These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[March] Warp Disruptor and Scrambler Tiericide

First post
Author
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#61 - 2016-02-12 14:33:28 UTC
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 P )
Qweasdy
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#62 - 2016-02-12 15:00:07 UTC
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
Beyond Frontier
Pandemic Horde
#63 - 2016-02-12 15:27:41 UTC
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.
Snuffed Out
#64 - 2016-02-12 16:47:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Koenig Yazria
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
BlueWaffe
#65 - 2016-02-12 16:59:03 UTC
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
#66 - 2016-02-12 17:24:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Arch Aengelus
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
Interstellar Consulting Group
#67 - 2016-02-12 18:02:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Aaril
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
Assisted Homicide
#68 - 2016-02-12 18:35:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Hilti Enaka
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
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#69 - 2016-02-12 19:13:18 UTC
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
Irya Boone
The Scope
#70 - 2016-02-12 21:35:45 UTC
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
Unreasonable Bastards
#71 - 2016-02-12 22:07:21 UTC
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
Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time
Solyaris Chtonium
#72 - 2016-02-12 23:14:42 UTC
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
The Alabaster Albatross
Unreasonable Bastards
#73 - 2016-02-12 23:31:14 UTC
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
Unreasonable Bastards
#74 - 2016-02-12 23:33:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Murkar Omaristos
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
#75 - 2016-02-13 00:42:49 UTC
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
Assisted Homicide
#76 - 2016-02-13 01:50:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Hilti Enaka
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
Unreasonable Bastards
#77 - 2016-02-13 02:23:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Murkar Omaristos
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.
Torei Dutalis
IceBox Inc.
Rogue Caldari Union
#78 - 2016-02-13 02:23:39 UTC
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
#79 - 2016-02-13 03:06:16 UTC
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
Snakes and Lasers
#80 - 2016-02-13 03:27:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Shalashaska Adam
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.