These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Overheating tackle: A disparity in base values, bonuses and combat effectiveness.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#81 - 2013-01-09 22:14:49 UTC
I do believe that's called a "straw man". I said nothing of the sort.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#82 - 2013-01-09 23:12:03 UTC
It's implied when saying 1:1 falloff/optimal ratio isn't correct. Otherwise the whole logic makes no sense even for forums. Either you find out the 'correct' ratio (out of current TE stats if you consider TE 'balanced') and then apply it everywhere or you don't start these talks at all Big smile

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#83 - 2013-01-09 23:16:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
No, that's not what it means. The topic of whether or not the TE is balanced at 1:1 or at 1:2 or at 1:3 or at 1:N is irrelevant when discussing tackle range. TEs are a contributor to what's driving the need for longer tackle range, but it's most certainly not the contributor.

Additionally, you seem to have missed the point I've been arguing: that there should be more base tackle range and less tackle range from interdiction maneuvers + mindlink + ship bonuses.

-Liang

Ed: And before anyone says blah blah blah you don't have leadership blah blah blah: I do. I have so much leadership it makes my head spin. I can use all the mindlinks, all the T3s, all the command ships, etc with completely perfectly maxed skills on multiple characters. The problem is not me having access to links. It's that links are ********, whether they're on grid or off, limited or unlimited.

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#84 - 2013-01-09 23:35:47 UTC
The only valid reply on when exactly tackle became lacking of range refers to TE, so it's actually very reasonable to discuss this particular module. Else other contributing factors should be brought into attention. Like range values of neuts and remote reps, drone control range, minimal warp distance and so on.

What you seem to be missing is that the conversation basically evolves as follows:

- taclking is too short-ranged
- ok, why?
- weapons outrange it
- due to what?
- TEs
- fix TEs?
- nah, TEs are irrelevant!!

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Maeltstome
Ten Thousand Days
#85 - 2013-01-09 23:51:38 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
The only valid reply on when exactly tackle became lacking of range refers to TE, so it's actually very reasonable to discuss this particular module. Else other contributing factors should be brought into attention. Like range values of neuts and remote reps, drone control range, minimal warp distance and so on.

What you seem to be missing is that the conversation basically evolves as follows:

- taclking is too short-ranged
- ok, why?
- weapons outrange it
- due to what?
- TEs
- fix TEs?
- nah, TEs are irrelevant!!


By 'fix' TE's you mean nerf them. A nerf to Falloff on TE's is a nerf to 2 of the 3 gun races, and any caldari blaster boat. TE's do a good thing by bridging the gap between missiles/laser and normal turrets. WIthout it we go back to minmatar being eve on hard-mode and gallente ships loosing half their HP trying to reach combat range.

Both Gallente and Minamtar sacrifice DPS for range by using TE's. Neither Amarr not Caldari have issues hitting out to 24km without even a single TE on cruiser sized ships.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#86 - 2013-01-10 00:02:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Fon Revedhort wrote:
The only valid reply on when exactly tackle became lacking of range refers to TE, so it's actually very reasonable to discuss this particular module. Else other contributing factors should be brought into attention. Like range values of neuts and remote reps, drone control range, minimal warp distance and so on.

What you seem to be missing is that the conversation basically evolves as follows:

- taclking is too short-ranged
- ok, why?
- weapons outrange it
- due to what?
- TEs
- fix TEs?
- nah, TEs are irrelevant!!



No, that's not at all the way it's going. It's more like this:
- taclking is too dependent on gang links
- ok, why?
- many/most weapons outrange it without links, and links are just too ******* amazing - whether they're on grid, off grid, limited, or unlimited
- due to what?
- a lot of stuff
- nerf everything in the game that's been introduced in the last 5 years?
- nah, that's ******* stupid.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Maeltstome
Ten Thousand Days
#87 - 2013-01-10 00:07:07 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
The only valid reply on when exactly tackle became lacking of range refers to TE, so it's actually very reasonable to discuss this particular module. Else other contributing factors should be brought into attention. Like range values of neuts and remote reps, drone control range, minimal warp distance and so on.

What you seem to be missing is that the conversation basically evolves as follows:

- taclking is too short-ranged
- ok, why?
- weapons outrange it
- due to what?
- TEs
- fix TEs?
- nah, TEs are irrelevant!!



No, that's not at all the way it's going. It's more like this:
- taclking is too dependent on gang links
- ok, why?
- many/most weapons outrange it without links, and links are just too ******* amazing - whether they're on grid, off grid, limited, or unlimited
- due to what?
- a lot of stuff
- nerf everything in the game that's been introduced in the last 5 years?
- nah, that's ******* stupid.

-Liang


Boom.
Mister Tuggles
Heretic Army
Sedition.
#88 - 2013-01-10 00:21:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Mister Tuggles
Paikis wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Anyway, I've long noticed what you're pointing out. Don't forget the new Tier 3s, propagation of range bonuses, and rebalanced/buffed ships that dramatically increase the amount of damage flying all over the battlefield. I mostly agree. I'd go a bit further and say a few things:
- Gang links (but not gang bonuses or mindlinks, IMO) should be massively nerfed almost across the board. 50% bonuses are absurd in a game where months of training yields a mere 2%.
- Scram and web range should be extended as well, but point range should be extended more.
- Local active tank modules (reps/boosters) should have their effectiveness dramatically boosted.
- Mobility should not have base effectiveness improved.
- Passive tanking should not have base effectiveness improved.

-Liang


This. Especially on the gang links vs training time front... and I have a maxed out link alt.



Training time for a booster is ridiculously long. Taking all of the leadership skills to 5 (minus mining), and cybernetics to 5 takes roughly 215 days with +5's and in a Cha/Wil remap. Then you have to take into account how long it takes to train up to use a t3 effectively as a booster platform. Now take into account that T3s are getting a hard nerf on boosting. Then look to command ships and see it will take even longer to train for them than it did a t3.

The problem isn't with the amount of boost you get. The problem is with OFF GRID BOOSTING. If you actually had to field a command ship with links in a fight boosting would definitely not be as rampant as it is now in small gang warfare.

The simple solution to off grid boosting is change it to where the amount of boost you get is dependent upon how far from the actual booster you are. On grid you get 100% of the bonus, 100k off you get 50% of the bonus, off grid you get 25% of the bonus (arbitrary numbers pulled out of my ass). I have proposed this as a solution to off grid boosting before, but CCP will probably never touch it because of how many alt accounts would immediately unsub.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#89 - 2013-01-10 00:32:03 UTC
Quote:

- tackling is too short-ranged
- ok, why?
- my short-range weapons aren't the only ones outranging points anymore
- due to what?
- blaster buffs
- fix TEs?
- nah, TEs were ok before blasters were buffed!


Also in the same discussion, links are op but point base stats should be buffed to linked level.

.
Maeltstome
Ten Thousand Days
#90 - 2013-01-10 00:44:49 UTC
Roime wrote:
Quote:

- tackling is too short-ranged
- ok, why?
- my short-range weapons aren't the only ones outranging points anymore
- due to what?
- blaster buffs
- fix TEs?
- nah, TEs were ok before blasters were buffed!


Also in the same discussion, links are op but point base stats should be buffed to linked level.



The issue isn;t that the stats are OP, it's that links provide too much of the range required. Those stats linked would be fine, if the links did less and the base points did more there wouldn't be such a huge discrepancy between linked fleets and non-linked.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#91 - 2013-01-10 00:45:15 UTC
Mister Tuggles wrote:


Training time for a booster is ridiculously long. Taking all of the leadership skills to 5 (minus mining), and cybernetics to 5 takes roughly 215 days with +5's and in a Cha/Wil remap. Then you have to take into account how long it takes to train up to use a t3 effectively as a booster platform. Now take into account that T3s are getting a hard nerf on boosting. Then look to command ships and see it will take even longer to train for them than it did a t3.

The problem isn't with the amount of boost you get. The problem is with OFF GRID BOOSTING. If you actually had to field a command ship with links in a fight boosting would definitely not be as rampant as it is now in small gang warfare.

The simple solution to off grid boosting is change it to where the amount of boost you get is dependent upon how far from the actual booster you are. On grid you get 100% of the bonus, 100k off you get 50% of the bonus, off grid you get 25% of the bonus (arbitrary numbers pulled out of my ass). I have proposed this as a solution to off grid boosting before, but CCP will probably never touch it because of how many alt accounts would immediately unsub.


I am aware of how long it takes to train leadership skills. Between all my "main" characters (4) I have about 25 million SP invested into leadership - and it's growing by the day. I can fly all gang links on every applicable ship with max skills and a mindlink, for the biggest fleets I've ever been in. Again, the problem is not off grid boosting. The problem is not unlimited boosting. The problem is gang links as a whole.

That's why I'm suggesting active tanks (specifically) and tackle (interdiction maneuvers) as being substantially buffed and the links behind them nerfed.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance
Ragequit Cancel Sub
#92 - 2013-01-10 09:49:03 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
The only valid reply on when exactly tackle became lacking of range refers to TE, so it's actually very reasonable to discuss this particular module. Else other contributing factors should be brought into attention. Like range values of neuts and remote reps, drone control range, minimal warp distance and so on.

What you seem to be missing is that the conversation basically evolves as follows:

- taclking is too short-ranged
- ok, why?
- weapons outrange it
- due to what?
- TEs
- fix TEs?
- nah, TEs are irrelevant!!


They're running out of things to whine about, so their new whine apparently is that TE autocannons aren't owning non-TE autocannons under 24km.....when you have a massive EHP disadvantage. Blasters get good and suddenly they want to push tackle range out to where they know they'll never get scrammed by a slower ship.
Maeltstome
Ten Thousand Days
#93 - 2013-01-10 17:06:30 UTC
Templar Dane wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
The only valid reply on when exactly tackle became lacking of range refers to TE, so it's actually very reasonable to discuss this particular module. Else other contributing factors should be brought into attention. Like range values of neuts and remote reps, drone control range, minimal warp distance and so on.

What you seem to be missing is that the conversation basically evolves as follows:

- taclking is too short-ranged
- ok, why?
- weapons outrange it
- due to what?
- TEs
- fix TEs?
- nah, TEs are irrelevant!!


They're running out of things to whine about, so their new whine apparently is that TE autocannons aren't owning non-TE autocannons under 24km.....when you have a massive EHP disadvantage. Blasters get good and suddenly they want to push tackle range out to where they know they'll never get scrammed by a slower ship.




Thanks for you input. You're cave must be getting lonely. You may return.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#94 - 2013-01-10 18:05:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Templar Dane wrote:

They're running out of things to whine about, so their new whine apparently is that TE autocannons aren't owning non-TE autocannons under 24km.....when you have a massive EHP disadvantage. Blasters get good and suddenly they want to push tackle range out to where they know they'll never get scrammed by a slower ship.


I don't see how what you're saying makes any sense. I have access to links literally any time I want, and have both a Tengu and Loki stationed in Amamake for just that purpose. I even have an extra computer to run them on so it doesn't interfere with my main PVP account.

But instead I'm pushing for the links to not play such a strong role in tackle and active tanking. It's not to my advantage, really, so... maybe you're just being a ******* idiot with that accusation? :)

-Liang

Ed: I also have an Eos and Damnation, and jump clones one jump out to power them. A Proteus is 4 jumps out, and the Legion is 6. I have max skills for all leadership, T3s, and Command Ships. Access to whatever leadership bonus, completely maxed out, is a trivial issue for me. Hell, with a small amount of effort (moving an alt from Amarr to Amamake) I can run full T3 gang links by myself across my 4 accounts.

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#95 - 2013-01-11 06:50:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Barrogh Habalu
It's interesting to reply to thread where OP was talking about how kiters own brawlrs every day of the year yesterday, and today see this.

Something tells me that one of the problem (if that's a problem) is that aside from some officer points (lol), we have the same tackle for all sizes of ships there, while their weapon range differs pretty significantly, so what, for example, works for frigates can work the other way round for larger ships.

Obviously, I'm not going to suggest any changes here. After all, we have so much EVE balancing made aroung gangs (including specialist extended tackle that ranges from Inties to Gallente recons to intrdictors, not to mention swarm of frigs to supplement your main fleet if you have "green" manpower to spare) that making suggestions about 1v1 scenario or similar ones will probably get us nowhere.

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Maeltstome
Ten Thousand Days
#96 - 2013-01-11 13:46:35 UTC
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
It's interesting to reply to thread where OP was talking about how kiters own brawlrs every day of the year yesterday, and today see this.

Something tells me that one of the problem (if that's a problem) is that aside from some officer points (lol), we have the same tackle for all sizes of ships there, while their weapon range differs pretty significantly, so what, for example, works for frigates can work the other way round for larger ships.

Obviously, I'm not going to suggest any changes here. After all, we have so much EVE balancing made aroung gangs (including specialist extended tackle that ranges from Inties to Gallente recons to intrdictors, not to mention swarm of frigs to supplement your main fleet if you have "green" manpower to spare) that making suggestions about 1v1 scenario or similar ones will probably get us nowhere.


You are very correct in some sense. The officer mods that give extended point range with more powergrid cost are excellent. There is one with 35km range and 3.5k PG usage that would be amazing for battleships. But it costs a few billion on the open market...
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#97 - 2013-01-11 15:04:30 UTC
Mister Tuggles wrote:


Training time for a booster is ridiculously long. Taking all of the leadership skills to 5 (minus mining), and cybernetics to 5 takes roughly 215 days with +5's and in a Cha/Wil remap. Then you have to take into account how long it takes to train up to use a t3 effectively as a booster platform. Now take into account that T3s are getting a hard nerf on boosting. Then look to command ships and see it will take even longer to train for them than it did a t3.


This argument was worthless when it was applied to Titans and it's worthless here. Neither cost nor training time are of any great significance in balancing. Liang is absolutely right, gang links are massively overpowered, whether on grid or off. The worst offenders are probably the sig radius and tackle range links, but even the ewar strength Info link is hugely overpowered.

And yes, I have a maxed link character too... Big smile
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#98 - 2013-01-11 15:23:14 UTC
Make high-slot links work like other projected modules as in requiring targeting, complete with overheating? And introduce midslot links that are AOE, like ECM burst but affecting only fleet members. Cap usage and fitting so that can't just press all ze butans and bacon, but manage your range to friendlies, juggle and toggle them like a space bard with magical fingers.

I think the biggest issue with links is that it mostly just promotes alt gameplay. Nobody wants to be The Booster as it stands. If it was an activity requiring participation and consideration about who to boost, how and when and of course on grid with all your space bros would be actually an interesting fleet role to play.

"zomg their booster was really on the ball"

"guyssss


I burnt out the armor links"


Furthermore, this would make them way more usable for small gangs than for large fleets.

(this idea was born and posted for all humanity while taking a well-deserved dump)

.
Noisrevbus
#99 - 2013-01-11 15:53:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
I don't discredit either Links or TE for their contribution to grid-push, but are you guys not quarreling over details now?

The past few years of both trend and design collectively established the situation we have today.

The rise of Battlecruisers reinforced the value of holding grid and enabled the ability to run Links plus LR-tackle on lynchpins (the ISK you save on flying 75% of your gang on free ships made Recons, Logi and CS readily available to everyone). Recons themselves saw changes like Scrams providing additional secondary tackle, while the other EW to counter tackle saw nerfs. That further profiled midrange engagement and give rise to various MR-LR Battleship trends, which meant a higher degree of L-sized modules on the field (weapon projection, 25km neuts etc.). Further upsetting Tech I to Tech II balance. Those, in turn, were reinforced by the pirate-faction changes that began profiling more tackle-heavy BS-sized ships and lately we've seen a boom in the use of down-class speed-tracking (from Machs, to kiting-alpha trends to TC-BS to XL-tracking, Tier 3 BC and drone-tracking) and popularity-based improvement to drones overall with their MR-LR engagement range.

Did Links and TE have something to do with it? Surely so, especially initially when early nano-kiting adaption involved boosting the reach of your Vagas to 40k, but they are definately not the sole driving factors; and the reason some of you may still consider that adaption a problem solely have to do with playing at an isolated scale and in an isolated place. I would go as far as to say that they are not even among the more driving factors. Alpha, HML and L-scorch profileration did it's own without TE or it's effect on falloff and the profileration of Recon initially did it's own even without Links or faction modules (and in that scope of the game, Links took the form of an equalizer for a while).

I'm sure boosting (alts) are a pain in the behind, in an environment where recon (alts) are not dime a dozen. That's an articificial environment though.

Look at the whole picture and identify the aspects that are completely up the walls instead of arguing over percentages.
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#100 - 2013-01-11 16:01:51 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
This argument was worthless when it was applied to Titans and it's worthless here. Neither cost nor training time are of any great significance in balancing. Liang is absolutely right, gang links are massively overpowered, whether on grid or off. The worst offenders are probably the sig radius and tackle range links, but even the ewar strength Info link is hugely overpowered.

And yes, I have a maxed link character too... Big smile


Ever seen a Guardian in a C6 Wolf-Rayet wormhole with links?

Base signature: 70m
c6 Wolf-Rayet effect: 35m
Loki links w/ mindlink: 22.7m
Just Loki links: 45.4m
For comparrison, a Merlin has a base of 39m and a fit SR of 51.8 (1x MSE II 3x CDFE I)

But that's just a cruiser, how about a Battleship? What about a Navy Apocalypse? With the Loki links, you're looking at 259m, down from a base of 400m

I have a fully maxed out boosting alt. I have literally got everything in the leadership tree to V, except Fleet Command which is IV. I can also fly all the command ships and all the T3s except the Gallente ones. I have a LOOOONG time invested in these linking skills. They are ridiculously over the top and need nerfed.