7.5km changes the scram kiting meta-game quite substantially from the previous common range of 8625m from J5b. 8000 for non-scoped meta, 8500m for scoped seems a little better for progression (7.5km, 8km, 8.5km, 9km) from t1 to t2 in 500m increments. I understand you may want consistency with this class of modules though with the Meta Warp Disruptors also having the same optimal range of the T1 version.
I'm pretty sure it was intentional, scram kiting was pretty powerful (arugably too powerful), this change forces scram kiting ships to make more sacrifices than a ship that only uses their scram to brawl with. Seems pretty reasonable to me in combination with the change to hull resists and new lower cpu damage mods.
This is a terrible thread. As such, it's locked. - CCP Falcon
|
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1214
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 10:54:47 -
[51] - Quote
so this means I can get my attack frigate's warp scrambler cap usage down to 0.3 units every 5 seconds lol. gg neutraliser scrubs. |
Suitonia
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
679
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 11:03:13 -
[52] - Quote
Qweasdy wrote:Suitonia wrote:The range nerf on the Meta Scramblers seems pretty big. (Intentional?)
It makes sense to make the Tech II Warp Scrambler finally worth using over Faint Epsilon. However, dropping all scrams to the t1 base range of 7.5km changes the scram kiting meta-game quite substantially from the previous common range of 8625m from J5b. 8000 for non-scoped meta, 8500m for scoped seems a little better for progression (7.5km, 8km, 8.5km, 9km) from t1 to t2 in 500m increments. I understand you may want consistency with this class of modules though with the Meta Warp Disruptors also having the same optimal range of the T1 version.
I'm pretty sure it was intentional, scram kiting was pretty powerful (arugably too powerful), this change forces scram kiting ships to make more sacrifices than a ship that only uses their scram to brawl with. Seems pretty reasonable to me in combination with the change to hull resists and new lower cpu damage mods.
Yeah I completely agree.
Contributer to Eve is Easy:
https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos
Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
|
Commander Spurty
Moosearmy I N F A M O U S
1611
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 12:08:46 -
[53] - Quote
T2 modules are so weak it's painful imagining why anyone would jump through all those hoops to produce them when rats will drop far superior versions and pay you to collect them!!
There are good ships
And wood ships
And ships that sail the sea
But the best ships are
Spaceships
Built by CCP
|
Dantelion Shinoni
SQUIDS.
24
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 12:44:16 -
[54] - Quote
All the tiericide changes have been fantastic, but this one...
This one is going to do a lot of harm to FW space.
If tiericide's goal if to create options, this one is going to fail hard!
Everyone will fit the Scoped or Tech II version when it comes to Scrams, those who don't will be punished by being scrammed by people at 8.5-9km on which they can't land one.
Check this, a 750m difference between Scoped and non-Scoped, this is huge! A difference of 500m has been the difference on a scram landed and yet another opponent warping away for me so many times, I can't see who in their right mind would be okay with giving 750m or a entire freaking kilometer compared to actual j5b!!?!
That plus you have to consider a 7.5k scram doesn't mean people will be at 7.5k when scram-kiting. It means they will be at ~6,else they are literally asking for that scram to break. Meanwhile the Scoped guy will be able to select the 7.5k range/orbit and laugh as the non-Scoped guy either try to go 5k,or constantly lose point on him.
Basically, you will have to fork a lot of cash to scram-kite. Assuming the same drop rate as Faint Epsilon for the Scoped version, it's either fork 3M, be able to fit tech II, or buy faction.....
That plus you have to consider that having to be at 5-7.5km exposes you to a lot more damage. If the goal here is to nerf scram-kiting, mission accomplished, but only on those who will be daft enough to not fit a Scoped or more. If you really want the 7.5k range, you have to reduce the difference with Scoped and Tech II and faction, otherwise you have just created an imbalance without beefing the thing.
If the goal is not to nerf scram-kiting, j5b range needs to be the range on sub-Scoped meta modules, else you will just end up with less kills and more people warping out all around FW space, and I can't see why'd you want that :p |
Starrakatt
Run and Gun Mercenary Corps FETID
364
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 12:53:26 -
[55] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Suitonia wrote:I think the old RF point used to be overpowered with best range and CPU so I don't see it as too much of an issue going up to 40 CPU and the new 'compact' style tier of faction modules not having the old CPU. I think it's worth pointing out to people upset about the CPU increase that there are more options now (Compact Weapon Upgrades, Damage Controls not being mandatory) which can help with fitting Erm, the BLOPs guys already use faction and deadspace just about everything because the fitting on those ships is absolutely ridiculous. Said faction and deadspace being even lower than the proposed compact versions. This is a pretty substantial nerf to BLOPS, we can probably pay our way out of it by even more excessive bling but that's not really the point. CCP wants you to start using more Co-processors.
All PVP ships should fit one.
Obviously.
Sneaky bastard.
|
Yvonne Chelien
Grey Eagles TransentienT
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 13:18:56 -
[56] - Quote
With changes of scrambler force, are you going to buff DST warp scramble resistance? |
Luscius Uta
195
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 13:48:05 -
[57] - Quote
I'm not a fan of CPU changes, since they will kill a lot of fits utilizing meta 4 scrams and/or webs. I would highly recommend introducing a new skill (INT/MEM, 2x training multiplier) that would reduce CPU needs for all EWAR modules by 5% per level (this would include dampeners, jammers and so on, since they'll get tiericied as well).
Drifters have arrived - The End is nigh!
|
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
1208
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 13:52:57 -
[58] - Quote
Starrakatt wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Suitonia wrote:I think the old RF point used to be overpowered with best range and CPU so I don't see it as too much of an issue going up to 40 CPU and the new 'compact' style tier of faction modules not having the old CPU. I think it's worth pointing out to people upset about the CPU increase that there are more options now (Compact Weapon Upgrades, Damage Controls not being mandatory) which can help with fitting Erm, the BLOPs guys already use faction and deadspace just about everything because the fitting on those ships is absolutely ridiculous. Said faction and deadspace being even lower than the proposed compact versions. This is a pretty substantial nerf to BLOPS, we can probably pay our way out of it by even more excessive bling but that's not really the point. CCP wants you to start using more Co-processors. All PVP ships should fit one. Obviously.
Quite.
This fit will now be gone:
[Redeemer, Example] Imperial Navy Heat Sink Imperial Navy Heat Sink Imperial Navy 1600mm Steel Plates Imperial Navy 1600mm Steel Plates Coreli A-Type Adaptive Nano Plating Coreli A-Type Adaptive Nano Plating Internal Force Field Array I
Medium Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 800 500MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive Domination Warp Disruptor Large Micro Jump Drive
Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L Dread Guristas Cloaking Device Medium Gremlin Compact Energy Neutralizer
Large Trimark Armor Pump II Large Energy Burst Aerator II
Berserker II x5
Certainly, I can swap mods to make it fit, but they are ALL a nerf. Is that the aim here? Make people reduce the power on their hulls via a clubbing via fitting?
What meaningful choice am I presented with? Because as it stands it is "weaker fit, or offline mods". Not really much of a choice there guys. |
Abda
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 13:53:06 -
[59] - Quote
BRB gotta go sell my blops bling before everyone notices its all gonna get nerfed.
And sell my blops too while I am at it, lol. |
Starrakatt
Run and Gun Mercenary Corps FETID
364
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 14:25:28 -
[60] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Starrakatt wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Suitonia wrote:I think the old RF point used to be overpowered with best range and CPU so I don't see it as too much of an issue going up to 40 CPU and the new 'compact' style tier of faction modules not having the old CPU. I think it's worth pointing out to people upset about the CPU increase that there are more options now (Compact Weapon Upgrades, Damage Controls not being mandatory) which can help with fitting Erm, the BLOPs guys already use faction and deadspace just about everything because the fitting on those ships is absolutely ridiculous. Said faction and deadspace being even lower than the proposed compact versions. This is a pretty substantial nerf to BLOPS, we can probably pay our way out of it by even more excessive bling but that's not really the point. CCP wants you to start using more Co-processors. All PVP ships should fit one. Obviously. Quite. This fit will now be gone: [Redeemer, Example] Imperial Navy Heat Sink Imperial Navy Heat Sink Imperial Navy 1600mm Steel Plates Imperial Navy 1600mm Steel Plates Coreli A-Type Adaptive Nano Plating Coreli A-Type Adaptive Nano Plating Internal Force Field Array I Medium Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 800 500MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive Domination Warp Disruptor Large Micro Jump Drive Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L Dread Guristas Cloaking Device Medium Gremlin Compact Energy Neutralizer Large Trimark Armor Pump II Large Energy Burst Aerator II Berserker II x5 Certainly, I can swap mods to make it fit, but they are ALL a nerf. Is that the aim here? Make people reduce the power on their hulls via a clubbing via fitting? What meaningful choice am I presented with? Because as it stands it is "weaker fit, or offline mods". Not really much of a choice there guys. IT is because the dual prop, eats up most of your CPU. CCP will tell you taht you have to make a choice and compromises.
Also, most frigate fits (the vast majority of them) are so very tight on CPU that a Co-Proc or CPU rig will become mandatory. PVP ones taht is, PVE frigs (and othr ships) are less demanding in CPU.
That being said, a lot of my ships ends up very tight on CPU, especially missile ships, and will become obsolete. Heck, even with bling I have CPU trouble fitting a MWD Fleet Typhoon.
Sneaky bastard.
|
|
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
1208
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 14:33:28 -
[61] - Quote
Starrakatt wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Starrakatt wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Suitonia wrote:I think the old RF point used to be overpowered with best range and CPU so I don't see it as too much of an issue going up to 40 CPU and the new 'compact' style tier of faction modules not having the old CPU. I think it's worth pointing out to people upset about the CPU increase that there are more options now (Compact Weapon Upgrades, Damage Controls not being mandatory) which can help with fitting Erm, the BLOPs guys already use faction and deadspace just about everything because the fitting on those ships is absolutely ridiculous. Said faction and deadspace being even lower than the proposed compact versions. This is a pretty substantial nerf to BLOPS, we can probably pay our way out of it by even more excessive bling but that's not really the point. CCP wants you to start using more Co-processors. All PVP ships should fit one. Obviously. Quite. This fit will now be gone: [Redeemer, Example] Imperial Navy Heat Sink Imperial Navy Heat Sink Imperial Navy 1600mm Steel Plates Imperial Navy 1600mm Steel Plates Coreli A-Type Adaptive Nano Plating Coreli A-Type Adaptive Nano Plating Internal Force Field Array I Medium Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 800 500MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive Domination Warp Disruptor Large Micro Jump Drive Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L Dread Guristas Cloaking Device Medium Gremlin Compact Energy Neutralizer Large Trimark Armor Pump II Large Energy Burst Aerator II Berserker II x5 Certainly, I can swap mods to make it fit, but they are ALL a nerf. Is that the aim here? Make people reduce the power on their hulls via a clubbing via fitting? What meaningful choice am I presented with? Because as it stands it is "weaker fit, or offline mods". Not really much of a choice there guys. IT is because the dual prop, eats up most of your CPU. CCP will tell you taht you have to make a choice and compromises. Also, most frigate fits (the vast majority of them) are so very tight on CPU that a Co-Proc or CPU rig will become mandatory. PVP ones taht is, PVE frigs (and othr ships) are less demanding in CPU. That being said, a lot of my ships ends up very tight on CPU, especially missile ships, and will become obsolete. Heck, even with bling I have CPU trouble fitting a MWD Fleet Typhoon.
I know where it is going - question is, is that their intended aim here? Didn't sound like it from the blog.
I'm holding out a slim hope yet that the IFFA DCU is a copya pasta error from the other IFFA which is 20 cpu today (and goes unused )
|
Qweasdy
Militaris Industries Northern Coalition.
99
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 15:00:07 -
[62] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Starrakatt wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Suitonia wrote:I think the old RF point used to be overpowered with best range and CPU so I don't see it as too much of an issue going up to 40 CPU and the new 'compact' style tier of faction modules not having the old CPU. I think it's worth pointing out to people upset about the CPU increase that there are more options now (Compact Weapon Upgrades, Damage Controls not being mandatory) which can help with fitting Erm, the BLOPs guys already use faction and deadspace just about everything because the fitting on those ships is absolutely ridiculous. Said faction and deadspace being even lower than the proposed compact versions. This is a pretty substantial nerf to BLOPS, we can probably pay our way out of it by even more excessive bling but that's not really the point. CCP wants you to start using more Co-processors. All PVP ships should fit one. Obviously. Quite. This fit will now be gone: [Redeemer, Example] Imperial Navy Heat Sink Imperial Navy Heat Sink Imperial Navy 1600mm Steel Plates Imperial Navy 1600mm Steel Plates Coreli A-Type Adaptive Nano Plating Coreli A-Type Adaptive Nano Plating Internal Force Field Array I Medium Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 800 500MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive Domination Warp Disruptor Large Micro Jump Drive Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L Dread Guristas Cloaking Device Medium Gremlin Compact Energy Neutralizer Large Trimark Armor Pump II Large Energy Burst Aerator II Berserker II x5 Certainly, I can swap mods to make it fit, but they are ALL a nerf. Is that the aim here? Make people reduce the power on their hulls via a clubbing via fitting? What meaningful choice am I presented with? Because as it stands it is "weaker fit, or offline mods". Not really much of a choice there guys.
Just use one of the less cpu intensive points, with a blops I can't imagine that the extra 4km of range makes much of a difference when you're landing directly on top of what you're killing.
Alternatively you could just get a 1% CPU implant
This is a terrible thread. As such, it's locked. - CCP Falcon
|
Tethys Luxor
Prima Gallicus
15
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 15:27:41 -
[63] - Quote
I can understand why the faint epsilon will become the scoped version, but why don't you swap the two other meta and make the j5b the compact version ? This is the most used version in FW and setting j5b to compactmeta would allow the actual stockpiles to be useful.
I agree that the difference between scoped and the two other is huge compared to the benefits of fitting/cap. Maybe the gap needs to be reduced a little. |
Koenig Yazria
Adversity. Psychotic Tendencies.
3
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 16:47:49 -
[64] - Quote
Qweasdy wrote:
Just use one of the less cpu intensive points, with a blops I can't imagine that the extra 4km of range makes much of a difference when you're landing directly on top of what you're killing.
4km is a world of range because unless your dropping on bastioned Marauders or Carriers, everything else outruns you.
Also RIP Stabber fleet and the likes which are super short on CPU. |
Lady Ayeipsia
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1000
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 16:59:03 -
[65] - Quote
I think I finally realized why I am not as fond of the changes to warp scrambles as I was with other modules. Meta 4 warp scramblers are expensive. We aren't talking hugely, but they can be double the cost of the T2 module. Yes they had similar performance and improved fitting, but this was balanced by cost. I would shoot for T2 mods, but if I could not fit it, my choice became is the Meta 4 mod benefit worth the cost of the module, especially in relation to the cost of the ship.
For example, on a kestrek where I might lose 10 on a good night, the value of the Meta 4 was not out weighed by the benefit. Meta 3 for those ships. On a sacrilege, it most certainly is worth the cost.
I think I am going to miss that aspect of the balance in fitting choices with this change. We lose the cost verse performance that was part of the risk. With the new stats, well... T2 all the way or meta 3 as I can't see many times where I'll pay for a mod that costs twice as much as the T2 variant for something that may fit, but greatly underperforms the t2.
Plus there is the impact these changes had on the market and loot. I remember when finding arbalast launchers was a nice find. That stopped a while back. The only high price mods left were certain Damage Controls and the meta 4 scrams and webs. Now... Maybe not. I know it's a wait and see. Still, I am worried that some of these changes will remove the cost vs performance part of the equation that I found added more variety run just fit the best you can aspect. |
Arch Aengelus
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 17:24:38 -
[66] - Quote
Could you make the CPU cost vary with range on warp scramblers/disruptors?
Honestly, the fitting on those things is unbalanced at the moment, and the current meta modules currently allow for more meaningful options than the current numbers you're presenting.
I think this is about the only case where having metas with different ranges, with increased cpu OR cap usage (but not both) is important, and makes an important choice. I think it makes a lot more sense to have capacitor use linked to range and a tier of CPU use also directly correlated with range, as it allows for more fitting choices and expense for longer range items. The only exception to capacitor/range correlation would be T2, which could use Less cap but more fitting for the same range.
If you want to enable good fitting options, instead of restricting it with massive increases in CPU Use to the whole group, an appropriate way to do it might be the following instead:
Scramblers: Compared to T2, if T2 is Level 4 on "use"
- T1: Mid CPU (Level 2), Mid Cap ( Level 3), Low Range (Level 1)
- Scoped: Less CPU (level 3), substantially more cap use than T2 (Level 5), same range as T2 (Level 4)
- Compact: Least CPU (Level 1), Less Cap (level 2), Less range (Level 2)
- Enduring: Lesser CPU (Level 2), Less Cap (Level 1), Less range (Level 3)
- T2: Most CPU (Level 4), Cap Cost (Level 4), Best Range (Level 4)
These levels are abitrary, but illustrate the relative amounts, where Level 1 < Level 2 < ... < Level 4 (T2) < Level 5
I feel this makes the change more even but still interesting. |
Aaril
Noble Sentiments Second Empire.
25
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 18:02:40 -
[67] - Quote
The scram changes are literally the OPPOSITE direction of interesting choices.
Today we have 3 INTERESTING choices:
-Warp Scram 2: Middle Cost, Good Range (9 m), Bad Fitting -Faint Epsilon: High Cost, Good Range (9 m), Good Fitting -J5b: Low Cost, Medium Range (8650 m), Good Fitting
After the patch we have 2 choices. And one of those is high cost. In addition, the meta ranges are terrible now. The last time I check KITING was the thing in this game everyone complained about. Scrams are the item in this game that provide a counter if you can catch them. You just nerfed everyone utilizing J5b scrams by 13.3% range, OR they have to shell out an extra 4-5M for a Faint Epsilon and still get nerfed range from what they have today.
My point is, no pun intended, is that most kiting frigate fits were already forced to use T2 disruptors for the 24km range, so their game remains unchanged. The frigates that were not considered overpowered in the meta just got indirectly nerfed. They either lose scram range, tank, or damage.
I will repeat myself from other posts. Please make the scoped version drop rate vastly increase and change it to 8650m. Make all other meta scrams have a 8250m range. |
Hilti Enaka
State War Academy Caldari State
88
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 18:35:57 -
[68] - Quote
Why stop at "fitting requirements" these modules should be restricted to ship class too.
Frigates should not be scrambling/distrupting battlecruisers/capitals etc or is that is the intention something needs to give.
These modules NEED to be thought of in the same lights as Neuts and Nos. It ridiculous that you have a 6kms nano ship sit tidy at 40km + and not in the slightest be affected.
My 2 cents this change isn't enough. You should be forcing people into bringing the right types of ships to a fight instead allowing gangs to get away with fitting the same size module across several ship hulls.
Small / Medium / Large for frigs / cruisers / battleship
meaning a small warp disrupter has very little effect on a large ship. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
745
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 19:13:18 -
[69] - Quote
as per CCP Darwin on reddit, he wanted us to post fits that might be affected. Granted, this isn't relating to the DCU, but webs/scram tiericide.
[Caldari Navy Hookbill, Polarbill] Power Diagnostic System II Ballistic Control System II
'Langour' Drive Disruptor I 'Langour' Drive Disruptor I J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I Republic Fleet Medium Shield Extender 5MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive
Polarized Rocket Launcher, Scourge Rage Rocket Polarized Rocket Launcher, Scourge Rage Rocket Polarized Rocket Launcher, Scourge Rage Rocket
Small Core Defense Field Extender I Small Core Defense Field Extender I Small Bay Loading Accelerator II
This is my polarized hookbill (which keep in mind, polarized launchers use less fitting than t2). I'm using meta 2 webs and meta 3 scram for CPU reasons.
I have 205.57/206.25 CPU and 48.3/49.03
Scram/web changes will make it impossible for me to fit this without using implants. The hookbill already has terrible CPU, now with these adjustments i can't even fit tackle on it. I mean hell, the fit has 0% resists and only like 4.7k EHP, its not like its super tanky. Its just good at range controlling and doing damage and getting out.
RIP polarbill
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
Irya Boone
Never Surrender.
472
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 21:35:45 -
[70] - Quote
should have merged the J5 and the faint
CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails
.... Open that damn door !!
you shall all bow and pray BoB
|
|
Murkar Omaristos
The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance
228
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 22:07:21 -
[71] - Quote
If you guys could stop slowly creeping up CPU costs of modules, that'd be great. I like my fits and a lot of them require a fitting implant as it is. There's literally no reason for it other than to annoy the **** out of EVE players everywhere (and you've done quite enough of that already with the other recent changes). |
StuRyan
Death By Design Did he say Jump
94
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 23:14:42 -
[72] - Quote
Hilti Enaka wrote:Why stop at "fitting requirements" these modules should be restricted to ship class too.
Frigates should not be scrambling/distrupting battlecruisers/capitals etc or is that is the intention something needs to give.
These modules NEED to be thought of in the same lights as Neuts and Nos. It ridiculous that you have a 6kms nano ship sit tidy at 40km + and not in the slightest be affected.
My 2 cents this change isn't enough. You should be forcing people into bringing the right types of ships to a fight instead allowing gangs to get away with fitting the same size module across several ship hulls.
Small / Medium / Large for frigs / cruisers / battleship
meaning a small warp disrupter has very little effect on a large ship.
This.... |
Pandora Deninard
Combat Applications and Logistics Group
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 23:31:14 -
[73] - Quote
StuRyan wrote:Hilti Enaka wrote:Why stop at "fitting requirements" these modules should be restricted to ship class too.
Frigates should not be scrambling/distrupting battlecruisers/capitals etc or is that is the intention something needs to give.
These modules NEED to be thought of in the same lights as Neuts and Nos. It ridiculous that you have a 6kms nano ship sit tidy at 40km + and not in the slightest be affected.
My 2 cents this change isn't enough. You should be forcing people into bringing the right types of ships to a fight instead allowing gangs to get away with fitting the same size module across several ship hulls.
Small / Medium / Large for frigs / cruisers / battleship
meaning a small warp disrupter has very little effect on a large ship. This....
No, not this. Frigates are literally designed for tackle, that's their major role - to catch stuff. A frigate on its own does nothing to the battleship. And they NEED scrams to shut off MJDs, anything larger than a cruiser won't get there and scram in time to prevent ships getting away. This is literally one of the worst suggestions I've ever seen on this forum (and THAT is saying something). |
Murkar Omaristos
The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance
229
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 23:33:16 -
[74] - Quote
I propose renaming Tiericie to "Tears aside," so that they can just say "tears aside, here's what we're changing whether you like it or not." |
Helene Fidard
CTRL-Q
34
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 00:42:49 -
[75] - Quote
So let me get this straight: you're slightly buffing meta point range, but significantly nerfing meta scram range?
Why? Why would this seem like a good idea?
Hey! I don't know about you
but I'm joining CTRL-Q
|
Hilti Enaka
State War Academy Caldari State
90
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 01:50:05 -
[76] - Quote
Pandora Deninard wrote:StuRyan wrote:Hilti Enaka wrote:Why stop at "fitting requirements" these modules should be restricted to ship class too.
Frigates should not be scrambling/distrupting battlecruisers/capitals etc or is that is the intention something needs to give.
These modules NEED to be thought of in the same lights as Neuts and Nos. It ridiculous that you have a 6kms nano ship sit tidy at 40km + and not in the slightest be affected.
My 2 cents this change isn't enough. You should be forcing people into bringing the right types of ships to a fight instead allowing gangs to get away with fitting the same size module across several ship hulls.
Small / Medium / Large for frigs / cruisers / battleship
meaning a small warp disrupter has very little effect on a large ship. This.... No, not this. Frigates are literally designed for tackle, that's their major role - to catch stuff. A frigate on its own does nothing to the battleship. And they NEED scrams to shut off MJDs, anything larger than a cruiser won't get there and scram in time to prevent ships getting away. This is literally one of the worst suggestions I've ever seen on this forum (and THAT is saying something).
Seriously what game are you playing? T1 fit frigates "catching" t2 fit battleships. Are you remotely aware how horrible this type of game play is. Why should warp disrupters and scrambles, webs and for that matter jams be exempt from the list of modules that are already grouped into small medium and large categories? |
Murkar Omaristos
The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance
231
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 02:23:04 -
[77] - Quote
Hilti Enaka wrote:
Seriously what game are you playing? T1 fit frigates "catching" t2 fit battleships. Are you remotely aware how horrible this type of game play is. Why should warp disrupters and scrambles, webs and for that matter jams be exempt from the list of modules that are already grouped into small medium and large categories?
If you take warp disruptors/scrams away from frigs, you lose the ability to tackle stuff on gate. People are already whining that ceptors etc. warp too fast to be caught. Put scrams into the hands of larger ships which have lower scan resolution and tackle is broken completely. Your suggestion is so bad on so many levels, I shouldn't even have wasted the time responding to it. |
Torei Dutalis
IceBox Inc.
44
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 02:23:39 -
[78] - Quote
Lets not kid ourselves here with what choices there are when it comes to our mid slots. Choice A.) Functionality. Choice B.) Fitting. As of now each of the meta scrams take a varying amount of CPU which means you have a sliding scale of functionality and fitting (yes its a backward scale but its still a scale). What you should have done is changed it so functionality and fitting have an inverse relationship. Instead we now have 2 real "options" and one faux option. The new Initiated Compact and the new Faint Epsilon scrams are the only real choices. The new J5B offers nothing (cap usage on a scram is a total joke and lets not pretend otherwise).
Not only have you eliminated meaningful choices in many ways, this set of changes is pretty much a flat nerf to all of these modules. Clearly there is a desire from the dev team to reduce the power of many faction modules, but the heavy handed nature of the changes to basic meta modules is uncalled for.
|
Helene Fidard
CTRL-Q
36
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 03:06:16 -
[79] - Quote
Torei Dutalis wrote:Clearly there is a desire from the dev team to reduce the power of many faction modules Are you referring to CPU here? Because it looks like with the exception of the Dark Blood mods and the Dread Guristas scram, the ranges on the faction mods are either staying the same or being buffed.
Hey! I don't know about you
but I'm joining CTRL-Q
|
Shalashaska Adam
Partial Safety
121
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 03:27:29 -
[80] - Quote
Enormous nerf across the board to meta scrams, and hence a huge quantity of scram frigates, coupled with a buff to meta disruptors, and it seems like CCP is intentionally giving a good few extra kilometres of wiggle room to longpoint kiters, which are arguably already the most dominant. Throwing a delicate balance out of whack for no reason.
A lot more sensible, would simply be 7500m for the T1, 8250m for the compact and enduring, 8750m for the scoped.
And if that is for some reason opposed, then make it 8000m for the compact and enduring, and 8500m for the scoped.
Even then, you would STILL have a 150m range nerf and a significant 3 cpu requirement increase, over the current J5B.
Surely that must show that the current numbers are severely over-nerfed.
How easy would it be to read a couple pages of feedback and make the sensible adjustment.
Yet how do I know with such certainty, that it will absolutely not happen, and hence another feedback thread is useless. |
|
Zetakya
Echelon Research SpaceMonkey's Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 04:17:23 -
[81] - Quote
Hilti Enaka wrote:Seriously what game are you playing? T1 fit frigates "catching" t2 fit battleships. Are you remotely aware how horrible this type of game play is. Why should warp disrupters and scrambles, webs and for that matter jams be exempt from the list of modules that are already grouped into small medium and large categories?
This is the tactical rock-paper-scissors. The frigate can stop you from getting away (but can't kill you itself). Without support, the frigate is vulnerable to Drones, various forms of ECM, the 50% of cruisers that can "dial-down" to hit frigates effectively, every destroyer and some more stuff besides.
Battleships are not (and should not be) an "I win" button. |
Torei Dutalis
IceBox Inc.
44
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 04:20:52 -
[82] - Quote
Helene Fidard wrote: Are you referring to CPU here?
Yes. Most notably on the "top tier" modules. |
Aaril
Noble Sentiments Second Empire.
25
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 04:40:07 -
[83] - Quote
Shalashaska Adam wrote:Enormous nerf across the board to meta scrams, and hence a huge quantity of scram frigates, coupled with a buff to meta disruptors, and it seems like CCP is intentionally giving a good few extra kilometres of wiggle room to longpoint kiters, which are arguably already the most dominant. Throwing a delicate balance out of whack for no reason.
A lot more sensible, would simply be 7500m for the T1, 8250m for the compact and enduring, 8750m for the scoped.
And if that is for some reason opposed, then make it 8000m for the compact and enduring, and 8500m for the scoped.
Even then, you would STILL have a 150m range nerf and a significant 3 cpu requirement increase, over the current J5B.
Surely that must show that the current numbers are severely over-nerfed.
How easy would it be to read a couple pages of feedback and make the sensible adjustment.
Yet how do I know with such certainty, that it will absolutely not happen, and hence another feedback thread is useless.
Dont forget the 2.5% web nerf coupled with this. I guess we could all take a damage nerf and use the new compact damage mods...oh wait...that is STILL a nerf to scram ships. Why scram gameplay is being punished in being my comprehension. |
Hilti Enaka
State War Academy Caldari State
90
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 12:17:52 -
[84] - Quote
Murkar Omaristos wrote:Hilti Enaka wrote:
Seriously what game are you playing? T1 fit frigates "catching" t2 fit battleships. Are you remotely aware how horrible this type of game play is. Why should warp disrupters and scrambles, webs and for that matter jams be exempt from the list of modules that are already grouped into small medium and large categories?
If you take warp disruptors/scrams away from frigs, you lose the ability to tackle stuff on gate (or elsewhere). Ceptors are basicalyl built specifically to tackle stuff (although combat ceptors arguably can DPS, they are still a tackle ship) complete with bonuses set up specifically for tackling. People are already whining that ceptors etc. warp too fast to be caught. Put scrams and disruptors into the hands of larger ships onl, which have MUCH lower scan resolution, and tackle is broken completely. Your suggestion is so bad on so many levels, I shouldn't even have wasted the time responding to it.
Jesus if this is the intelligence of the people that play eve no wonder the game has become boring and predictable. I argue the modules like warp disrupters, scrambles and webs, should follow suit and be split into groups like all the other modules are. I also said that they should also have relevant penalties just like how medium shields on frigs and ceptors effect the overall fit of the ship. The reply, no because you can't tackle stuff on gates.... GG. That's laughable, wanting a game to focus on people putting together fleet comps to compete against specific ship hulls will provide a far more enjoyable than what is "blob the **** out of anything". |
Hilti Enaka
State War Academy Caldari State
90
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 12:21:46 -
[85] - Quote
Zetakya wrote:Hilti Enaka wrote:Seriously what game are you playing? T1 fit frigates "catching" t2 fit battleships. Are you remotely aware how horrible this type of game play is. Why should warp disrupters and scrambles, webs and for that matter jams be exempt from the list of modules that are already grouped into small medium and large categories? This is the tactical rock-paper-scissors. The frigate can stop you from getting away (but can't kill you itself). Without support, the frigate is vulnerable to Drones, various forms of ECM, the 50% of cruisers that can "dial-down" to hit frigates effectively, every destroyer and some more stuff besides. Battleships are not (and should not be) an "I win" button.
At no point should they be either. What's so hard about making these modules into small, medium, large with specific side affects of a small warp disrupter, a medium warp disrupter. The current meta means every man and their dog brings a garmur and sit 50k in ralative safety, or 26k, it creates crap game play. Don't get me started on ECM, this is a broken mechanic all together. Why would i sacrifice a slot for a module that has "a chance" of success when the returns are a significant less effective ship. It's a trade off and warp disrupters, scrambles and webs should have the same degree of effect. You choose to put a medium disrupter on your ceptor you should have to pay with an equally less effective ship. |
Natural CloneKiller
The Phoenix Rising Vendetta Mercenary Group
47
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 13:27:21 -
[86] - Quote
big miker wrote:Holy **** at the Republic fleet / Domination warp disruptor CPU increase
The CPU increases are stupid and will break so many fits. What is the reason for this. Surely you should be letting people who are willing to use these mods benefit from more fitting room not less!
I seriously find this one difficult to understand.
Agree with Big Miker here. |
sytaqe violacea
Circus of midnight
41
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 14:15:02 -
[87] - Quote
Suggestion : "Enduring" scram should be better at overload status, rather than better at cap needs.
Who cares the difference between 5GJ per 5s and 2GJ per 5s? Warp scramblers are rarely stopped by capacitor problems. Yea, Warp disrupters are often halted by cap empty, and I have experienced them under kiting situations many times. Warp scramblers can keep tackling even under neut pressure. Most reasons why scrams get halted are "Burned out". As for scrams, "less heat emission" or "more module structure HP" is more "Enduring" than "less capacitor use". |
Circumstantial Evidence
257
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 21:02:03 -
[88] - Quote
Most complaints are about fitting or range - agree with sytaqe - I don't see much love or need here, for the "enduring" role. |
Murkar Omaristos
The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance
233
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 03:55:33 -
[89] - Quote
nvm. |
Leisha Miralen
The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 04:26:56 -
[90] - Quote
Hilti Enaka wrote:Murkar Omaristos wrote:Hilti Enaka wrote:
Seriously what game are you playing? T1 fit frigates "catching" t2 fit battleships. Are you remotely aware how horrible this type of game play is. Why should warp disrupters and scrambles, webs and for that matter jams be exempt from the list of modules that are already grouped into small medium and large categories?
If you take warp disruptors/scrams away from frigs, you lose the ability to tackle stuff on gate (or elsewhere). Ceptors are basicalyl built specifically to tackle stuff (although combat ceptors arguably can DPS, they are still a tackle ship) complete with bonuses set up specifically for tackling. People are already whining that ceptors etc. warp too fast to be caught. Put scrams and disruptors into the hands of larger ships onl, which have MUCH lower scan resolution, and tackle is broken completely. Your suggestion is so bad on so many levels, I shouldn't even have wasted the time responding to it. Jesus if this is the intelligence of the people that play eve no wonder the game has become boring and predictable. I argue the modules like warp disrupters, scrambles and webs, should follow suit and be split into groups like all the other modules are. I also said that they should also have relevant penalties just like how medium shields on frigs and ceptors effect the overall fit of the ship. The reply, no because you can't tackle stuff on gates.... GG. That's laughable, wanting a game to focus on people putting together fleet comps to compete against specific ship hulls will provide a far more enjoyable than what is "blob the **** out of anything".
This is just so idiotic I almost have no words....you do realize that lots of fights, including small gang fights and solo, happen on gates, wormholes, etc. right? Not just blobs? And that tackle is an important part of the way roles are structured in EVE?
Also large ships like supercarriers already have ewar immunity, so the argument that frigs shouldn't tackle big ships falls down. there IS ALREADY a size limit on what frigs can tackle. They cannot tackle supers. CCP chose to draw this line at supers instead of battleships.
None of the armor hardeners, membranes, shield hardeners, etc. Should those all be resized too? What about cap rechargers, ECM? By your logic everything should come in all sizes. Where do we draw the line, frigate-battleship sized nanite repair paste?
Put your tears in the jar on the way out. |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
13893
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 16:40:43 -
[91] - Quote
Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far!
I'm seeing a lot of concern about the CPU costs of the Domination longpoint and some of the range values on the named scramblers.
For the Domination disruptor, the honest truth is that the old version was simply too strong, better in every way than all its competition. We want to provide a range of choices in faction longpoints with their own advantages and disadvantages. CPU tight fits may want to consider the 26km points for their improved fittings. That being said, we do think there's a bit of room to lower the faction point CPU from the first pass, so we've put together a second pass with slightly lower CPU on all the faction points.
We've also moved the Dark Blood tackle modules into the same stats group as True Sansha. This will generally mean an increase in fitting costs and an increase in range. As you guys pointed out, this better matches the Blood Raider faction traits.
As for the range on named scramblers, the current design isn't an accident but we are also willing to re-evaluate once we see how things develop on SISI. The goal is to provide an actual choice between named and T2 scramblers and this means each option must have tradeoffs. The old system with meta 4 modules dominating T2 was far from ideal. This new version means that fitting a T2 scram will be something many fits will want, but many fits will need to make sacrifices in other areas to reach that goal. The decision of which attributes you value most will be up to each individual pilot.
We are keeping an especially close eye on this change, and if it proves necessary we may tighten up the range gap between T1 and T2. We need to be careful not to let the difference get so close that the compact version becomes default though.
We've also made one other small tweak to the earlier proposal, dropping the capacitor need of the enduring longpoint a bit.
Thanks and keep the feedback coming!
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
1072
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 17:45:56 -
[92] - Quote
This may sound silly but how are the tackle frigate supposed to cope when there is no point to fit a point - pun indened.
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.
|
Jack Roulette
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 18:23:29 -
[93] - Quote
This +3 strength buff to all faction scrams is a HUUUGE bonus to tackling anything with a +2 inherent core strength (which was intended to negate 1 scram but now doesn't), as well as exploration frigates. It basically makes the venture's bonus completely pointless. CCP might as well just remove core stabs from the game. I mean, apparently the goal is to make tackling so moronically easy, why not? If we're just going to pretend like there's things you can do to prevent tackling, but constantly make it less an less likely that any of that will work, hell, might as well just have target locks shut off warp drives.
And this change does nothing to help the real problems like uncatchable interceptors. |
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
443
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 18:38:57 -
[94] - Quote
Jack Roulette wrote:This +3 strength buff to all faction scrams is a HUUUGE bonus to tackling anything with a +2 inherent core strength (which was intended to negate 1 scram but now doesn't), as well as exploration frigates. It basically makes the venture's bonus completely pointless. CCP might as well just remove core stabs from the game. I mean, apparently the goal is to make tackling so moronically easy, why not? If we're just going to pretend like there's things you can do to prevent tackling, but constantly make it less an less likely that any of that will work, hell, might as well just have target locks shut off warp drives.
And this change does nothing to help the real problems like uncatchable interceptors. ...faction scrams. Those are expensive and rare (comparatively). I think you're blowing this up way out of proportion. Native hull strength will still save you in what, 95% of the cases? Cool down man, everything's going to be okay.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Helios Anduath
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
55
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 18:59:22 -
[95] - Quote
Jack Roulette wrote:...
And this change does nothing to help the real problems like uncatchable interceptors.
There is no such thing. No Interceptor can every be 100% un-catchable as you cannot get any of them down to a 1s-to-warp and 2s-to-warp can still be caught, just with some effort. |
Helene Fidard
CTRL-Q
39
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 19:17:20 -
[96] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:As for the range on named scramblers, the current design isn't an accident but we are also willing to re-evaluate once we see how things develop on SISI. The goal is to provide an actual choice between named and T2 scramblers and this means each option must have tradeoffs. The old system with meta 4 modules dominating T2 was far from ideal. I know you don't balance by price, but consider this facet of player behaviour: the difference between the ranges on the j5b and the faint epsilon scrams is a massive 375m, and people still pay 30x more for them. 750m tiers are huge for scrams.
Hey! I don't know about you
but I'm joining CTRL-Q
|
O'nira
Hotline K162
81
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 19:57:05 -
[97] - Quote
Jack Roulette wrote:This +3 strength buff to all faction scrams is a HUUUGE bonus to tackling anything with a +2 inherent core strength (which was intended to negate 1 scram but now doesn't), as well as exploration frigates. It basically makes the venture's bonus completely pointless. CCP might as well just remove core stabs from the game. I mean, apparently the goal is to make tackling so moronically easy, why not? If we're just going to pretend like there's things you can do to prevent tackling, but constantly make it less an less likely that any of that will work, hell, might as well just have target locks shut off warp drives.
And this change does nothing to help the real problems like uncatchable interceptors.
a venture has 1 low slot that you can and should fit a warb stab in, same with the t2 industrials though they usually have more than 1 low slot |
Dantelion Shinoni
SQUIDS.
24
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 20:54:28 -
[98] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We are keeping an especially close eye on this change, and if it proves necessary we may tighten up the range gap between T1 and T2. We need to be careful not to let the difference get so close that the compact version becomes default though.
That's the key here. T2 can be desirable enough without the named having terrible range.
Again, it's not just fiting here, a 7500 distance kills scram-kiting, or at least severely nerf it. All named should at least be viable options for it, else you are pigeonholing a lot of people into Scoped and T2, or abandoning their nerfed hulls (I doubt the Tormentor fit with which I learned to scram-kite would survive that change...). |
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
386
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 21:04:32 -
[99] - Quote
- The meta ranges seem a bit harsh, 8000 for compact and 8500 for scoped would be more reasonable.
- Balancing modules around tackling supers seems odd when that clearly won't be what they're used for 99% of the time.
- There's no real fitting choices to be made in the faction scrams or points, you just fit the best you can afford in cpu and ISK. Wasn't the goal to introduce more meaningful fitting choices? If anything they're more homogenous than they were before. Maybe give racial specialities within the tiers if you must really have obvious tiers of faction modules. Low fitting cost, high scram strength, low cap usage. Range is of course the primary stat and determines the tier.
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
5687
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 22:55:40 -
[100] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
As for the range on named scramblers, the current design isn't an accident but we are also willing to re-evaluate once we see how things develop on SISI. The goal is to provide an actual choice between named and T2 scramblers and this means each option must have tradeoffs. The old system with meta 4 modules dominating T2 was far from ideal. This new version means that fitting a T2 scram will be something many fits will want, but many fits will need to make sacrifices in other areas to reach that goal. The decision of which attributes you value most will be up to each individual pilot.
It should be pointed out that, in terms of acquisition, meta 4 modules are considerably harder to acquire than T2 ones.
T2 ones can be mass produced in obscene amounts - I could start the build process on 250 of them before work and come home to them all done (using only three characters).
Acquiring 250 meta 4 modules - even of a relatively unpopular meta 4 module - requires a lot of messing around in mission hubs. You'd have better stat access than me but I'd be surprised if even 250 meta 4 damage controls are looted gamewide in a day, and maybe 2000 of the scrams.
I stand to gain from these changes (I'm already setting up a production chain for these T2 modules) but I don't think it is a bad thing at all if the harder modules to acquire are more powerful.
I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
|
|
AtramLolipop
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 23:13:27 -
[101] - Quote
Leisha Miralen wrote:Hilti Enaka wrote:Murkar Omaristos wrote:Hilti Enaka wrote:
Seriously what game are you playing? T1 fit frigates "catching" t2 fit battleships. Are you remotely aware how horrible this type of game play is. Why should warp disrupters and scrambles, webs and for that matter jams be exempt from the list of modules that are already grouped into small medium and large categories?
If you take warp disruptors/scrams away from frigs, you lose the ability to tackle stuff on gate (or elsewhere). Ceptors are basicalyl built specifically to tackle stuff (although combat ceptors arguably can DPS, they are still a tackle ship) complete with bonuses set up specifically for tackling. People are already whining that ceptors etc. warp too fast to be caught. Put scrams and disruptors into the hands of larger ships onl, which have MUCH lower scan resolution, and tackle is broken completely. Your suggestion is so bad on so many levels, I shouldn't even have wasted the time responding to it. Jesus if this is the intelligence of the people that play eve no wonder the game has become boring and predictable. I argue the modules like warp disrupters, scrambles and webs, should follow suit and be split into groups like all the other modules are. I also said that they should also have relevant penalties just like how medium shields on frigs and ceptors effect the overall fit of the ship. The reply, no because you can't tackle stuff on gates.... GG. That's laughable, wanting a game to focus on people putting together fleet comps to compete against specific ship hulls will provide a far more enjoyable than what is "blob the **** out of anything". This is just so idiotic I almost have no words....you do realize that lots of fights, including small gang fights and solo, happen on gates, wormholes, etc. right? Not just blobs? And that tackle is an important part of the way roles are structured in EVE? Also large ships like supercarriers already have ewar immunity, so the argument that frigs shouldn't tackle big ships falls down. there IS ALREADY a size limit on what frigs can tackle. They cannot tackle supers. CCP chose to draw this line at supers instead of battleships. None of the armor hardeners, membranes, shield hardeners, etc. Should those all be resized too? What about cap rechargers, ECM? By your logic everything should come in all sizes. Where do we draw the line, frigate-battleship sized nanite repair paste? Put your tears in the jar on the way out.
Thought I'd stop by and comment on this. I actually think Hilti is on to something. As far as i'm concerned you lost all credibility with your ignorant reply followed by your cheap shot, typically this occurs when a. you have no idea or b. the person wrote a reply that actually makes a lot of sense making your look stupid.
Back on topic though, making modules depend more on the size of the hull is a fantastic idea and might actually make this game more interesting to play. Just by the reply above it shows you how 1 track minded the game is and how horrible the game play actually is. Personally any idea that looks to promote more focus on people thinking about their role in a fleet the better, and anything that makes gate camping more strategic than sitting a bunch of t1 fit frigates on a gate the better.
For me Armor hardeners , membranes, shield hardeners are a "percentage increase" module, in my opinion when there is a percentage attribute, a sized module is not needed.
This idea actually has some wheels and i'll plus 1 it. Thanks Hilti. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1569
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 23:25:12 -
[102] - Quote
Hilti Enaka wrote:Pandora Deninard wrote:StuRyan wrote:Hilti Enaka wrote:Why stop at "fitting requirements" these modules should be restricted to ship class too.
Frigates should not be scrambling/distrupting battlecruisers/capitals etc or is that is the intention something needs to give.
These modules NEED to be thought of in the same lights as Neuts and Nos. It ridiculous that you have a 6kms nano ship sit tidy at 40km + and not in the slightest be affected.
My 2 cents this change isn't enough. You should be forcing people into bringing the right types of ships to a fight instead allowing gangs to get away with fitting the same size module across several ship hulls.
Small / Medium / Large for frigs / cruisers / battleship
meaning a small warp disrupter has very little effect on a large ship. This.... No, not this. Frigates are literally designed for tackle, that's their major role - to catch stuff. A frigate on its own does nothing to the battleship. And they NEED scrams to shut off MJDs, anything larger than a cruiser won't get there and scram in time to prevent ships getting away. This is literally one of the worst suggestions I've ever seen on this forum (and THAT is saying something). Seriously what game are you playing? T1 fit frigates "catching" t2 fit battleships. Are you remotely aware how horrible this type of game play is. Why should warp disrupters and scrambles, webs and for that matter jams be exempt from the list of modules that are already grouped into small medium and large categories?
No this is extremely good game design or forces larger ships to need support for smaller ones the problem is not frigates or battle ships it's cruisers they way to good against both smaller and larger ships and they can do almost every role in the game meaning there is no reason to fly anything bigger. Either battle ships and battle cruisers need to be buffed to resist cruisers better or cruisers need to be brought back down to earth
Citadel worm hole tax
|
AtramLolipop
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 23:38:11 -
[103] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Hilti Enaka wrote:Pandora Deninard wrote:StuRyan wrote:Hilti Enaka wrote:Why stop at "fitting requirements" these modules should be restricted to ship class too.
Frigates should not be scrambling/distrupting battlecruisers/capitals etc or is that is the intention something needs to give.
These modules NEED to be thought of in the same lights as Neuts and Nos. It ridiculous that you have a 6kms nano ship sit tidy at 40km + and not in the slightest be affected.
My 2 cents this change isn't enough. You should be forcing people into bringing the right types of ships to a fight instead allowing gangs to get away with fitting the same size module across several ship hulls.
Small / Medium / Large for frigs / cruisers / battleship
meaning a small warp disrupter has very little effect on a large ship. This.... No, not this. Frigates are literally designed for tackle, that's their major role - to catch stuff. A frigate on its own does nothing to the battleship. And they NEED scrams to shut off MJDs, anything larger than a cruiser won't get there and scram in time to prevent ships getting away. This is literally one of the worst suggestions I've ever seen on this forum (and THAT is saying something). Seriously what game are you playing? T1 fit frigates "catching" t2 fit battleships. Are you remotely aware how horrible this type of game play is. Why should warp disrupters and scrambles, webs and for that matter jams be exempt from the list of modules that are already grouped into small medium and large categories? No this is extremely good game design or forces larger ships to need support for smaller ones the problem is not frigates or battle ships it's cruisers they way to good against both smaller and larger ships and they can do almost every role in the game meaning there is no reason to fly anything bigger. Either battle ships and battle cruisers need to be buffed to resist cruisers better or cruisers need to be brought back down to earth
I'd have to say "was" good game design but the game has changed and people are more savvy now meaning it's a lot harder to enjoy playing the game. I've often heard the argument that risk versus reward is what the game is built on but todays meta just make this argument completely redundant. Especially when you see things like retributions, griffins fleet gate camping low sec gates and having no trouble tanking the gate guns at the same time as t1 modules on griffins jam out t2 fit battleships.
I actually think all of the "no grouped" electronic warfare modules need to be redone. They should have the same diminishing returns as neuts and noses do. e.g. medium nos can be fit on frigs but makes the hull ceptable to the right counters. |
Shalashaska Adam
Partial Safety
122
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 23:49:23 -
[104] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: As for the range on named scramblers, the current design isn't an accident but we are also willing to re-evaluate once we see how things develop on SISI. The goal is to provide an actual choice between named and T2 scramblers and this means each option must have tradeoffs. The old system with meta 4 modules dominating T2 was far from ideal. This new version means that fitting a T2 scram will be something many fits will want, but many fits will need to make sacrifices in other areas to reach that goal. The decision of which attributes you value most will be up to each individual pilot.
There is indeed legitimate merit to the idea behind the rebalance.
One of your primary goals behind all the tiericide has been to reduce redundancy but open up worthwhile choices.
I would hope everyone here understands that intention, and I think most do.
However, as someone quite rightly pointed out, and your own market data can confirm, people are currently prepared to pay 30 TIMES as much isk for a scrambler that has a mere 375 meter increase in range over another one.
The scoped can maintain its range advantage, which for this class of module in question, is the main selling feature, and extraordinarily valuable no matter what, without the need to exponentially widen the gap between them and the T2.
As mentioned before, even if you go with the much more straightforward and easy for newbros to remember option of 8000-8500-9000, you are still not giving people a functional equivalent to the J5B, and the gaps between them in range would still be very significant, much more so than they are now.
I think the intention is well understood, but the implementation of it in the first pass of numbers is far too extreme for such an incredibly range sensitive module, and the intention and balance can still be had without such a large blanket nerf. |
Aaril
Noble Sentiments Second Empire.
26
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 02:55:10 -
[105] - Quote
I still say the progression should be 8250m->8650m->9000m. People today already have been paying sometimes 40x the cost of the J5b just to get those extra 350m with the Faint Epsilon. Here is the list of nerfs to expect (because most fits require some meta items already):
-Expect to lose 400m-1500m of scram range -Expect to lose 3%+ in damage to gain a laughable 5 CPU (the cpu on the compact damage modules should be 20 CPU) -Expect to lost 2.5%-5% web strength (metas after the patch are 55% instead of today's 57.5%) -Expect to lose 2.5% TP power (the new metas should have been 28.5% at the very least)
I could keep going on, but you get the idea.
Basically, I agree with the principle of choice and tradeoffs. These first pass numbers have gone beyond tradeoffs and choice into straight up nerfs where there is no choice. Basically, new players are going to be nerfed and vets will just buy genos and keep their same power. PLEASE bring back up these first pass numbers to something reasonable. T2 can be the clear winner (i.e. PWNAGE and Faint Epsilon should now be 28.5% and 8650m respectively...not the same as T2 with better fitting), but not so much that is becomes zero choice.
I really hope the citadels with their new clone (implant) swapping mechanic has no cooldown (since the cooldown is there to prevent teleporting around the universe continually). That way I can have a CPU clone and a PG clone. Either that or split the CPU and PG implants into different slots (I also like how the CPU missile implants is also slot 6...the Nemesis is pretty much impossible to fit after these changes without an implant). |
Dantelion Shinoni
SQUIDS.
24
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 08:10:15 -
[106] - Quote
Aaril wrote:I still say the progression should be 8250m->8650m->9000m. -Expect to lose 400m-1500m of scram range -Expect to lose 3%+ damage to gain a meager 5 CPU (the cpu on the compact damage modules should be 20 CPU) -Expect to lose 2.5%-5% web strength (metas after the patch are 55% instead of today's 57.5%) -Expect to lose 2.5% TP power (the new metas should have been 28.5% at the very least)
I could keep going on, but you get the idea.
Pretty much my sentiment, this is going to nerf a playstyle and invalidate a lot of hulls.
Worse, directly nerfing scram ranges like that is a straight buff to kiting. Like that playstyle needed help getting even more binary.
Plus, the invisible metrics here, this is result in less fights all around New Eden, hundreds of guys warping out while a couple hundred meters from your scram. Fights are the lifeblood of this game, I don't think this is a good idea to nerf it. |
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
403
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 08:17:14 -
[107] - Quote
again fozzie - how much heat can stuff take?
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.
|
Cearain
Plus 10 NV Cede Nullis
1452
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 14:06:08 -
[108] - Quote
As with the webs it seems to me not all meta 8 are equal. A cpu reduction does not equate to a range increase when it comes to faction webs or faction points.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
747
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 14:13:06 -
[109] - Quote
can the hookbill get a CPU or PG buff? Its always been tight even before these module changes. Hookbills aren't out terrorizing the meta, and got a decent damage buff recently. But now they will struggle to fit rocket launchers, MSE and webs+scram. Unless you want them to only fit AB's, which negates roaming in null.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
Mad Abbat
Talon Swarm
63
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 15:24:01 -
[110] - Quote
almost every frigate will strugle to fit web+sram. But fear not, there is always the room for long dis on meta_garmur |
|
Onslaughtor
Reikoku Pandemic Legion
162
|
Posted - 2016.02.16 00:40:04 -
[111] - Quote
A few things that imidiatly stood out to me.
The ranges on the t1 compact and enduring scrams are all way too short. Id even say that the range on the t2 could be buffed up by 500m to make it match better with webs but that is more a personal observation about fitting styles.
The compact scram could be a little bit more compact, I know you want there to be competitive reasons between fitting modules but its a little too weak, even if it got a 1km buff to range. bring it down to 24 cpu might help a bit.
Just as a thought there could be some room for a point and scram that are very light on cpu but nerf the powergrid of the hull, in the same vein of thought as polarized weapons. T2 min max module style. |
Cartheron Crust
Matari Exodus
188
|
Posted - 2016.02.16 11:49:59 -
[112] - Quote
Cearain wrote:As with the webs it seems to me not all meta 8 are equal. A cpu reduction does not equate to a range increase when it comes to faction webs or faction points.
Actually it does. That is a valid trade off. After years of EFT warrioring fits and then using them in game, many times the Caldari Navy Scram (i think it was that faction one) was the scram of choice. Because of that very low cpu use allowing the fit I wanted, while still having a slight increase in range over T2 and being quite a bit cheaper than the other faction variants.
Fitting, range, strength and isk (done via LP store and/or drop rate) are all valid ways of "balancing" when it comes to modules for pvp. |
Cearain
Plus 10 NV Cede Nullis
1454
|
Posted - 2016.02.16 16:53:38 -
[113] - Quote
Cartheron Crust wrote:Cearain wrote:As with the webs it seems to me not all meta 8 are equal. A cpu reduction does not equate to a range increase when it comes to faction webs or faction points. Actually it does. That is a valid trade off. After years of EFT warrioring fits and then using them in game, many times the Caldari Navy Scram (i think it was that faction one) was the scram of choice. Because of that very low cpu use allowing the fit I wanted, while still having a slight increase in range over T2 and being quite a bit cheaper than the other faction variants. Fitting, range, strength and isk (done via LP store and/or drop rate) are all valid ways of "balancing" when it comes to modules for pvp.
Hi Cartheron
If you want to bet which disruptors or webs will cost more in one year I would be happy to bet you. If this clear inequality is left The caladari and dread guristas will be cheaper.
When it comes to faction items it is going to be much more useful to have the range when fitting to cruiser or above than the cpu. For fitting to frigates maybe the cpu will be helpful but you will find that overall the demand for the faction items with better primary stats will be much more in demand. If the cpu ones actually go up to much in price no one flying a frigate will even want to fit them. So this is doomed to inequity.
But what we think is by and large irrelevant. CCP already reached the conclusion I did without even talking about more expensive faction mods. So it seems they are now doing a 180 on that.
"ItGÇÖs important to note that none of the named modules specialize in stronger GÇŁprimaryGÇĄ stats, as those modules would become the obvious best choice for most situations." http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/rebalancing-eve-one-module-at-a-time/?_ga=1.221320859.2033440685.1432326094
And here again the faction distruptors and webs with longer range (and in the case of webs greater reduction in speed) will "become the obvious best choice for most situations."
What is odd is they fully articulate this problem before they balance the modules but still leave it unbalanced. No explanation at all. I mean whether you agree or disagree with what they say I hope we can all at least recognize this is a change from their goals. The clearest example of this is the webs where caldari webs have both less range *and* less speed reduction in exchange for cpu.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Asinae Antaelis
10
|
Posted - 2016.02.16 17:27:59 -
[114] - Quote
o/ In another thread ( https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6297261#post6297261 ) i emit the idea that ewar module should have capacitor consumption based on the target ship size:
Quote:Hello, I am not into pvp for now, but an idea that comes to my mind is that point/scram/turret disruptor/web have the same cap usage whatever they are aimed at. Maybe they should adjust the cap consumption of these modules depending on the target size: For example, using a web against a frigate will burn 1Gj per cycle, but 2Gj to web a destroyer, 3Gj to web a cruiser and so on. so a frigate trying to web something bigger will burned faster its capacitor so less capacitor available for dps/afterburner etc... this way it will be a little bit harder for the small to control the big... Just an idea, passing by! |
Kibitt Kallinikov
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
16
|
Posted - 2016.02.16 18:48:38 -
[115] - Quote
I like most of these changes, but in the world of Interceptors, all I can say is that the Ares is about to get rekt.
Here's an example fit before I go into specifics:
[Ares, Fast Ares.] Damage Control II Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II Type-D Attenuation Signal Augmentation
5MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Warp Disruptor II
125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Iridium Charge S 125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Iridium Charge S 125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Iridium Charge S
Small Polycarbon Engine Housing II Small Polycarbon Engine Housing II
You have 4 CPU left after max skills. Typical Malediction fit is more agile, has smaller sig radius, better application with LML, and only slightly worse EHP. The signal amplifier change won't let you meet that mark with compact sig amplifier as you need to hit 8 CPU but will only get a total of 6.25 from that change.
I feel that the Ares simply won't fit guns after this change. You will have to use either compact MWD (in which case you're only capstable with perfect skills and no guns) in which case other inty have significantly better sig, or remove your sig amp (which was being buffed to aid you against ECM) or downgrade DC to have almost no tank. Small shield extender Crow will have more EHP and similar sig.
What I propose is simple - let Ares have stronger capacitor than other interceptors. It won't break anything, it won't even change all of what I detailed above, but at least it will make it so that if you choose to fit a weapon, you can actually cycle it throughout a fight. If you feel the Ares could use more CPU - that's awesome, but I don't expect it. Alternatively, it also helps Ares run an armor repairer during a fight, which holds the theme of Amarr being buffer, Gallente being active tank.
It's just sad because it looks like a ship that was already an underdog is about to get thrown into the dumpster, even though I doubt it was intentional.
P.S. - Malediction has the same agility as Ares once MWD is cycling. Isn't Ares supposed to be the agile one?
EDIT: If you want to reduce the complaints about CPU cost for t2 scram, just make it 34 CPU. It's the same change from compact to scoped, only it's scoped to t2 (26 -> 30, then 30 -> 34). I feel it would still be a meaningful difference from scoped. |
Cartheron Crust
Matari Exodus
188
|
Posted - 2016.02.16 23:10:02 -
[116] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Cartheron Crust wrote:Cearain wrote:As with the webs it seems to me not all meta 8 are equal. A cpu reduction does not equate to a range increase when it comes to faction webs or faction points. Actually it does. That is a valid trade off. After years of EFT warrioring fits and then using them in game, many times the Caldari Navy Scram (i think it was that faction one) was the scram of choice. Because of that very low cpu use allowing the fit I wanted, while still having a slight increase in range over T2 and being quite a bit cheaper than the other faction variants. Fitting, range, strength and isk (done via LP store and/or drop rate) are all valid ways of "balancing" when it comes to modules for pvp. Hi Cartheron If you want to bet which disruptors or webs will cost more in one year I would be happy to bet you. If this clear inequality is left The caladari and dread guristas will be cheaper. When it comes to faction items it is going to be much more useful to have the range when fitting to cruiser or above than the cpu. For fitting to frigates maybe the cpu will be helpful but you will find that overall the demand for the faction items with better primary stats will be much more in demand. If the cpu ones actually go up to much in price no one flying a frigate will even want to fit them. So this is doomed to inequity.
It is indeed strange then that I and the corp I am in largely fly cruiser and above (and prefer BC/BS really) and still have found use many times for the CN scram because of the exact reason of lower cpu use and ISK cost, while still getting a small range increase over t2. Pretty much the only frigate we use is the keres and only for damps. But please carry on and ignore my point. |
Hilti Enaka
State War Academy Caldari State
96
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 00:34:40 -
[117] - Quote
Asinae Antaelis wrote:o/ In another thread ( https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6297261#post6297261 ) i emit the idea that ewar module should have capacitor consumption based on the target ship size: Quote:Hello, I am not into pvp for now, but an idea that comes to my mind is that point/scram/turret disruptor/web have the same cap usage whatever they are aimed at. Maybe they should adjust the cap consumption of these modules depending on the target size: For example, using a web against a frigate will burn 1Gj per cycle, but 2Gj to web a destroyer, 3Gj to web a cruiser and so on. so a frigate trying to web something bigger will burned faster its capacitor so less capacitor available for dps/afterburner etc... this way it will be a little bit harder for the small to control the big... Just an idea, passing by!
Great idea.
just anything to get away from the constant spurge of t1 frigate tying ships 20 times bigger down. |
Fr3akwave
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
52
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 07:12:09 -
[118] - Quote
Those CPU requirements on the meta scrams are literally going to kill 90% of all remotely close frigate fits. Whenever you used any meta scram to save some CPU, you are now forced to downgrade to compact and its ****** range.
Fun times for FW pilots ahead. Lets rework ALL the fitted ships.
I think this is neither interesting nor cool. |
Atomeon
The Scope Gallente Federation
68
|
Posted - 2016.02.18 21:33:33 -
[119] - Quote
Warak Soal wrote:Stealth nerf to Deep Space Transports or will you bump their warp core strength to +3?
Yes, when you going to fix this? Also DON'T forget Venture the mining frigate! |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17440
|
Posted - 2016.02.19 20:38:28 -
[120] - Quote
Atomeon wrote:Warak Soal wrote:Stealth nerf to Deep Space Transports or will you bump their warp core strength to +3? Yes, when you going to fix this? Also DON'T forget Venture the mining frigate!
As DST owner I don't see the issue. Fit a stab or out tank till help arrives. |
|
Murkar Omaristos
The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance
235
|
Posted - 2016.02.20 18:12:33 -
[121] - Quote
I'm just gonna leave this here. |
Gunrunner1775
Interstellar Engineering and Electronics INC
53
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 06:05:37 -
[122] - Quote
can we now have faction warpcore stabs please??
navy faction +2 sisters of eve faction +3 |
Natural CloneKiller
The Phoenix Rising Vendetta Mercenary Group
56
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 23:40:44 -
[123] - Quote
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:big miker wrote:Holy **** at the Republic fleet / Domination warp disruptor CPU increase I always thought it was a bit silly the 30km points were 19cpu, although not sure jumping up to 40 is the right thing to do. The cpu issue needs to be addressed. 40 seems really harsh when fitting can still be a huge issue. |
Loradan Illstari
Heretic Army I N F A M O U S
5
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 21:09:32 -
[124] - Quote
Get rekt small ships. |
Cearain
Plus 10 NV Cede Nullis
1457
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 23:28:20 -
[125] - Quote
Cartheron Crust wrote:Cearain wrote:Cartheron Crust wrote:Cearain wrote:As with the webs it seems to me not all meta 8 are equal. A cpu reduction does not equate to a range increase when it comes to faction webs or faction points. Actually it does. That is a valid trade off. After years of EFT warrioring fits and then using them in game, many times the Caldari Navy Scram (i think it was that faction one) was the scram of choice. Because of that very low cpu use allowing the fit I wanted, while still having a slight increase in range over T2 and being quite a bit cheaper than the other faction variants. Fitting, range, strength and isk (done via LP store and/or drop rate) are all valid ways of "balancing" when it comes to modules for pvp. Hi Cartheron If you want to bet which disruptors or webs will cost more in one year I would be happy to bet you. If this clear inequality is left The caladari and dread guristas will be cheaper. When it comes to faction items it is going to be much more useful to have the range when fitting to cruiser or above than the cpu. For fitting to frigates maybe the cpu will be helpful but you will find that overall the demand for the faction items with better primary stats will be much more in demand. If the cpu ones actually go up to much in price no one flying a frigate will even want to fit them. So this is doomed to inequity. It is indeed strange then that I and the corp I am in largely fly cruiser and above (and prefer BC/BS really) and still have found use many times for the CN scram because of the exact reason of lower cpu use and ISK cost, while still getting a small range increase over t2. Pretty much the only frigate we use is the keres and only for damps. But please carry on and ignore my point.
I'm not ignoring your point. But I think you are missing mine. Yes you fit them in part because they cost less. They cost less because they are not as powerful as the other faction scrams.
All of the faction items are supposed to be the same power as reflected by them all now being the same meta level. See how they are changing the minmatar BCUs to match caldari? They are not making the caldari webs scrams or disruptors as strong as the fed navy ones or really any of the other faction ones. It would make sense if they just left them at a lower meta level if they are not going to make them as powerful.
Caldari scrams are much cheaper than the other faction scrams and they will remain so because cpu gains for faction scrams are not as important as range.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Loradan Illstari
Heretic Army I N F A M O U S
5
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 21:30:10 -
[126] - Quote
Natural CloneKiller wrote:Chainsaw Plankton wrote:big miker wrote:Holy **** at the Republic fleet / Domination warp disruptor CPU increase I always thought it was a bit silly the 30km points were 19cpu, although not sure jumping up to 40 is the right thing to do. The cpu issue needs to be addressed. 40 seems really harsh when fitting can still be a huge issue.
They are addressing it, and the answer is "get rekt small ships". CPU should be an issue if you want a 40km scram. Having it at 19 was just hella stupid and should have changed a long time ago. Having CPU issues? Fly a bigger ship. Dank fits will just have to fit Caldari Navy. Oh, the horror. |
Cartheron Crust
Matari Exodus
188
|
Posted - 2016.02.24 13:43:47 -
[127] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Cartheron Crust wrote:Cearain wrote:Cartheron Crust wrote:Cearain wrote:As with the webs it seems to me not all meta 8 are equal. A cpu reduction does not equate to a range increase when it comes to faction webs or faction points. Actually it does. That is a valid trade off. After years of EFT warrioring fits and then using them in game, many times the Caldari Navy Scram (i think it was that faction one) was the scram of choice. Because of that very low cpu use allowing the fit I wanted, while still having a slight increase in range over T2 and being quite a bit cheaper than the other faction variants. Fitting, range, strength and isk (done via LP store and/or drop rate) are all valid ways of "balancing" when it comes to modules for pvp. Hi Cartheron If you want to bet which disruptors or webs will cost more in one year I would be happy to bet you. If this clear inequality is left The caladari and dread guristas will be cheaper. When it comes to faction items it is going to be much more useful to have the range when fitting to cruiser or above than the cpu. For fitting to frigates maybe the cpu will be helpful but you will find that overall the demand for the faction items with better primary stats will be much more in demand. If the cpu ones actually go up to much in price no one flying a frigate will even want to fit them. So this is doomed to inequity. It is indeed strange then that I and the corp I am in largely fly cruiser and above (and prefer BC/BS really) and still have found use many times for the CN scram because of the exact reason of lower cpu use and ISK cost, while still getting a small range increase over t2. Pretty much the only frigate we use is the keres and only for damps. But please carry on and ignore my point. I'm not ignoring your point. But I think you are missing mine. Yes you fit them in part because they cost less. They cost less because they are not as powerful as the other faction scrams. All of the faction items are supposed to be the same power as reflected by them all now being the same meta level. See how they are changing the minmatar BCUs to match caldari? They are not making the caldari webs scrams or disruptors as strong as the fed navy ones or really any of the other faction ones. It would make sense if they just left them at a lower meta level if they are not going to make them as powerful. Caldari scrams are much cheaper than the other faction scrams and they will remain so because cpu gains for faction scrams are not as important as range.
Perhaps with the revamping of the cpu costs the CN scram etc will become more valuable to pilots. It is vastly less in cpu than the previous commonly used meta 3 and 4 scrams and still less than the rest of the faction scrams. Fitting is going to become significantly more difficult especially for frigates and other cpu light ships due to all the rebalancing of modules. |
Moloney
Mass Effect Enterprises
199
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 15:38:57 -
[128] - Quote
Tiercide has accomplished nothing but making choice boring across a generic set of stuff..
The old naming conventions were interesting and fun to know.
The old modules had choices, cost versus ability. The new ones are generic.
You are removing interesting aspects of this game. Well done. |
Loradan Illstari
Heretic Army I N F A M O U S
7
|
Posted - 2016.02.26 19:13:47 -
[129] - Quote
Moloney wrote:Tiercide has accomplished nothing but making choice boring across a generic set of stuff..
The old naming conventions were interesting and fun to know.
The old modules had choices, cost versus ability. The new ones are generic.
You are removing interesting aspects of this game. Well done.
What are you on about? The old(current) faction disruptors all had the same CPU cost except for Rep Fleet and Domination, which made the choice obvious. Rep fleet or bust. The new costs make the other disruptors worth some of their salt. You have it backwards. Completely backwards. |
Shalashaska Adam
Partial Safety
125
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 11:07:26 -
[130] - Quote
With this update less than a week and a half away, It might be a good idea to take into account the significant feedback in this thread now, before this first pass of changes gets released onto TQ in their current state. |
|
Onslaughtor
Reikoku Pandemic Legion
164
|
Posted - 2016.03.03 10:37:03 -
[131] - Quote
Shalashaska Adam wrote:With this update less than a week and a half away, It might be a good idea to take into account the significant feedback in this thread now, before this first pass of changes gets released onto TQ in their current state.
I agree. Some form of meaningful update would be nice. Even if its just a we are going ahead with current. |
exiik Shardani
Terpene Conglomerate
53
|
Posted - 2016.03.03 20:51:30 -
[132] - Quote
please metascrams needs more range. range only 7500 and 8250nge is going to kill most of scram kite tactics... :-(
sry for my English :-(
|
Shalashaska Adam
Partial Safety
126
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 20:28:24 -
[133] - Quote
As per usual, the word "Feedback" in the sub forum header, is there just for aesthetic reasons. |
Arcturus Ursidae
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 23:29:56 -
[134] - Quote
Was going to post more extensively in DC feedback thread but it's still locked. I can see what is trying to be done but the DC still feels too strong and here small ships seem entirely balanced around fitting meta webs and scrams.
take 10CPU of the scrams and disrupters and add it to the DC. That might make it hard enough to fit to cause a drop to a meta DC increasing the comparable power of other mods that it could be swapped for. |
The Receptionist
Astra Zeneca.
7
|
Posted - 2016.03.05 16:40:10 -
[135] - Quote
Shalashaska Adam wrote:As per usual, the word "Feedback" in the sub forum header, is there just for aesthetic reasons.
Yep. "Thanks for all the feedback. We're gonna go ahead and do this anyways." |
Jack Roulette
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2016.03.08 17:07:01 -
[136] - Quote
Point range is so vital to any pvp ship, why would anyone fit the meta 1 modules? There's no significant cost or skill hurdle to the T2 modules here, so what's the point of having a bunch of meta 1s that have their most important stat nerfed? |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2324
|
Posted - 2016.03.08 17:34:32 -
[137] - Quote
Jack Roulette wrote:Point range is so vital to any pvp ship, why would anyone fit the meta 1 modules? There's no significant cost or skill hurdle to the T2 modules here, so what's the point of having a bunch of meta 1s that have their most important stat nerfed?
Fitting cost. I would rather have a 7.5km scram than no scram, or an otherwise gimped fit. I have lots of tight fits that rely on the J5B currently.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Jediseah Tophet
Scrum Squad Empyreus
4
|
Posted - 2016.03.09 09:14:18 -
[138] - Quote
Vogels wrote:What's the point of having 3 groups of mods each with the exact same stats? There is no reason to have 6 redundant modules that are named differently.
This. Absolutely no point to keep mutiple Modules that do the same thing. You could at least differentiate them by 1 cpu or cap use. |
Pandora Bokks
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
59
|
Posted - 2016.03.09 09:50:09 -
[139] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Atomeon wrote:Warak Soal wrote:Stealth nerf to Deep Space Transports or will you bump their warp core strength to +3? Yes, when you going to fix this? Also DON'T forget Venture the mining frigate! As DST owner I don't see the issue. Fit a stab or out tank till help arrives.
I do not even get it. We had faction scrams with 3 point strength before.
|
Binary Gamura
Fillys of Madness Evictus.
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.09 21:07:56 -
[140] - Quote
Let me guess.... fozzie is behind this? Again? As someone mentioned before, fitting small PvP ships is now much harder. Guys..... i am really really getting tired. Most of my fits dont work anymore. And i dont want to put expensive CPU implants in my head just to get a fitting working again.
But hey... writing to this thread or complaining about stuff is as effictive as talking to a wall. I am really sad right now. |
|
Paul Ares
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
3
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 04:09:32 -
[141] - Quote
RIP scram kiting. Thanks again CCP for the useless changes which further destroy frigs and faction warfare in general.
Anyone who thinks being a "good loser" is a virtue is probably a f***ing loser.
|
Mar5hy
BLOPSEC Sustainable Whaling Inc.
4
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 15:02:35 -
[142] - Quote
Black ops ships were hard enough to fit before this" What are you going to do with black ops? Now its just silly... |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17507
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 15:10:18 -
[143] - Quote
Jack Roulette wrote:Point range is so vital to any pvp ship, why would anyone fit the meta 1 modules? There's no significant cost or skill hurdle to the T2 modules here, so what's the point of having a bunch of meta 1s that have their most important stat nerfed?
Speaking for myself fitting the civilian warp disruptor will allow me to fit either t2 torps or a bomb launcher on my ship now. |
IndygoSoul
Darkness Consumed Special Snowflake Squad
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 02:01:37 -
[144] - Quote
fozzie stop killing wh space please |
Dantelion Shinoni
Perkone Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2016.03.17 10:17:46 -
[145] - Quote
Paul Ares wrote:RIP scram kiting. Thanks again CCP for the useless changes which further destroy frigs and faction warfare in general.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ikQlB0hapA
The clear and apparent effects of this change, on one of the textbook fits in FW, the Scram-kiting Kestrel.
To put it simply, this specific tiercide is a gigantic failure.
- If Accessibility was the goal, players need more SP and more ISKs to be able to have a T2 Scram on their fit. J5b Enduring is **** now, if you are using it on your fit, you are an idiot or tackle-fodder. Scoped is barely better, and now you have to pay for a 1mil a piece T2 module for each ship. - If Choice was the goal, T2 Scram is the clear default now, fitting anything else is foolish and will result in you being exploded a lot more, or seeing your prey warp out a lot more. - If Balance was the goal, several Ships got nerfed for no reason for PvP. Kestrel, Tormentor, Firetail, Comets, all performing Scram-kiters, got indirectly nerfed while the real culprits, Slicers, Tristans, and co are left unaffected, even buffed by the Disruptor changes.
Failure on Accessibility, on Choice, and on Balance.
It's weird because the last batch of balance changes somewhat made me think feedback was actually valued here, but that tiericide makes my cynical side see that whole 'we value your feedback' as yet another marketing ploy.
I was seriously considering a pause from the game out of that shitshow, but I had already paid for the month and I figured I would just stop flying anything that can't fit a T2 Scram and let others deal with it. |
Little Bad Wolf
Partial Safety
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.17 14:00:05 -
[146] - Quote
Tiericide has been going remarkably smoothly so far, with feedback being responded to and acted upon in most cases.
In this case however, it just feels like negligence. A rushed and ill-considered set of figures and no attention paid afterwards.
Unfoetunately it couldn't of really happened to a more vital module in the gameplay and balance. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2368
|
Posted - 2016.03.17 16:17:26 -
[147] - Quote
I had to redo a lot of fits, but on the whole I think it works well. I've had to make new fitting decisions on several ships - notably Sabres, Svipuls, and Interceptors. In many cases I had to compromise EHP in order to maintain the same functionality with electronic warfare, but I don't mind now that I am on the other side of refitting dozens of ships.
Good changes, CCP.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
1125
|
Posted - 2016.03.18 18:30:48 -
[148] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:I had to redo a lot of fits, but on the whole I think it works well. I've had to make new fitting decisions on several ships - notably Sabres, Svipuls, and Interceptors. In many cases I had to compromise EHP in order to maintain the same functionality with electronic warfare, but I don't mind now that I am on the other side of refitting dozens of ships.
Good changes, CCP.
same here. But since I have so many fits I would wait until they are done. They might change cap boosters next and most active tanks rely on them.
I am curious what they do to meta guns and hp regeneration mods.
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.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14015
|
Posted - 2016.03.20 19:07:13 -
[149] - Quote
We're keeping a close eye on how the scram meta develops after this change, and we have the potential step of reducing the range gap between T1/Scoped/T2 a bit more if needed.
At the end of the day, our goal with the meta scrams is to create a real choice between the advantages of named scrams (lower fitting, cap use, price) and the advantages of T2 (better range, able to be mass produced). This means that we can't have one module be the best of all worlds and although I can completely understand how it can feel painful when we've all gotten used to named modules being the easy choice, we think this is a balance that can be reached.
Keep optimizing and tweaking your fits, try out flying with different scrams and figure out the best uses for each of them. We'll be tweaking based on what we see on TQ and hear from your experiences.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
kelmiler delbone
Group 2 Holdings
6
|
Posted - 2016.03.21 10:53:50 -
[150] - Quote
Should of given them falloffs :P |
|
Circumstantial Evidence
265
|
Posted - 2016.03.21 16:33:11 -
[151] - Quote
Is anyone using "enduring" parts that consume less than 5 CPU per cycle? Do they need to exist?
Scoped warp scrambler: 5 /cycle Compact warp scrambler: 5 /cycle Enduring warp scrambler: 3 /cycle Difference: 2
- The benefits of using either of the non-enduring parts seem huge in comparison.
Compact stasis webifier: 5 Enduring stasis webifier: 2 Difference: 3
- This module didn't get a Scoped variation.
Scoped stasis grappler: 4 Compact stasis grappler: 4 Enduring stasis grappler: 2 Difference: 2
- Why Enduring? These are intended for battleships!
|
Soltys
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
115
|
Posted - 2016.03.28 18:50:12 -
[152] - Quote
Dont forget to properly rebalance all istab bonused ships (+2 -> +3), considering vast availabilty of cheap faction modules (CN warp scrambler for once).
Also consider looking at WCS line, which I think still remembers 2003, when scrams were at most 2 and they didn't inhibit mwd modules if my memory is right. They really need equivalent of scram and faction modules to keep things fair and properly counterable.
Another idea regarding WCS - what if they were able to protect mwd drives (meaning, you warp drive is off, but mwd remains operational) ? Though with long range webs dunno if it changes much in practice.
Jita Flipping Inc.: Solmp / Kovl
|
Ashlar Vellum
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
234
|
Posted - 2016.03.29 19:11:33 -
[153] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Is anyone using "enduring" parts that consume less than 5 cap per cycle? Do they need to exist? Scoped warp scrambler: 5 /cycle Compact warp scrambler: 5 /cycle Enduring warp scrambler: 3 /cycle Difference: 2
- The benefits of using either of the non-enduring parts seem huge in comparison.
Compact stasis webifier: 5 Enduring stasis webifier: 2 Difference: 3
- This module didn't get a Scoped variation.
Scoped stasis grappler: 4 Compact stasis grappler: 4 Enduring stasis grappler: 2 Difference: 2
- Why Enduring? These are intended for battleships!
Enduring webs are quite ok I guess on hulls with 80% Propulsion Jamming systems cost reduction, but enduring scram is weird the CPU cost and range are too much of a drawback for it to be competitive vs scoped /t2 variants. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page] |