These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lelob
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#61 - 2013-03-26 22:41:24 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Flidais Asagiri
PinkKnife wrote:
Beaver Retriever wrote:
PinkKnife wrote:
This hurts Minmatar more than Gallente because Gal almost always have the free mids to run a Tracking Computer, thus your Talos and Megathron will be fine assuming you aren't shield tanking them.

It's a nerf to shield ships with free lows, I.e. Canes, and it is ENTIRELY needed. Oh no Projectiles won't dominate in every single possible way anymore, they only get to still pick damage type, use no cap, and have the highest alpha of any turret. Yes, poor Projectiles.

The Blaster boats won't suffer, and the Minmatar's ability to kite at any distance and still be able to hit fully will be nerfed. It is about time. Thank you Fozzie.

The userbase can deal with flying ships with risk. Currently the same userbase flies almost exclusive caldari/minmatar because you can kite out, apply all your dps, and risk nothing in the engagement. See Drake, See Hurricane for further examples.

Literally no one armor tanks their Talos.



Which exactly proves my point, the reason being you HAVE to shield tank everything these days, and the current TE exacerbate this problem. You shouldn't get to have all of your tank, plus all of your gank. Trade offs and decisions, considerations, and drawbacks.

The problem that you HAVE to shield tank a Talos, proves the issue. You have to be able to keep up/kite otherwise you lose, as Canes and other ships can apply their dps well within/outside scram range and there isn't **** you can do about it if you are slower than they are.

It is a side buff to armor ships, and it is fantastic.

If you're shield tanking your armor ships, you're gonna have a bad time. Well you should anyway.


*EDITED* Here's why:

tc'd armor talos: 15+26
te's shield talos: 16+29

This is with a 2 te shield talos vs an armor talos with 1 tc optimal range and 1 unscripted. The tracking is .0794 vs .07703 in favor of the shield talos. So virtually identical in tracking.

This range difference doesn't make much of a practical difference. You still need to point people around 20km, and in either ship you want to stay at the 20km mark. It is also only a 4km range difference. The difference comes from these:

it's faster and more agile to fly a shield talos
shields regenerate (a big deal in a solo/small gang boat without logi)
pgu is better on a shield talos - an armor one needs a armor rig, but the shield one doesn't which means:
the tank is not considerably better (although it is 7k ehp better on the armor)

The problems you have all alluded to are problems in HULL design. T3 bc's were poorly designed HULLS. It is not the fault of the te.

This nerf will make the armor talos have more range, which just does not make sense when it is already fairly well balanced in terms of armor vs shield docrtines in eve atm.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#62 - 2013-03-26 22:46:21 UTC
Btw, Fozzie, any plans to reconsider current range-affecting rigs? For me it has always been a mistery why both optimal and falloff rigs provide 15(20)% bonuses when the ratio for mods is entirely different.

What would you say on buffing falloff rigs a bit? Say, by 5%.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#63 - 2013-03-26 22:46:35 UTC
And people thought the heavy missile nerf thread was going to be long...

I'd say "/popcorn"...but that's so short term for something like this.


This is a really bold move. One of the boldest to date, a lot of current kings are going to hurt over this one. Let's see what makes it past test.
Mith'riin
Caldari State
#64 - 2013-03-26 22:49:35 UTC
I welcome this changes for PvP and i understand it's the main focus of the game. But please rearrange ships spawning range in missions at least. They are already a chore and a boring thing to do, it's only going to get worse if i have to slowboat to every single spawn that goes 60km+ . I'm already crying a little bit in my tengu, now you are nerfing almost all the range in the game....

Bird is the word
Ltazza
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#65 - 2013-03-26 22:50:07 UTC
Not 100% on topic but I'm wondering what's CCP's opinion on unbonused damps (and in small parts TDs) being so good especially on Lokis and similar low sig ships in big fleet fights. Nerfing the only viable counter to damps is worrying to me. Two damps will completely destroy a BS fleets ability to lock sig tanking armor cruisers (40+ seconds lock times), 3 will damp a Huginn's target range to 20km for example. You can't counter damps at all in a shield fleet and countering them in an armor fleet requires a lot of coordination.

It seems that we are heading to a situation where Loki fleets can only be fought with another Loki fleet or maybe, just maybe, an armor BS fleet like Tempests because it's one of the few ships that has enough mids to counter damps/TDs and has the right damage types. Missile fleets' DPS gets destroyed by firewall. Amarr BS can just go kill themselves to be done with it instead of shooting at 97% EM resists. Bombers are useless against low sig targets. Shield fleets have absolutely no chance to fight against mass damps. Kiting T3 BC fleets have absolutely no chance to hit.

I think we are on a dangerous path towards damp wars in 0.0 fleet pvp...
Mister Vee
Magellanic Itg
Goonswarm Federation
#66 - 2013-03-26 22:50:58 UTC
Lelob wrote:
rsb nerf is nice

nerfing te's though is not a good change. This will make almost any gang shield ship severely nerfed, given that almost all of them rely on te's to have any hope to work properly. This is not a change that I would look forward to or would offer a particularly good fix to anything really. The reason that it has always traditionally been acceptale that shield ships have greater range via te's is because they have less tank and less ewar. This just makes it so that when you role in armor you will not be out-kited by faster, less tankier ships and those ships will have to come and fight within your optimals. It just does not make sense why anyone would willingly want to fly shield ships after the heavy bonuses/nerfs that they have been getting.

They recently got t2 plates
Then armour honeycombing made them far less slow
Now they will be able to operate in the same general range as shield ships, but with the bonus of having more tank, stronger force multipliers, (loki/proteus vs huggin/lachesis), and more midslots potentially for ewar such as td's and damps

This will also be a pretty siable buff for td's given the greatly shortened range this will give shield ships.

This really is a bad, bad idea.


I pretty much agree with all of this - except the honeycombing skill being a big difference. TE's are good, but a 33% nerf seems a bit too much.
Longdrinks
Zero Fun Allowed
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#67 - 2013-03-26 22:55:37 UTC
good changes
Grarr Dexx
Blue Canary
Watch This
#68 - 2013-03-26 22:59:15 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Grarr Dexx wrote:
While I agree with the remote sensor booster nerf, are there any plans for nerfing the cloak warp trick so often abused in lowsec? I'm getting kinda tired of missing out on all those solo navy battleships that are practically invincible, even without any support.

Learn to decloak.


Your solution involves bringing a unique person to a camp who can't do anything but mill about hoping for one of these idiots to jump in. Why not fix the issue at the core here? You want to move your (expensive) ship, get an escort or a courier, or face death. There's no reason a lumbering battleship should escape certain death in the face of overwhelming odds.
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#69 - 2013-03-26 22:59:31 UTC
not bad , now maybe can we get a medium rail balance too?:D
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#70 - 2013-03-26 23:00:17 UTC
Grarr Dexx wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Grarr Dexx wrote:
While I agree with the remote sensor booster nerf, are there any plans for nerfing the cloak warp trick so often abused in lowsec? I'm getting kinda tired of missing out on all those solo navy battleships that are practically invincible, even without any support.

Learn to decloak.


Your solution involves bringing a unique person to a camp who can't do anything but mill about hoping for one of these idiots to jump in. Why not fix the issue at the core here? You want to move your (expensive) ship, get an escort or a courier, or face death. There's no reason a lumbering battleship should escape certain death in the face of overwhelming odds.

Seeing as it's a successful tactic, they're not idiots for using it. You're the idiot for being unprepared and instead choosing to complain about it.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#71 - 2013-03-26 23:01:31 UTC  |  Edited by: PinkKnife
Lelob wrote:
PinkKnife wrote:
Beaver Retriever wrote:
PinkKnife wrote:
This hurts Minmatar more than Gallente because Gal almost always have the free mids to run a Tracking Computer, thus your Talos and Megathron will be fine assuming you aren't shield tanking them.

It's a nerf to shield ships with free lows, I.e. Canes, and it is ENTIRELY needed. Oh no Projectiles won't dominate in every single possible way anymore, they only get to still pick damage type, use no cap, and have the highest alpha of any turret. Yes, poor Projectiles.

The Blaster boats won't suffer, and the Minmatar's ability to kite at any distance and still be able to hit fully will be nerfed. It is about time. Thank you Fozzie.

The userbase can deal with flying ships with risk. Currently the same userbase flies almost exclusive caldari/minmatar because you can kite out, apply all your dps, and risk nothing in the engagement. See Drake, See Hurricane for further examples.

Literally no one armor tanks their Talos.



Which exactly proves my point, the reason being you HAVE to shield tank everything these days, and the current TE exacerbate this problem. You shouldn't get to have all of your tank, plus all of your gank. Trade offs and decisions, considerations, and drawbacks.

The problem that you HAVE to shield tank a Talos, proves the issue. You have to be able to keep up/kite otherwise you lose, as Canes and other ships can apply their dps well within/outside scram range and there isn't **** you can do about it if you are slower than they are.

It is a side buff to armor ships, and it is fantastic.

If you're shield tanking your armor ships, you're gonna have a bad time. Well you should anyway.


You are an idiot. Here's why:

tc'd armor talos: 15+26
te's shield talos: 16+29

This is with a 2 te shield talos vs an armor talos with 1 tc optimal range and 1 unscripted. The tracking is .0794 vs .07703 in favor of the shield talos. So virtually identical in tracking.

This range difference doesn't make much of a practical difference. You still need to point people around 20km, and in either ship you want to stay at the 20km mark. It is also only a 4km range difference. The difference comes from these:

it's faster and more agile to fly a shield talos
shields regenerate (a big deal in a solo/small gang boat without logi)
pgu is better on a shield talos - an armor one needs a armor rig, but the shield one doesn't which means:
the tank is not considerably better (although it is 7k ehp better on the armor)

The problems you have all alluded to are problems in HULL design. T3 bc's were poorly designed HULLS. It is not the fault of the te.

This nerf will make the armor talos have more range, which just does not make sense when it is already fairly well balanced in terms of armor vs shield docrtines in eve atm.


Well CCP and most players disagree in the hulls being poorly designed, they've often said that the attack BCs probably need the least amount of balancing as they like where they are. Your post just screams of shield tank tears. Oh no, you won't be able to have all the things and do them all at once. Get over it and stop trying to shield fit every ship in the game.
Grarr Dexx
Blue Canary
Watch This
#72 - 2013-03-26 23:02:25 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Grarr Dexx wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Grarr Dexx wrote:
While I agree with the remote sensor booster nerf, are there any plans for nerfing the cloak warp trick so often abused in lowsec? I'm getting kinda tired of missing out on all those solo navy battleships that are practically invincible, even without any support.

Learn to decloak.


Your solution involves bringing a unique person to a camp who can't do anything but mill about hoping for one of these idiots to jump in. Why not fix the issue at the core here? You want to move your (expensive) ship, get an escort or a courier, or face death. There's no reason a lumbering battleship should escape certain death in the face of overwhelming odds.

Seeing as it's a successful tactic, they're not idiots for using it. You're the idiot for being unprepared and instead choosing to complain about it.


Silly me, trying to argue with ex-northern coalition members.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#73 - 2013-03-26 23:03:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Really not liking the TE changes (my actual opinion on it can't be reproduced here) while I can see some perfectly valid and probably much needed changes to them in relation to large weapons its going to hit some small and medium weapon platforms including a few somewhat out of the box fits quite hard (disproportionately to the impact on larger weapons).
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2013-03-26 23:04:08 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The strength of TEs has been one of the reasons for Minmatar dominance in recent years, as well as contributing to the relative strength of shield tanking over armor tanking

This regarding Minmatar I do not believe is true any longer especially in the rebalanced ship classes and the armour tanking changes have already made armour tanking much more viable.

Seems like a big nerf to Projectiles and Hybrid weapons, not so much for lasers that perhaps will suffer less as they only really benefitted from the optimal and tracking part.

Tracking disruption is still common and when combined with range control has no real module counter even with it’s recent marginal nerf does this change just not reset the balance? If the issue is between TE’s and TC’s (it isn’t as they do not compete for slots) and the ship has a spare mid then that mid is almost certainly better filled with a tracking Disrupter rather than a Tracking Computer (this is where the real balance issue is) Could a resistance to tracking disruption be factored into TE or TC.

I can understand TE seem overpowered when looking at the fall off in km provided with multiple instances in medium and large turrets but this sort of nerf will hit small turrets very hard and in a class size that does not have room for Tracking Comps in it’s mids.

Small Neutron Blaster with TE II 3.6+5.7 which when looking at scram range seems balanced. It is important to note that it only provides more DPS projection past 5.7km over fitting a magstab and by changing the stats pretty much as per a T1 TE it will result in around 17% loss in DPS at 9km

Have you considered scaling the bonus with turret sizes i.e leaving the stats alone for small turrets but having a separate set of stats for medium and large turrets (it is at this level that I accept that a ship has the midslots spare for TC’s), this may better enable you to scale with different weapons combat ranges and the point range they operate in.

Perhaps this is a change to push ships towards long range weapons but these suffer badly with tracking which is only marginally improved by the bonuses in TE’s and TC’s.

For me the Problem with TE is not the amounts they provide as single module but: -

The combination of the power level of a few ships i.e. Cynbal and Mach that already have the falloff bonus combined with Barrage. (Perhaps it is this ship bonus that should change)

The stacking penalty on these modules is perhaps not high enough

Skirmish links provide too high a bonus.

CCP Fozzie wrote:
Some of you will notice that there are certain imbalances that these changes do not fully rectify (for instance the current strength of light missile speed fits, the slight relative weakness of the Rifter, Breacher and the solo Punisher). We're hoping to smooth out a few of the rough edges via stat changes to the ships themselves, while some others will be addressed via changes to other parts of the metagame.

Do you think this closes or increase the gap in strength of light missile fits and increases the strength dramatically of rocket fits kiting within scram range?
Vilnius Zar
SDC Multi Ten
#75 - 2013-03-26 23:06:07 UTC
When the Falloff range bonus on TE was introduced, and in that same patch projectile ammo got buffed, it was obvious that it would become silly. Per usual it takes a few years for CCP to catch on but I'm happy it's finally getting addressed. I like this armour buff a lot.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#76 - 2013-03-26 23:07:31 UTC
Alticus C Bear wrote:

Have you considered scaling the bonus with turret sizes i.e leaving the stats alone for small turrets but having a separate set of stats for medium and large turrets (it is at this level that I accept that a ship has the midslots spare for TC’s), this may better enable you to scale with different weapons combat ranges and the point range they operate in.


It would be an ugly hack but given the way this would affect different weapon platforms somewhat disproportionately to others its kind of needed IMO if they are going to make this change.
Sarmatiko
#77 - 2013-03-26 23:10:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Sarmatiko
Gnoshia wrote:
As a heavy missile user I can say one thing to the minnie pilots whining: Feel my pain. FEEL MY PAIN. TAKE IT

Protesting against TE nerf I tried to shoot Jita monument with my big projectile gun but it missed. Cry
13 Degree
Fenrir's Dogs of War
#78 - 2013-03-26 23:11:26 UTC
Fozzie, are you considering any changes to stabber? It is meh atm and will be utter c**p after TE changes imho.
Gorski Car
#79 - 2013-03-26 23:12:19 UTC
This is a bad change. Since when are Minmatar dominating pvp, do we even play the same game Fozzie?

Collect this post
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#80 - 2013-03-26 23:16:44 UTC
Vilnius Zar wrote:
When the Falloff range bonus on TE was introduced, and in that same patch projectile ammo got buffed, it was obvious that it would become silly. Per usual it takes a few years for CCP to catch on but I'm happy it's finally getting addressed. I like this armour buff a lot.



It is not an armour buff; it is a short range weapon nerf, missile buff and the relatively low impact it will have on pulses with scorch will result in even heavier dominance of Amarr resistance based buffer ships in fleets.