These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Rubicon 1.1] Tracking Disruptor and Sensor Damp Strength Changes in Conjunction with Heat Iteration

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
#21 - 2014-01-16 16:34:10 UTC
TPs nerf isn't needed What?
Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#22 - 2014-01-16 16:34:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Scuzzy Logic
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Overall I do nto like the changes. More and more thigns are pushed where they are only usable on extremely specialzied ships. That is dumb, bad design and make the fittign of the ship that used to be an important part of eve, more and more irrelevant.

It seems like each ewar is made to be used on a single ship and no way in others, and each ship is made to be fitted in a signle way.



I agree. The sheer fact they're nerfing the already-almost-useless-in-PvP target painters makes it feel like they're just nerfing missioners again. THE DRAKE'S DEAD, stop nerfing our missiles CCP.

Also, I was always a big fan of EWAR being long-term combat disruption instead of the PVP IS ALPHA OR BUST mentality prevalent nowadays.
Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#23 - 2014-01-16 16:37:26 UTC
CCP Vesna Prishla wrote:
Two step wrote:
I assume you made double sure you can't get tracking disrupters over 100% effectiveness, right? Word on the street is that strange stuff happens when you do that...


I am scared to test this now


Be afraid, be very afraid.

Also, the math in my head makes me think it will be possible once more with officer mods and scripts.
Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#24 - 2014-01-16 16:39:32 UTC
Diivil wrote:
What about balancing meta 4 and tech 2 variants? Meta 4 has always been strictly better for ECM since they have the same power but can sustain heat much longer and use significantly less paste to repair. Also significant cap usage difference especially with damps AND have easier fitting requirements. Now there is no reason to use tech 2 target painters or sensor damps either.


Now that you point it out, it really is dumb as hell.
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
#25 - 2014-01-16 16:45:14 UTC
Quote:
The TL:DR is that all Tracking Disruptors, Remote Sensor Dampeners, and Target Painters will have their base effectiveness reduced by 10%, and at the same time be given the ability to get a 20% effectiveness through overheating.


while tracking distruptors and dampeners can use scripts, TPs don't.
so basically, TPs don't have the same flexibility at tracking distruptors or dampeners while getting the same nerf bat; really?
Alx Warlord
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2014-01-16 16:50:29 UTC
Scuzzy Logic wrote:
CCP Vesna Prishla wrote:
Two step wrote:
I assume you made double sure you can't get tracking disrupters over 100% effectiveness, right? Word on the street is that strange stuff happens when you do that...


I am scared to test this now


Be afraid, be very afraid.

Also, the math in my head makes me think it will be possible once more with officer mods and scripts.


With this much TD the ship should shoot itself!!!!

Please read these!

New POS system New SOV system
Mini Vordul
Hotel Krabifornia
#27 - 2014-01-16 16:55:01 UTC
The long awaited target painter nerf!
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#28 - 2014-01-16 17:00:40 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Overall I do nto like the changes. More and more thigns are pushed where they are only usable on extremely specialzied ships. That is dumb, bad design and make the fittign of the ship that used to be an important part of eve, more and more irrelevant.

It seems like each ewar is made to be used on a single ship and no way in others, and each ship is made to be fitted in a signle way.



Further, the dev is again showing his "PvP is the only thing that matters in Eve" flag again.
Players that use TP's in missions get screwed, since no one overheats for any length of time in a mission, or in any PvE situation.
TruExXx
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2014-01-16 17:01:32 UTC  |  Edited by: TruExXx
I dont think these modules need to be a part of the heating "meta." With so many modules to heat now the chance of burning out modules in a fight esp for small gang pvpers will be too high. I think that versatility to all modules should be encouraged to increase the decision making process, but this kind just increases cost to the user. It will require more nanite paste after fights, and it will increase death due to a higher chance of modules burning out.

When changing this game more things need to be done to create content and thrill for the pvp experience. Instead EVE is adding more difficulty and cost. Which does neither.

This change will also hurt the effectiveness of PvE.

Also why have no changes be set to increase the effectiveness of t2 modules over meta 4? Right now most meta 4 ewar mods are far superior.
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
#30 - 2014-01-16 17:15:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Maximus Aerelius
Seranova Farreach wrote:
Vinyl 41 wrote:
rly were nerfing TPs now ? is that some sort of a hidden war against pve missle users ?


yes mostlikly though in all honesty TPs work better with guns and webs work better with missles, really give it a try for yourself.


Unless you're a Golem Pilot and then you have TP's and Missiles along with Webs\LMJD as it's bonused for TP's.

The nerf is too great IMHO and how do you only get 18% from overheating and not 20%. You are minus 10% and overheat should get you +20% not +18% surely?

CCP Fozzie wrote:
The TL:DR is that all Tracking Disruptors, Remote Sensor Dampeners, and Target Painters will have their base effectiveness reduced by 10%, and at the same time be given the ability to get a 20% effectiveness through overheating.

This means that compared to current TQ values, these modules will be 10% worse when not heated, and 8% better when heated.


Nerfing to accommodate a change that only advanced players will use isn't good practice in my opinion unless it is too OP but since we operate these modules at 100% now should the OH not simply increase the level by say 5% instead of penalizing those that don't or haven't trained OH/Nanite Repair etc?

I can see the P.I. manufacturers rubbing their hands together at the thoughts of all those that will have to OH their mods to get back to the 100% that they had before.

[b]Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee" Undocking - More Routes Out of Station[/b] Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up!
Elite Saiyajin
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#31 - 2014-01-16 17:21:27 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Since we're giving TDs, RSDs, and Painters the ability to overheat in Rubicon 1.1, we are also going to be reducing their base strength slightly to compensate.

The TL:DR is that all Tracking Disruptors, Remote Sensor Dampeners, and Target Painters will have their base effectiveness reduced by 10%, and at the same time be given the ability to get a 20% effectiveness through overheating.

This means that compared to current TQ values, these modules will be 10% worse when not heated, and 8% better when heated.



If you are going to reduce the base strength then you should also reduce base capacitor costs. None of these modules are overly effective, and they all use extreme amounts of cap for already minimal benefit.

I like the idea of adding the option of overheating to these modules, but not at the cost of losing effectiveness. It really upsets me when a module is nerfed to the point that even when overheated it is less effective than before. My suggestion would be to do a 5% nerf for base effectiveness AND cap use, then make it a 10% increase effectiveness for overheating. That makes a fair trade off.
KiithSoban
Mackies Raiders
Wild Geese.
#32 - 2014-01-16 17:22:27 UTC
I am not familiar with the formulas for heat generation (as many of are not), so about how long can you overheat for each of these ewar modules for?

For benchmark purposes, use the t2 version.

We know that not all overheat is created equal. (ex: ECCM vs webs)

I want to see logi appear on killmails! (by just repping)  See CSM "reasonable things"
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
#33 - 2014-01-16 17:27:04 UTC
KiithSoban wrote:
I am not familiar with the formulas for heat generation (as many of are not), so about how long can you overheat for each of these ewar modules for?

For benchmark purposes, use the Meta 4 version.

We know that not all overheat is created equal. (ex: ECCM vs webs)


Fixed that for you as who uses T2?

[b]Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee" Undocking - More Routes Out of Station[/b] Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up!
KiithSoban
Mackies Raiders
Wild Geese.
#34 - 2014-01-16 17:38:21 UTC
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
KiithSoban wrote:
I am not familiar with the formulas for heat generation (as many of are not), so about how long can you overheat for each of these ewar modules for?

For benchmark purposes, use the Meta 4 version.

We know that not all overheat is created equal. (ex: ECCM vs webs)


Fixed that for you as who uses T2?


Agreed, but I said T2 for the reason that not every newbro knows that meta heats longer than T2. I was requesting that our dev quoted T2 instead of meta so that that "not so well kept" secret would remain "not so well kept" instead of "common knowledge" As an eve player, it is ingrained in me to keep my foes as uneducated as possible while keeping my allies and myself as educated as possible.

I want to see logi appear on killmails! (by just repping)  See CSM "reasonable things"
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#35 - 2014-01-16 17:39:39 UTC
TPs are nearly useless, if you CCP nerf them further more you can remove them from the Game.

Meet the Mario Kart 8 - Capsuleer Club Cup
Gimme more Cynos
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#36 - 2014-01-16 17:40:58 UTC
I think Fozzie is affraid that TP's might provide more of a benefit than webs if TP's are left alone.

I can't imagine that this could happen, but If it's not that, I can't explain the TP nerf :/
Iudicium Vastus
Doomheim
#37 - 2014-01-16 17:50:14 UTC
As plenty mentioned already, unbonused ewar could use the nerf, but the dedicated and specialized ships however should not feel this nerf.

Maybe go through with the reduction across the board on the modules, but then up the bonuses of the dedicated hulls such as Keres Sensor Dampener effectiveness from 7.5% per level to 8-10% as to perform the same on cold SDs as it did before, while shining even more as a true ewar platform when they do decided to overheat for short bursts.

Again, toss my vote with the growing sentiment of unbonused ewar needing a nerf. Not the dedicated platforms running cold.

[u]Nerf stabs/cloaks in FW?[/u] No, just.. -Fit more points -Fit faction points -Bring a friend or two with points (an alt is fine too)
handige harrie
Vereenigde Handels Compagnie
#38 - 2014-01-16 17:58:59 UTC  |  Edited by: handige harrie
So you make modules worse 90% of the time, so they can be slightly better 10% of the time, making pilotting Solo PVP ships for newbs even harder (dealing with more possiblities), giving experienced players even more of an advantage.

Seems CCP forgot modules aren't only used in PVP. There is this thing called PVE I know it's not your forté Fozzie, but balancing everything for PVP only seems like a dumb thing to do, when the majority of your playerbase only does PVE.

Baddest poster ever
Jelani Akinyemi Affonso
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#39 - 2014-01-16 18:57:46 UTC
Hi

Is there any plans in the future of iterating or buffing the TP?

As a Minmatar pilot, I feel like our racial primary ewar is weak compare to the others.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#40 - 2014-01-16 19:03:04 UTC
Gimme more Cynos wrote:
I think Fozzie is affraid that TP's might provide more of a benefit than webs if TP's are left alone.

I can't imagine that this could happen, but If it's not that, I can't explain the TP nerf :/



well i think TP's are fine actually .. the problem is that webs are so much better... i have a rapier myself and it is armour tanked so it has plenty of free mids to use TP's .. but guess what it is full of webs instead ... and people say webs aren't OP .. please

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using