These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Odyssey] Module Rebalancing Part One: RSBs and TEs

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1041 - 2013-05-19 23:55:14 UTC
Shade Alidiana wrote:
DarkLander wrote:
I think Tracking Enhancer nerf is not good idea. dislike. Maybe carebears want nerf minmatar pvp ships? Roll

Maybe carebears rely on TEs as well?

While this doesn't obsolete my pve mach (yet!) it still stings... bringing stats from 4.2+52km down to 3.8+42km with hail. At 40km my dps decreases by 140.

The ships without range bonuses will be even worse off with this nerf. Yet another buff to armor tanking...
Beth Askold
Pigeon Patrol
#1042 - 2013-05-20 11:23:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Beth Askold
editted, saw this on pages 47:

"What about faction TEs? They don't seem to have an advantage.
The reason that my OP didn't clearly show the advantage of faction TEs is because the extra bonus from faction TEs has always been in tracking, not range. Since the tracking bonus is not being adjusted in this change I elected not to display it. Adding range bonused high metalevel TEs may be an option in the future, but for now the tracking benefits of faction TEs make them a sought after module so I do not see a desperate need to change them at this time."

going from 10.0% tracking speed bonus to 10.5 is a 5% bonus on 1 affected attribute
Optimal is unaffected
falloff is unaffected

giving equal weighting to all three attributes its 5% / 3 = 1.66% better having the faction TE

Compare that with current differences in pretty much all faction mods and its rather weak... so im not sure how these are so "sought after" tbh. Even incursion runners generally dont touch them.

Whats the overall difference a faction damage mod does? 23% with t2 and 25.8% with faction, between the two thats an increase of over 12% isnt it?
Calgrissom Torvec
#1043 - 2013-05-20 16:49:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Calgrissom Torvec
This nerf hits the incursion shield community quite hard actually. Maelstrom, TFI, Mach, Vindi, Navy mega, Rohk, Mega, Loki and Nightmare (to a lesser extent) are all going to be hit by the TE nerf. Most PVP encounters don't require you to hit out at ranges past 100k but in incursions it is required for every HQ site. These changes will hit sniper boats the hardest and DPS boats to lesser extent.

The changes seem short sited and not well thought out. If you want ships that tank with there low slots to be more effective buff range scripts for TC. Better to buff a few than take a hammer to many.

Seeing changes like this makes me fear for pirate hull Battleships when it comes time for rebalancing.
DeathWise
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1044 - 2013-05-20 19:15:11 UTC
I saw several people mention this, but saw no CCP response...

What effect will this have on TD's?

As it stands, a single non-bonused TD can counteract 2 TE's. And bonused TDs makes any module, or number of modules, fitted to your ship to enhance tracking nearly moot. Maybe it's not high on your list of priorities, but the enormous gap between beneficial mods and detrimental ones(ewar) just took a HUGE leap in the wrong direction. Turret ships already have a tough enough time sustaining equivalent dps(effective dps) at long point ranges(20km or so) as missile ships. And it just so happens that many of those fast kitey shield ships you are trying to "fix" are still missile boats, who already claim dominance over any kiting turret ship with the use of one of their ample mid slots for a TD. You stated that you felt the strength of the low slot modules was too much, when compared to the equivalent mid slot one. Where is the consideration for the strength of mid-slot ewar compared to low-slot beneficial mods?
Calgrissom Torvec
#1045 - 2013-05-20 20:06:38 UTC
DeathWise wrote:
I saw several people mention this, but saw no CCP response...

What effect will this have on TD's?

As it stands, a single non-bonused TD can counteract 2 TE's. And bonused TDs makes any module, or number of modules, fitted to your ship to enhance tracking nearly moot. Maybe it's not high on your list of priorities, but the enormous gap between beneficial mods and detrimental ones(ewar) just took a HUGE leap in the wrong direction. Turret ships already have a tough enough time sustaining equivalent dps(effective dps) at long point ranges(20km or so) as missile ships. And it just so happens that many of those fast kitey shield ships you are trying to "fix" are still missile boats, who already claim dominance over any kiting turret ship with the use of one of their ample mid slots for a TD. You stated that you felt the strength of the low slot modules was too much, when compared to the equivalent mid slot one. Where is the consideration for the strength of mid-slot ewar compared to low-slot beneficial mods?




The truth is they haven't. Slasher will absolutely crush any Minnie turret boat after this patch as it wasn't bad enough.
Omega Crendraven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1046 - 2013-05-24 01:59:42 UTC
Escobar Slim III wrote:
CAN WE HAVE A POTION BOOSTER FOR IMMUNITY TO ECM JAMMERS? I HAVE PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO THIS BUT WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT. A POTION FOR STOPPING ECM WILL MAKE UP FOR LOSING TRACKING ENHANCING. THAT IS MY THOUGHTS ON THE SUBJECT AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME.


You sir, have the best comment in the whole thread
Shade Alidiana
PROSPERO Corporation
#1047 - 2013-05-25 00:00:27 UTC
Beth Askold wrote:
editted, saw this on pages 47:

"What about faction TEs? They don't seem to have an advantage.
The reason that my OP didn't clearly show the advantage of faction TEs is because the extra bonus from faction TEs has always been in tracking, not range. Since the tracking bonus is not being adjusted in this change I elected not to display it. Adding range bonused high metalevel TEs may be an option in the future, but for now the tracking benefits of faction TEs make them a sought after module so I do not see a desperate need to change them at this time."

going from 10.0% tracking speed bonus to 10.5 is a 5% bonus on 1 affected attribute
Optimal is unaffected
falloff is unaffected

giving equal weighting to all three attributes its 5% / 3 = 1.66% better having the faction TE

Compare that with current differences in pretty much all faction mods and its rather weak... so im not sure how these are so "sought after" tbh. Even incursion runners generally dont touch them.

Whats the overall difference a faction damage mod does? 23% with t2 and 25.8% with faction, between the two thats an increase of over 12% isnt it?


I only saw faction TEs in fits that are extremely tight and only their lower fitting requirements allow the whole ship to be running, with the skills all maxed.
Fyrhmn
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1048 - 2013-05-25 01:38:01 UTC
Shade Alidiana wrote:
[quote=Beth Askold]editted, saw this on pages 47:

I only saw faction TEs in fits that are extremely tight and only their lower fitting requirements allow the whole ship to be running, with the skills all maxed.


yeah the faction TE's are pretty much useless as they are now. and with the nerf. even more so
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1049 - 2013-05-31 06:28:49 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Verity Sovereign wrote:
Has CCP ever addressed why TEs should give double the bonus to falloff that they do to optimal?

To me it seems just like more love for Minmatar, and I thought they didn't want them to be "Winmatar" anymore (while also not being a pathetic Minmatard loser race)



YEs we did calculated that way back then we proposed and ccp listened to add falloff bonuses. FAlloff is effectively and mathematically shown as worth HALF of what range is wroth.


When you increase your optimal by 10 km you increase your FULL dps 10 km more. WHen you increase falloff by 10 km you increase HALF dps 10 km.


Just beleive in the peopel that did the math (I was one back then) Falloff bonuses must be larger than optimal bonuses or they become much weaker than optimal ones.


You fail at logic.

You do half your paper DPS at 1 falloff, true, but irrelevant.
If you look at your damage application curve, for a falloff based weapon it stretches 30% farther, whereas for an optimal based weapon, it only goes 15% farther.

If sans TE, the weapons are balanced with one hitting in falloff (autos) while the other hits in optimal (lasers), then by not extending this equally, the balance is strongly shifted towards the falloff weapon. (I would argue they are balanced, due to tracking, no cap use, selectable damage, and range of high damage ammo)

Furthermore, for a given range, increasing the optimal produces 0% increase in applied DPS if the base range> engagement range, however, the applied DPS of the falloff weapon goes up.


I can do math too. 1+1= 2. 2+4 = 6, therefore optimal bonuses must be largerRoll
Your "math" is about as relevant to the argument as my above "math"
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Lai Dai Counterintelligence
#1050 - 2013-06-02 10:10:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Iyacia Cyric'ai
20% is a bit much in my opinion. I understand the module is powerful but it nerfs the turrets way too much. 80% of the cruisers I see right now are Caracals, I wouldn't be surprised if after this nerf 100% of them become Caracals (or Bellicoses). It will make missile ships way too overpowered (and I almost never use this word).

I think a better solution is 10% nerf to Tracking Enhancers and maybe a 5% buff to the scripted effects of Tracking Computers (and yes this is also intended to help TCs counter TDs).

Quote:
Is the intent of this change to shrink the range of all engagements and force people within scram range?
This change will reduce the damage that some ship fits apply from long range. However there is no shortage of options for dealing damage at multiple ranges and nobody is forcing everyone within scram/web range. It is intended that this change will make the choice between staying at range with reduced damage and moving close for higher dps at higher risk more stark for many ships. It is also intended that this change reduces the effectiveness of some short range weapons when used for kiting. EVE has many weapon systems with many strength and weaknesses, and tradeoffs include range. If all weapons can be easily used for kiting, the value of choosing longer range weapon systems is reduced.


I'm no psychologist but I doubt it will work this way. A lot of people aren't likely to keep flying the same setups if it no longer works as well. They'll likely abandon those fits altogether and deem them unviable and fly something that will do what their previous fits could do (like missiles boats). TE nerf also effects brawling setups too as range control is still very important even in scram range so it doesn't exactly make brawling any more viable or powerful, it just decreases the options on both styles of combat. So essentially it's not so much a trade off so much as it is a complete elimination of various options.
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1051 - 2013-06-02 11:27:49 UTC
Calgrissom Torvec wrote:
This nerf hits the incursion shield community quite hard actually. Maelstrom, TFI, Mach, Vindi, Navy mega, Rohk, Mega, Loki and Nightmare (to a lesser extent) are all going to be hit by the TE nerf. Most PVP encounters don't require you to hit out at ranges past 100k but in incursions it is required for every HQ site. These changes will hit sniper boats the hardest and DPS boats to lesser extent.

The changes seem short sited and not well thought out. If you want ships that tank with there low slots to be more effective buff range scripts for TC. Better to buff a few than take a hammer to many.

Seeing changes like this makes me fear for pirate hull Battleships when it comes time for rebalancing.


Now we'll actually have a use for aurora and tremor...

Well... not really, I found that by swapping scripts in TCs, Standard or IN Infrared would provide enough optimal (particularly using a locus coordinator 2 fr +20% optimal, since the elutriation won't be needed with the laser changes) , and IN standard outdamages and out tracks Aurora, while IN infrared does equal damage, and out tracks it (even with the TC tracking bonus discarded for more range).

So I guess its just the machs.

I'm actually looking forward to this, the machs range projection will get worse, while the NMs cap problems will get better.

I'm just annoyed that they are keeping the falloff bonus as 2x the optimal bonus.
IMO, that was the problem in the first place.
TRUTHY
Lisnave
Pandemic Horde
#1052 - 2013-06-04 13:33:40 UTC
so it seems the cynaballs vagabonds shield sfi will no longer work... as they have crappy shield tank... relying more on speed and range to keep fighting..

my cynas and vagas and shield lokis goona make na abrupt stop in my hangar, dont going to risk a 500 mills cyna or a 1 bill loki or a 300 mills vaga.. to fight at ranges that a t1 gallente cruiser can do... or a amarr t1 cruiser will wreck...

so seems we all are going into a fight within noob web ranges... and then its gonna be really outraging seeing killmails of noob thoraxes killing vagas or cynas.. dont ....... plz dont try to contradict.... i know it willl happen...wait... and see a 5 millions cruiser beat the crap of a cyna....

then those rare expensive ships will be even rare to see in space as less ppl will use them.. armour cynas..... sooon????

just some ironic exemples...........

bónus faction fitted arazu... points at 100km+ cruiser class---------- arty cane 110km gun range- reduced 30% ? 75km now??
bónus rapier faction fitted rapier 90km web.. ------------ recent reduced tengu hevy missile range from 120 to 80km....

this just a random exemple and may not be exactlly acurate but the point is....

we are going to have some cruisers pointing and webing at ranges of noone else?????

it seems the range of engagements going to be shorter and the rules going to favour the numbers again.

it seems wen 180 heavy missile tengus were facing lots of carriers and supers.... someone sayd...we gotta stop that

it seems wen 180 rohks were facing 2x its sized fleet in bs and carriers... someone sayd we gotta stop that

small things may have big aplications..

and sometimes rules arent that inocent as we think

thx all fly safe pilots.... back to origins..... caracals ftw
Ro'Dauqa
All Things Dead.
#1053 - 2013-06-04 13:36:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Ro'Dauqa
thanks CCP for making my favourite roaming ships complite rubish :S

sheild deimos / vigilant which had ~30km range which wasnt overpowered or something 30km is atleast what u need for killing anything when being chased by blob... now they have 24km range ceptor tackles at 28km : ) and they have fallof bonus... what about unbonused ships? sheild 2 te thorax had ~22km range now they have ~18 which is joke...

my 100mn loki had ~ 30km range which was ok.... thanks, not going to pay bilion for a ship which wont hit at 25km : (

not going to fly any of those ships...

just dont see the point of nerf it. hate when ppl compare TEs to TCs, low and medium slots are different, those modules shouldnt give you same bonuses, low slot gives you dps and damage projection while mediums give a different stuff like ewar,propmod ect...

TEs wasnt overpowered it just did its job.

RIP kiting, were fun times.
drake duka
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1054 - 2013-06-04 16:51:38 UTC
TE's only really made some gallente boats too strong. Minmatar, who totally relies on falloff gets shafted by the change. Even with "OP" te's, no minmatar turret boats were op except maybe mach.
mPistoleroZ
Perkone
Caldari State
#1055 - 2013-06-04 20:07:27 UTC
Either nerfing or boosting (these few moments in EvE history) should be done 'softly'. -33% is alot and so is the boost in cruise missiles. You dont 'balance' anything like this.

PS. Nerfed is nerfed... it is not "balanced". We know it every time we see the term written and we prefer to see it written properly i.e. nerfed.
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
#1056 - 2013-06-06 20:47:21 UTC
When are these going be unstickied to give Page 1 back to Player Posts? Odyssey is in and the Feedback and Issues threads are active. Why not replace these with a "Link Sticky" to those two threads?

We all know how lazy we are to go clicking...wait for it...past Page 3 of this Forum section. Blink

[b]Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee" Undocking - More Routes Out of Station[/b] Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up!
Bigg Gun
T.I.E. Inc.
#1057 - 2013-06-09 20:03:45 UTC
we don't give a damn about tracking, why not nerf tracking and leave range bonuses alone. Balance the tracking aspect of the TE's with 33% reduction, leave the 2 more useful bonuses alone, or at least leave the falloff bonus alone
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1058 - 2013-06-09 22:20:36 UTC
TRUTHY wrote:
so it seems the cynaballs vagabonds shield sfi will no longer work...



How much actual falloff have you actually lost from your "cynaballs vagabonds shield sfi"?

As in, before you had x+m optmal & falloff, and now you have y+n optimal & falloff. What are the numbers in actual metres?

(Hint: n is not 20% less than m)

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Electra Magnetic
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1059 - 2013-07-22 04:45:50 UTC
Another major nerf aimed directly at the Amarr. Thanks for starting with weapon balancing first. Good to see that even though it has been acknowledged that one races weapons are useless... going after mid slot utility items is the place to start?

good logic.
Kane Fenris
NWP
#1060 - 2013-07-22 11:48:18 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
TRUTHY wrote:
so it seems the cynaballs vagabonds shield sfi will no longer work...



How much actual falloff have you actually lost from your "cynaballs vagabonds shield sfi"?

As in, before you had x+m optmal & falloff, and now you have y+n optimal & falloff. What are the numbers in actual metres?

(Hint: n is not 20% less than m)


the problem with kiteing is that weapons of ships considered prey otdamage those of the kiteable ships... if you want to kite you have to stay in longpoint and are therefore screwed caus you barrage ac dmg for example is now not superior to the dmg of most ships at longpoint thats why im advocateing not to take back any buffs/nerfs but to make kite ships use long range weapons instead of boosted shortrange weapons so they can do the dps at range. (se hac thread and the vaga)
you cant fix this mess when sticking to the old way