These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Balancing Feedback: New Tech2 modules

First post First post
Author
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1 - 2011-11-04 11:16:46 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Goliath
This is the feedback thread for the new Tech2 module variants, please post comments in here.

Thanks for your time.
Junky Juke
Atom Heart Mothership
#2 - 2011-11-04 14:11:34 UTC
First? oh yeah!
Ok updating sisi, ready to test new stuff...
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#3 - 2011-11-04 14:29:45 UTC
My reply got eaten, here goes again.

T2 triage mod is still underwhelming (as mentioned on the CSM forums...). It needs to either boost local reps or remote rep range, plus it should be 2 more targets than T1. Another option would be less cap use on local/remote reps.

Also, T2 siege/triage mods are too cheap to build. They are only about 10 mil over T1 costs.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

Arkady Sadik
Gradient
Electus Matari
#4 - 2011-11-04 14:40:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Arkady Sadik
The T2 siege module seems to be kind of excessive, bonus-wise - 20% more dps is harsh. But it gives an incentive to use it.

The T2 triage modules on the other hand is extremely weak. +1 lockable target, 20% more target range, and slightly less Stront consumption - I'm unsure why I'd put money into this. Especially as the Archon is likely the only carrier with sufficient pg to actually fit it with no problem (carriers need a rebalance, btw, see the capital thread).

No opinion on the new warfare links. I'm not sure whether I want them to be boosted while their main application in high-sec seems to be being used on an alt (or on a POS in low-sec), but the values don't seem excessive.

I have not yet been able to check how the MAPC II will affect things in practice. It will make some frigate fits viable that were not possible before, which is both good and bad. It might be necessary to rebalance some frigates with this module.

The Bomb Launcher II is also a bit underwhelming. Maybe give it a larger capacity so you can fit one more bomb into it? Means one more bomb run without resupply if you can fit it, which is much more of an advantage than a few seconds less cycle time.

The probe launcher will make sister launchers useless - maybe give it a slightly lower bonus than Sister ones?

Tractor beam bonus is great. Less annoyance during missions.

Warp Disruption Field Generator II is interesting. 36km disruptor range is a true bonus - not overheatable, but it gets competetive with the Gallente recons for some fleets. Especially as the tank is much better. I'm not sure if this is good or bad.

Drone modules. I'm not sure if this is going to make them used in combat. A true boost to them would be to make them all high-slot modules (lose guns/missiles for better drone efficiency), but that would require some careful thought.

All in all, I liked what I saw. But all implications are difficult to tell, you should really keep an eye on the development. Especially as the availability of some modules tends to have chain reactions to some balance of some ships that were quite balanced before, but suddenly aren't anymore.
Ampoliros
Aperture Harmonics
#5 - 2011-11-04 15:25:59 UTC
T2 triage is very weak and needs a buff. An extra locked target and a stront reduction is fairly weak and certainly not worth 25-30d of training. Considering carriers have 100km lockranges (and at most a rep range of 57km or so) in most systems, a 20% lockrange bonus is nearly useless, as well.

I'd either recommend
-additional local rep bonus (which would help with dread boosts coming in)
-keep the lockrange boost and add a 20% rep range boost as well
-heat generation reduction/overheat bonus

something along those lines. T2 triage should be worth it in some way; as it stands on Sisi, it's really not.
Frothgar
Moosearmy
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#6 - 2011-11-04 15:51:52 UTC
I'm rather pleased with the T2 siege module, Dreads might actually be something worth looking at now.

Still skeptical that it will happen due to the current LOLOL Supercapital blob mechanics, but its a step in the right direction.

A dreadnaught at its optimal with close range guns should have never done less damage than a supercarrier could at 200km.



T2 Triage seems a bit underwhelming. Scan rez was never an issue, nor was stront consumption.

Perhaps rethink the bonuses on this one.
KrakizBad
Section 8.
#7 - 2011-11-04 16:22:33 UTC
+1 For the issues with the triage module. As on sisi currently, it's not worth the train.

For the bomb launcher, if regen time is the only buff for it, Bomb Deployment 4 not 5 would be a better choice imo. I might grind 4, but I sure wouldn't grind 5 for a few seconds faster launch. Perhaps give it a different attribute worth the grind?

With this change to probe launchers, sisters become Meta 4's pretty much. Cool, but maybe in this case add it to the market bar like you did the probes?
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#8 - 2011-11-04 16:48:59 UTC
Two step wrote:
My reply got eaten, here goes again.

T2 triage mod is still underwhelming (as mentioned on the CSM forums...). It needs to either boost local reps or remote rep range, plus it should be 2 more targets than T1. Another option would be less cap use on local/remote reps.



+1 This is something that needs to be addressed now and not next year please.
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers
#9 - 2011-11-04 17:39:03 UTC
Triage needs a cap reduction bonus or rep amount for local/remote reps,

the thing is like putting yourself in a coffin and a lock range bonus is not much help.
Arkady Sadik
Gradient
Electus Matari
#10 - 2011-11-04 17:43:55 UTC
I'm not sure triage really needs a boost - it is as is already a major unbalancing factor for small- to mid-scale warfare, and difficult to counter. So I'd be against making T2 triage better at RR (which includes cap, the main weakness of triage). Possibly at local rep, though.

Or, well, if you adjust the Archon to be closer to other carrier cap values, I guess giving the T2 triage some cap bonus would work. ;-)
Dondoran
Foredawn Business Corporation
Fraternity.
#11 - 2011-11-04 19:25:19 UTC
CCP come on T2 gang links thats just to muchEvil

35.2% bonus from a tech3 WINRoll

FIX off grid boosting its the right thing to doBear

remember fleet command shipsBig smile
Circumstantial Evidence
#12 - 2011-11-04 20:26:11 UTC
Agree with KrakizBad.

Bomb launcher: timing changes don't help fleets; bombing groups have to wait for the slowest member to be repositioned and ready, for a second coordinated bomb run on target(s). Buff capacity, damage, sig rad, area of effect, or some other attribute(s). A buff to bomb resist would allow more to be used in coordinated strikes in a single run.
Kalot Sakaar
CragCO
#13 - 2011-11-04 21:12:55 UTC
VERY much like the new gang links! Don't have a command ship yet to test them on but singles on the BC's work nicely. Interdiction Maneuvers! Hell yes!

Stop complaining about off grid boosts. Just use some tactics and scan the ship down. He can't keep them on on in warp either so its totally easy to counter off gird boosters.
Laechyd Eldgorn
Avanto
Hole Control
#14 - 2011-11-05 09:31:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Laechyd Eldgorn
Repair range must never get any further than it is with current carriers with t1 triage.

Repair range is essential thing to consider when you fight capital supported fleet with subcaps. Increasing repair range means a great deal in pvp.

Not to mention increasing repair amount or repair cycle speed might be just game breaking change. Capital reps on subcaps are very tricky business especially on smaller scale fights.

It might seem a good idea to boost capital reps when you do sanctums or C6 wh's but in pvp it's different :/
Lyria Celeste
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
#15 - 2011-11-05 11:41:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Lyria Celeste
Quote:

The probe launcher will make sister launchers useless - maybe give it a slightly lower bonus than Sister ones?

Seconding this.

The only advantage of the Sisters Core Proble Launcher compared to the T2 is less CPU Requirement, would be nice if there would be something else that sets them appart since CPU is seldom a Consideration when fitting Ships for probing.

Edit: I think its fine for the expanded ones, the t2 has a bit more launch time and the difference in CPU Requirements is bigger so taht it actually makes a difference for fits.
Miquela
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2011-11-05 14:57:23 UTC
is there a list or dev blog about this already? I can't find it.
Hungry Eyes
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#17 - 2011-11-05 14:58:53 UTC
whats the cpu requirement on the omnidirectional tracking link II
Arkady Sadik
Gradient
Electus Matari
#18 - 2011-11-05 18:30:48 UTC
As I'm currently copying siege module blueprints:

You *probably* want to look at the copy times for some of these modules :-)
Nevare Wong
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#19 - 2011-11-05 19:58:41 UTC
Hungry Eyes wrote:
whats the cpu requirement on the omnidirectional tracking link II


It's 39 cpu the same as the what the fed navy version is on tq, however currently on sis the fed navy is now at 36 cpu

With such low fitting requirements and the same pre-reqs as the tech 1 version this will make the fed navy version worthless.
This needs to be changed. A tech 2 mod should not have the same skill requirements as a tech 1 mod.

I would suggest at the least that it should require drone sharpshooting 5 and possibly sentry 5. Otherwise there is no reason to ever fit the fed navy version except for slightly lower cpu, which really would only be for the ishtar since the domi has plenty of cpu for sentry fits anyways.
Nevare Wong
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#20 - 2011-11-05 20:04:02 UTC
Arkady Sadik wrote:
As I'm currently copying siege module blueprints:

You *probably* want to look at the copy times for some of these modules :-)


This has been mentioned and there was a dev reply saying that they would be looking at the copy time.

post 4
123Next pageLast page