These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Are Tracking Enhancers too good?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dato Koppla
Neuronix
#1 - 2012-03-28 23:36:24 UTC
Are they?
Its essentially better than a Tracking Computer, insanely low fitting requirements, and the bonus granted is downright awesome. 15% 30% 9.5% Optimal/Faloff/Tracking from a single module seems abit much, especially the Falloff bonus which is probably one of the contributing factors to the Winmatar ships getting 'I win' buttons.

Discuss!
Patri Andari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
#2 - 2012-03-29 00:10:22 UTC
As long as they apply only to turrets and make Winmatar ungodly they are not OP. If they ever apply to missiles and make them even competitive they will then be OP.

Meanwhile Tracking Disruptors are going to apply their effects to missiles with no counter in sight.


Be careful what you think, for your thoughts become your words. Be careful what you say, for your words become your actions. Be careful what you do, for your actions become your character. And character is everything. - author unknown
Aamrr
#3 - 2012-03-29 01:09:33 UTC
My Tachyon Nightmare has more falloff than optimal. Yes, I'm using multifrequency, but that just should not happen. There is no reason modules need to give twice the falloff bonus as optimal -- if autocannons and blasters need more falloff, change the guns.
Adacia Calla
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2012-03-29 01:11:25 UTC
Before TEs were buffed, they were never used, now they're used.

Working as intended.

Test signature....forum not applying settings :(
Alara IonStorm
#5 - 2012-03-29 01:14:18 UTC
Adacia Calla wrote:
Before TEs were buffed, they were never used, now they're used.

Working as intended.

TE's didn't give falloff.

Perhaps rolling TC and TE stats to a 15% Buff like Opt or say an even 20% Buff to each would not be such a bad thing.
Belthazor4011
Battle BV Redux
#6 - 2012-03-29 01:20:36 UTC
They cost you a low slot which you can use for better things most of the time, I PVP a fair bit and I barely see them on the people I kill nor do I use them myself.

Low slots are better used for tank and or damage, the only reason I'd use a TE is because I dont have the CPU to fit a damage module...

TE's can be nice for PVE, but thats PVE. Nothing in PVE can be overpowered if you ask me. Its just making ISK, no harm done there.
Sigras
Conglomo
#7 - 2012-03-29 02:23:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Sigras
Belthazor4011 wrote:
They cost you a low slot which you can use for better things most of the time, I PVP a fair bit and I barely see them on the people I kill nor do I use them myself.

Low slots are better used for tank and or damage, the only reason I'd use a TE is because I dont have the CPU to fit a damage module...


see, but thats just the thing that makes shield tanking so powerful. Shield tankers only need to allocate two mids to non tanking modules (the point and the propulsion mod), they also get a low slot module that helps with their tank (the damage control)

this frees them up to use all of their lows for damage mods tracking enhancers and nanofibers which are all great modules. This is why you see ships with large numbers of low slots and medium numbers of mids still being shield tankers, because there are SO many good non-tanking low slot modules.

Examples:
The Brutix
The Hurricane
The Hyperion
The Ishtar
The Myrmidon
The Tempest

I propose changing the tracking enhancer II to 20% falloff (down from 30%) and 15% tracking (up from 9.5%), and increasing the stacking penalty for modules stacked beyond the second.

This would make armor tanking a viable option for sub battleship sized vessels again.


Belthazor4011 wrote:
TE's can be nice for PVE, but thats PVE. Nothing in PVE can be overpowered if you ask me. Its just making ISK, no harm done there.

Clearly you have never heard of inflation . . .
Elsa Nietchize
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#8 - 2012-03-29 02:49:34 UTC
nerf caldari
Joyelle
SludgeSlingers
#9 - 2012-03-29 03:15:32 UTC
Sigras wrote:
[quote=Belthazor4011]Mis yarns

Kiting setups will be less desirable. -1
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#10 - 2012-03-29 04:14:09 UTC
Unsure if random forum alt troll or just yet another nerf minmatar thread

No, wait, its both these things.

~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
Dato Koppla
Neuronix
#11 - 2012-03-29 06:46:17 UTC
I'm not trolling or an alt, just started a while back but never really got into Eve properly but trying to now, that's why I've never really been on forums. Just wanted the general opinion of the EVE players.

Yeah my experience has been mostly PvE based, I'm not asking for Minmatar nerf or anything I just figured +30% falloff is a little much in ships that already get long falloff. Since I crosstrained into Amarr I've found I'm favoring gunboats more and more, and I figured TEs are probably one of the reasons as said above shield tank + bunch of TEs makes it pretty win.
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#12 - 2012-03-29 07:47:50 UTC
Dunno about too powerful, but the difference in fitting requirements is kinda crazy. 15 CPU vs. 35 CPU and cap use? Hmmm.
Vito Antonio
Doomheim
#13 - 2012-03-29 10:16:46 UTC
I agree, drake should be nerfed.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#14 - 2012-03-29 11:35:34 UTC
Answer to the question is "yes".

TE need to have their falloff nerfed down to 15% to 20%.
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#15 - 2012-03-29 12:02:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Tanya Powers
Belthazor4011 wrote:
They cost you a low slot which you can use for better things most of the time, I PVP a fair bit and I barely see them on the people I kill nor do I use them myself.

Low slots are better used for tank and or damage, the only reason I'd use a TE is because I dont have the CPU to fit a damage module...

TE's can be nice for PVE, but thats PVE. Nothing in PVE can be overpowered if you ask me. Its just making ISK, no harm done there.



Shocked

@op

The major problem I see with tracking enhancers is the insane 30% falloff bonus. Use 3 of those on a Vindicator instead of MFS and see how far you can hit with your blasters. But if you think it's huge then pick Autocanons and watch the nonsense that is that bonus cumulative on ships already having a falloff bonus.

Why not just get rid of TE's and TC's? -add specific bonus on dmg mods per race. This would just add more fitting options and much better than choosing between tank or gank because you don't have enough slots.

I'm looking at the ridiculous pre Crucible Gallente marauder fits with double sebo, double tracking computer 2 mfs 1 te ...

That is not a fitting option, it's a pain in the arse deliberately installed that brings no fun.
Why everyone lover newest battlecruisers? -because they're fun
Imho CCP should really get rid of some mods or merge stats between some so they can create new ones opening new gaming/meta gaming options
Danny John-Peter
Blue Canary
Watch This
#16 - 2012-03-29 12:25:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Danny John-Peter
Belthazor4011 wrote:
They cost you a low slot which you can use for better things most of the time, I PVP a fair bit and I barely see them on the people I kill nor do I use them myself.

Low slots are better used for tank and or damage, the only reason I'd use a TE is because I dont have the CPU to fit a damage module...

TE's can be nice for PVE, but thats PVE. Nothing in PVE can be overpowered if you ask me. Its just making ISK, no harm done there.


No, not PVP ships ever fit TEs, that would just be silly to be able to fight out of web and scram range and kite with short range weaponry.

TEs have an interesting bonus which favours the mid range kiting that has become popular (see Canes, Vagas, Ruptures, Munnins, Nados, Zealots other ships I dont fly that do it) it allows short range based weapon systems to hit out to long point range, meaning you never have to commit to a fight, its tracking bonus on the other hand is negligible and is far better suited to a mid slot TC.

Its balance really comes down to said negligible tracking bonus, increased range however on most ships a TE doesn't massively improve tracking vs transversing targets.

EDIT; Lul whut, Sacrilege, I fail
Whitehound
#17 - 2012-03-29 23:24:15 UTC
The question was Tracking Computers versus Tracking Enhancers... Take a look at other such combinations, i.e. ECCM versus Sensor Backup Array. There it is the opposite and the mid-slot item is the more powerful one.

The answer is that Tracking Enhancers make shield tankers with turrets more powerful, while ECCM makes armor tankers more resistant to ECM.

As soon as ECM ships come into play will the (perceived) advantage turn into a disadvantage. Your Minmatar Pwen Mobile will turn into a lame duck, while the boring armor tanker keeps shooting, and the paper-scissors-rock game continues.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Azemar
Voidhounds
Pretenders
#18 - 2012-03-30 01:49:49 UTC
I'd say the reason they are so good is because for almost any ship like that you are sacrificing mag stabs/damage low or tank to put it there. Med's usually offer at least 1 free slot in a build, so that's why TC"s are worse.
Sigras
Conglomo
#19 - 2012-03-30 04:41:56 UTC
Joyelle wrote:
Sigras wrote:
[quote=Belthazor4011]Mis yarns

Kiting setups will be less desirable. -1

You have not proven that this is a bad thing.

In fact I would say you prove My point, kiting setups have been the choice ships ever since this change was made (i know all the matari balance changes were made along side this one but still)

Kiting setups are, IMHO, too powerful and NEED this nerf.
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#20 - 2012-03-30 05:03:29 UTC
If TD's were op, most ships flown in pvp wouldn't be minmatar. The most recent data was that what, 15 of the top 20 ships flown/destroyed in pvp were minmatar? (Granted this was pre-crucible.)
12Next page