These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Vayn Baxtor
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#81 - 2013-03-26 23:16:51 UTC
I agree to those RSB/TE changes.

Can we see an improvement of (Remote) Tracking Links - while we're at it? After all, this is about remote buffing.

Would be cool if we could have a decent REAL SUPPORT cruiser or whatever hull that has a bonus to it (like how the Scythe was before; it was just crap back then because of the 3 medslots).

Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all.

Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#82 - 2013-03-26 23:19:05 UTC
Excellent

The Tears Must Flow
Vilnius Zar
SDC Multi Ten
#83 - 2013-03-26 23:20:52 UTC
Alticus C Bear wrote:
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.


Yes it very much is an armour buff, armour tankers can still use TC if needed. More importantly it's a kiting nerf so tankier ships (generally armour tanked ones) will benefit.
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#84 - 2013-03-26 23:21:03 UTC
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
This is the post I've been waiting for.
Grow a pair and get close you sissies P

Cynabal nerf? check.
No more people trying to kite in Thorax hulls? check.
Significantly less reliable Tier3 BCs? Check.
Significant scan res nerf for RSBs? Check.

This is a good development.


This, really excellent changes.

The Tears Must Flow
Hoarr
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#85 - 2013-03-26 23:23:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Hoarr
So instead of just throwing sh** at the wall and howling derision at each other, let's actually discuss numbers, shall we?

*assume all skills lvl 5*
*format: current | proposed

Standard Talos (2TEs, shield tank)
Null: 16+29 | 15+25
CN Antimatter: 5.8+20 | 5.4+18

Standard Cane (425s, 2TEs, shield tank) (although why anyone flies a shield AC cane anymore is beyond me)
Barrage: 3.9+30 | 3.6+25
RF Emp: 1.9+20 | 1.8+17

Pulse Oracle (1 TE, 1 Locus Coordinator I)
Scorch: 58+13 | 56+12
Multifreq: 19+13 | 19+12

all in all, definitely a noticeable change but not the end of the world.

The ships that will be most affected by this are the ones that would sit on the outside edge of point range and use that extra space as buffer to avoid getting tackled. I.e. Minmatar cruisers, the Cynabal, and several others.

It's pretty bloody obvious to me to see why Prom likes this change. While 4 ish k might not seem like a lot, I'm sure that there have been a ton of times where he has only missed a successful slingshot by a few hundred meters. For solo fights or solo v few, I think that this change will have a huge impact to bring the balance back towards armor tanking ships.

For small gang fights, I need to actually see the changes live to figure out how much of an effect it will have. the use of Minmatar ships will definitely continue their downward trend as that "buffer" of space gets eroded away and you have to get much closer to scram/web range.

as far as large Sov scale fights go, I really don't know the current meta well enough to figure out how much the difference makes. Nagas will be unchanged as will the armor BSes and aHACs. The only ships that I could see being less effective are Rohks (does anyone even use them still?) and Maels.

FYI if you want to see what it does to your favorite ship, just load up EFT and use T1 TEs instead of T2.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#86 - 2013-03-26 23:26:30 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Key stat for this change is a reduction in the Optimal/Falloff bonus on a T2 Tracking Enhancer from 15%/30% to 10%/20%.


HAVE ALL MY LIKES

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW

Now go fix t2 ammo.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#87 - 2013-03-26 23:31:54 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Kobea Thris wrote:
Just to clarify, are you happy with the state of range scripted tracking computers?


I don't see a dire need to change them. After this change TEs will give more range than an unscripted TC but less than a scripted one.



My fear is that some ships that are not the main target of this will suffer horribly (mainly long range battleships) But sicen you guys gonna rebalance battleships soon, then if something probelatic shows up you have time to adjust somehow.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Sharliar Mori
State War Academy
Caldari State
#88 - 2013-03-26 23:35:36 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Apologies for the terrible formatting (you can copypaste into a spreadsheet and it looks good)



Table BB Code for the Win ;-)

(http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=107985)
Tsubutai
Perkone
Caldari State
#89 - 2013-03-26 23:36:15 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
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%.

This is actually a very good point - T1 locus rigs provide the same optimal increase as current TEs and range-scripted TCs, but T1 ambit rigs provide a far lesser increase than even the post-nerf TEs would.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#90 - 2013-03-26 23:37:19 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.



In fact at the thread that all the projectile boost was discussed and spawned these changes, we were proposing 15%/20% bonus and CCP surprised us with a 30% bonus.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Lelob
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#91 - 2013-03-26 23:38:51 UTC
PinkKnife wrote:
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.


I like how you did not address any of my points except to slightly agree that T3 bc's are broken. Instead it's "tears."
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#92 - 2013-03-26 23:40:43 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Got some more Odyssey updates for you all, this time in the form of some module rebalancing! We're going to have a number of module balance changes released with EVE Online: Odyssey on June 4th, and our first batch to announce are the Remote Sensor Boosters and Tracking Enhancers.

Let's start with Remote Sensor Boosters. They give pretty extreme bonuses to scan res at the moment, similar to officer sensor boosters. This has contributed to the growth of instalock camps that are in our opinion are a bit too easy nowadays.
So we're gonna decrease the scan res bonuses so that they give a solid but more reasonable benefit over local boosters. We're leaving the lock range bonus of the T1 and T2 remote boosters the same since we don't see them as overpowered for that role, and actually buffing the lock range bonus from the meta remote boosters since they are currently all giving T1 meta 0 level bonuses for that stat right now.

Key stat for this change is that the best Remote Sensor Boosters will have their Scan Resolution bonus reduced from 40.5% to 33%.

Apologies for the terrible formatting (you can copypaste into a spreadsheet and it looks good)

typeName Old ScanRes Bonus New ScanRes Bonus Old LockRange Bonus New LockRange Bonus
Remote Sensor Booster I 33.8 28 33.8 33.8
Coadjunct Linked Sensor Array I 35.4 29 33.8 35
Linked Sensor Network 40.5 30 33.8 36
Connected Scanning CPU Uplink 37.1 31 33.8 37
F-23 Reciprocal Sensor Cluster Link 38.8 32 33.8 38
Remote Sensor Booster II 40.5 33 40.5 40.5
'Boss' Remote Sensor Booster I 40.5 33 33.8 39
'Entrepreneur' Remote Sensor Booster I 40.5 33 40.5 40.5


Now for TEs. It's a fairly well accepted fact that the great optimal and falloff bonuses on TEs are over the top, especially considering they can get them while also simultaneously giving decent tracking boosts. 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 by inflating the value of non-tank low slots. What we're looking at is simply decreasing the falloff and optimal bonuses of all TEs by 1/3, and leaving their tracking bonus intact.

Key stat for this change is a reduction in the Optimal/Falloff bonus on a T2 Tracking Enhancer from 15%/30% to 10%/20%.

Name OldFalloff NewFalloff OldOptimal NewOptimal
Azimuth Descalloping Tracking Enhancer 11 7.4 5.5 3.7
Basic Tracking Enhancer 10 6.6 5 3.3
Beam Parallax Tracking Program 12 8 6 4
Beta-Nought Tracking Mode 10.5 7 5.25 3.5
F-AQ Delay-Line Scan Tracking Subroutines 11.5 7.6 5.75 3.8
Tracking Enhancer I 20 13.4 10 6.7
Sigma-Nought Tracking Mode I 21 14 10.5 7
Auto-Gain Control Tracking Enhancer I 22 14.6 11 7.3
F-aQ Phase Code Tracking Subroutines 23 15.4 11.5 7.7
Fourier Transform Tracking Program 24 16 12 8
Tracking Enhancer II 30 20 15 10
Domination Tracking Enhancer 30 20 15 10
Republic Fleet Tracking Enhancer 30 20 15 10
Mizuro's Modified Tracking Enhancer 31.5 21 15.75 10.5
Hakim's Modified Tracking Enhancer 33 22 16.5 11
Gotan's Modified Tracking Enhancer 34.5 23 17.25 11.5
Tobias' Modified Tracking Enhancer 36 24 18 12

This change will be somewhat painful for many ships that rely on TEs for range in their current fits, but we are confident that the change is necessary to establish balance between the different weapon upgrade modules.

Let me know what you think!


Could you consider makign soem of the faction oens a bit better than t2 so that they are... you know.. USEFUL?

For example the republic fleet one coudl very well be 12%/22% .

We need a bit of work on making a lot of the things in LP stores become somewhat remotely interesting.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#93 - 2013-03-26 23:40:48 UTC
Old TE's, before the brain freeze was 10opt/10fall/15track, right?

Not sure the TE falloff nerf is enough .. and why penalize optimal users (read: Amarr) to an equal extent, not as if the golden hulls have mids to abuse them as seen with Gallente/Minmatar the past few years.

Or does it mean you accepted that lows are not as valuable as mids and you will now give all Amarr hulls +1 for free? Lol
Junko Sideswipe
Love Squad
#94 - 2013-03-26 23:40:54 UTC
I think everyone who's played since the TE buff has been waiting 3+ years for this nerf, well done.

PIZZA CEO
2D34DLY4U
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#95 - 2013-03-26 23:41:59 UTC
This tweet made me come here for the first time ever.

I'm not a fitting guru nor knowledgeable of the game as Fozzie and others around here so I may say some wrong stuff, but I know that almost all my Minnie fits have a mix of TE & Gyro on their lows, both the armor and shield fits. I also know that if you want to go fast you have to tank shield which is ok because you get worse sig radius, at the same time it makes sense that if you armor tank you are slower since you have heavier weight. Shield tanks use their lows for damage projection because they go faster and aim to fight at range, this is working as intended IMO and hardly broken. I get the feeling that if you nerf TE I will have serious damage projection issues and my speed&range advantages will be severely hampered without falloff, so please don't nerf TE's or consider carefully the way you do it.

I also feel these recent changes to ships, including armor honeycombing making the armor tanks go faster and the nerf to the TE forcing the shield tankers to fight at closer range all seem to be aimed at "normalizing" ships, in the sense that they are basically becoming more and more similar and less different, resulting in a poorer game IMO.

I can understand that from a top level perspective you may consider it a good idea that to put everyone flying kind of the same thing with small variations as this could be perceived as an incentive for more PVP, yet I believe you may in fact be making the game more boring by removing variety while at the same time not addressing the central issue which is most people in EVE are risk averse and they have no incentive to do “fair” or “balanced” PVP, be it in similar ships or in radically different ships. You have to address the easy mode risk aversion instead of killing the variety (making instant locking gate camps harder by nerfing RSB is good btw).

Further consider that one of the largest factors affecting small gang warfare engagements is the number of pilots on each side, fleet size is one of the major drivers of the outcome of engagements and as such ship balancing is not really that relevant (!), unless for the Alliance Tournament or controlled engagement scenarios (that EVE doesn't have a lot as it’s hardly aimed to foster that kind of competitive/balanced PVP). This means that you should aim to stimulate variety in ships and fittings instead of limiting them by "balancing", the game will balance itself out as it will allow players to dynamically adjust the pros and cons of each individual ship setup by permitting FC's to chose engagements based on number of people on their fleet vs. opposing fleet. Since in EVE the size of fleets varies so easily and the resulting fleet strength is so much dependant on this, ship balancing may not be the major issue as everyone can pick the fights they want / don’t want by choosing the numbers in their engagements.

Finally, I hope that when you redo the Vaga & Cyna you at least adjust their falloff bonuses in the same way you adjusted the Stabber as this nerf may destroy some of the more fun to fly ships in this game.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#96 - 2013-03-26 23:44:27 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Old TE's, before the brain freeze was 10opt/10fall/15track, right?

Not sure the TE falloff nerf is enough .. and why penalize optimal users (read: Amarr) to an equal extent, not as if the golden hulls have mids to abuse them as seen with Gallente/Minmatar the past few years.

Or does it mean you accepted that lows are not as valuable as mids and you will now give all Amarr hulls +1 for free? Lol



You are NOT hurting them on same ammount. Because optimal over the range to the target is wasted optimal. Falloff is not. So For example if you amarr ship had 30 optimal and its reduced to 24. THis is a Much less severe hit than a falloff of 40 being reduced to 38.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#97 - 2013-03-26 23:45:40 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Old TE's, before the brain freeze was 10opt/10fall/15track, right?

Not sure the TE falloff nerf is enough .. and why penalize optimal users (read: Amarr) to an equal extent, not as if the golden hulls have mids to abuse them as seen with Gallente/Minmatar the past few years.

Or does it mean you accepted that lows are not as valuable as mids and you will now give all Amarr hulls +1 for free? Lol



Also remember these changes in first place appeared exaclty because amarr were considered completely overpowered and minmatar were considered useless!!!

So simply removign the flaloff bonus would just bring back the old unbalanced meta game.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Machiavelli's Nemesis
Angry Mustellid
#98 - 2013-03-26 23:51:35 UTC
Thank you CCP for two successive patches designed to render my beloved Hurricane completely useless.

Now I might actually have to armour tank it like all the horrid proles do. Cheers :(
Hoarr
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#99 - 2013-03-27 00:08:56 UTC
Machiavelli's Nemesis wrote:
Thank you CCP for two successive patches designed to render my beloved Hurricane completely useless.

Now I might actually have to armour tank it like all the horrid proles do. Cheers :(


Cane Fleet Issue getting the second utility high back, calling it right now.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#100 - 2013-03-27 00:09:40 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Also remember these changes in first place appeared exaclty because amarr were considered completely overpowered and minmatar were considered useless!!!

So simply removign the flaloff bonus would just bring back the old unbalanced meta game.

Only partially true as projectile guns were changed as was ammo for them at the same time as the TE changes. Or do you buy into the idea that the TE overbuff was the sole reason for the past few years WInmatar fad? Smile

As for value of optimal vs. falloff:
Laser damage drops to zero rather abruptly once optimal is exceeded whereas falloff heavy weapons continue doing damage, albeit reduced ..
Also need to remember that falloff weapons generally have tracking that is far superior to that of optimal ditto.

Current TE's allow all short range weapons to have roughly the same projection, but base damage/tracking is significantly different. Taking optimal down the same as falloff maintains the projection thus still allowing projectiles (tracking) and blasters (damage) to almost reach laser ranges and beyond (due to the way falloff works).

But I'll test the -33% versions all the same, just not sure it is wise to hit optimal by the same amount after auto and recent blaster changes with nothing done to lasers since Trinity?, I forget.