These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#321 - 2013-03-27 11:05:28 UTC
Nova Satar wrote:
I think what you're missing is that the falloff boost NEEDS to be large for it to be worth it. If you're still sitting in web/neut range then what is the point?


Stop being a baby the change wont bring you into neut and web range. You literally barely lose anything at all.


Sean Sonnach wrote:
.

So the range bonus is the target here. I would suggest that there be an alternative choice made available for pilots to use a low slot to increase range if the TE is to be mainly dedicated to tracking, and I can see the point of it being so as it's name alone suggests tracking is its primary function. A competing low slot module to increase range so that the ship set up can be more varied would be my idea of a balanced approach to this (while making the TE dedicated to tracking), because the TC provides the means to do both in the mids.


How do u react to that suggestion?


I would say that you do have a low slot mod that affects range: Its called the Tracking Enhancer.

The optimal and falloff modifier isn't being removed, its being adjusted downwards slightly, not even really that much per given ship, the actual end result changes are extremely minimal, and largely just bring the module in line with the Tracking Computer (which uses cap).

I could see your point if they had entirely removed any optimal or falloff bonuses but this hasn't happened, and the overall reduction in optimal and fall off isn't enough to raise this much of a stink about.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Sean Sonnach
4S Corporation
The Initiative.
#322 - 2013-03-27 11:07:43 UTC
Schnapss wrote:
CCP, all your changes mean nothing, because whole conception of damage modifiers in game is wrong.
You have 4 different damage modules:
1. Low slot +damage
2. Low slot +tracking/optimal/falloff
3. Med Slot +optima/falloff/tracking
4. Med Slot +optimal/falloff/tracking

Both med slot module titles contain the word "Tracking", but in reality they dont provide tracking bonus, only optimal+fallof.
at the same time, we have low slot module which provides optimal+falloff+tracking, and it doesnt use capacitor.

Because of this we have all kinds of bonuses for guns with 2 used slots only. You should remove optimal and fallof from Tracking enhancers and move Tracking Link or Tracking Computer from med slot to low.
The main idea is that you can not get huge amount of damage+optimal+tracking at once just using only low slots. you should to choose damage+optimal or damage+tracking or tracking+optimal, and for all three damage bonuses you should use med slots



See that is at least a balanced approach.
Sean Sonnach
4S Corporation
The Initiative.
#323 - 2013-03-27 11:13:06 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Nova Satar wrote:
I think what you're missing is that the falloff boost NEEDS to be large for it to be worth it. If you're still sitting in web/neut range then what is the point?


Stop being a baby the change wont bring you into neut and web range. You literally barely lose anything at all.


Sean Sonnach wrote:
.

So the range bonus is the target here. I would suggest that there be an alternative choice made available for pilots to use a low slot to increase range if the TE is to be mainly dedicated to tracking, and I can see the point of it being so as it's name alone suggests tracking is its primary function. A competing low slot module to increase range so that the ship set up can be more varied would be my idea of a balanced approach to this (while making the TE dedicated to tracking), because the TC provides the means to do both in the mids.


How do u react to that suggestion?


I would say that you do have a low slot mod that affects range: Its called the Tracking Enhancer.

The optimal and falloff modifier isn't being removed, its being adjusted downwards slightly, not even really that much per given ship, the actual end result changes are extremely minimal, and largely just bring the module in line with the Tracking Computer (which uses cap).

I could see your point if they had entirely removed any optimal or falloff bonuses but this hasn't happened, and the overall reduction in optimal and fall off isn't enough to raise this much of a stink about.



Well I've said all I want, at the end of the day its adapt or die. Do u want to give me some fitting advice if the change does happen :P

goodnight internet spaceship friends!
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#324 - 2013-03-27 11:13:27 UTC
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.




What makes shield tanking a prefered methodology is not a module, its an evolution of the past thinking that made armor tanking a must. In the past peopel used only armor for pvp because you needed slots for tackle.

Back then most pvp was in small scale and bringing more points and webs was paramaunt. The medium sized fleets would be spider tanking battleships, armor tanked since remote armor repair is much easier to fit. Armor tanking was much more common in 0.0 also because of Doomsday devices AoE.

Time passed and we got specializing tackling ships (like hictors) and more important the combat shifted into much larger groups. In a much larger fleet you can let only a few ships bring tackle. Because that will be enough. You do not need to hold more than 3-4 ships at same time. The rest of the fleet can focus where it should focus, FIREPOWER. And Firepower is a low slot thing. Then came the end of the MAJOR battleship buffer tanked model, the end of the Doomsday AOE. Now there was no need for large buffers. Now was much simpler to bring smaller ships and logistics (before the end of AoE doomsdays, logistics were useless)

That is the history of shield tanking rise.

Tracking enhancers are MINIMAL effect compared to that.




"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#325 - 2013-03-27 11:13:43 UTC
Sigras wrote:
TL;DR
lows are more valuable than mids because there are more combat effecting low slot modules; the TE nerf changes that.

But the lows are and can only be abused in such a manner due to having 'enough' (read: 4+) mids to begin with .. the old Rupture with only 3 mids worked with shield config but only barely regardless of lows and the SFI is arguably better with armour config using mids for eWar/Control to mitigate damage.
Your account also managed to skip nimbly over the whole eWar in mids and the benefits of shield over armour (somewhat repaired with last round) .. would you rather have a TE+extender or a TD+plate/EANM if going up against another gun boat?.

Mids might be made equal if cap consumption was increased on all mods using that rack, effect is generally higher than the few low equivalents and the rack has a monopoly on practically all eWar/Assist mods. Flying Amarr exclusively I am painfully aware of the power of mids, they just add a lot more utility than lows.

Nice try though.Smile
Chaosstation
Militaris Industries
Northern Coalition.
#326 - 2013-03-27 11:17:02 UTC
I guess blasters just took a major hit to the balls then?
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#327 - 2013-03-27 11:17:03 UTC
Sean Sonnach wrote:
Do u want to give me some fitting advice if the change does happen :P


I wouldn't alter your fitting at all, nothing really changes.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#328 - 2013-03-27 11:22:40 UTC
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:


Fortunately that won't be a problem for most kiters, for I have read on these forums that they are the most elite and accomplished of all PvPers, and "know how to fly their ship" rather than just hit Approach+F1.


hehehe :D so true :D
the irony
you know the approach button is for the noobs , the pros use the other one :)
Ravcharas
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#329 - 2013-03-27 11:25:53 UTC
Scorch, baby!
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#330 - 2013-03-27 11:31:53 UTC
This issue may have already been brought up, and answered, in which case I apologize to everyone for not reading through 17 pages of comments and for wasting bandwidth:

Why do both TCs and TEs give twice the bonus to falloff vs. optimal? Why isn't the bonus to optimal equal to the bonus for falloff?

As it stands, even with the proposed changes, these modules still overwhelmingly favor projectile weapons. I rarely used either TCs or TEs with hybrids and lasers, since the bonus to optimal was already rather anemic, but I almost always fit them when using projectiles. The nerf makes them even more useless for hybrids/lasers, while still providing an advantage to projectiles... and, by extension, to Minmatar ships.

So, how about making the optimal bonus equal to the falloff bonus, if you really are talking about balancing these modules?
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#331 - 2013-03-27 11:33:18 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.


I'd prefer to see TEs nerfed a bit more tbh. I'd prefer a situation where the TC (requiring more fitting and being an active module) sits equal with or slightly superior to the TE in it's unscripted form and then has the scripted alternative when needed. I don't see the sense of the TC becoming better by less than 100% of the TE with a script loaded since at that point it has lost either it's tracking or range benefits. On top of the tougher fitting needs. And the cap usage.

Nerf TEs to 40-50% of current for me.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#332 - 2013-03-27 11:35:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Kagura Nikon
Sizeof Void wrote:
This issue may have already been brought up, and answered, in which case I apologize to everyone for not reading through 17 pages of comments and for wasting bandwidth:

Why do both TCs and TEs give twice the bonus to falloff vs. optimal? Why isn't the bonus to optimal equal to the bonus for falloff?

As it stands, even with the proposed changes, these modules still overwhelmingly favor projectile weapons. I rarely used either TCs or TEs with hybrids and lasers, since the bonus to optimal was already rather anemic, but I almost always fit them when using projectiles. The nerf makes them even more useless for hybrids/lasers, while still providing an advantage to projectiles... and, by extension, to Minmatar ships.

So, how about making the optimal bonus equal to the falloff bonus, if you really are talking about balancing these modules?



Because falloff effectively is worth half. There was a looong mathemathical proof at the old super thread that generated the addition of falloff bonus into the modules.


Basically think on the definition of falloff If you double the falloff you double the distance to which you do HALF your damage.

Take a theoretical pair of weaposn with DPS 100.

A laser with range 100 and falloff 10. And an AC with range 10 and falloff 100. Both do 50 damage at 110 km.

Now increase range by 10% for the laser and falloff by 10% on the AC. At 110 km the laser will do 100 damage the AC will do barely more than 50 still.

That is an extreme example. But illustrates why the values of both attributes must be treated differently. If you have 50 range and 50 falloff start to become obvious why the falloff must increase 2 times more than range to have same effect as the range increase.

50 range 50 falloff. Distance where you make half your dps? 100

Add 10% range and the range where you do half your dps is 105.

How much falloff bonus you need to achieve the same 105 km? i fyou said 20% you guessed right. :)

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Weasel Juice
Mayhem and Destruction
#333 - 2013-03-27 11:36:16 UTC
Rather than fancy EFT warrior skills, I present you with numbers about reality.

Rank Ships Kills
1 Oracle 54,779 Shield (primarily)
2 Naga 51,812 Shield
3 Tornado 50,412 Shield (primarily)
4 Hurricane 47,395 Shield (primarily)
5 Loki 44,967 Armor (shield possible though)
6 Talos 44,429 Shield
7 Rokh 42,509 Shield
8 Thrasher 40,014 N/A
9 Maelstrom 34,905 Shield
10 Zealot 32,453 Armor
11 Rupture 32,351 Shield
12 Caracal 32,316 Shield (missiles)
13 Sabre 31,227 N/A
14 Hound 29,868 N/A
15 Tempest Fleet Issue 29,182 Shield
16 Drake 27,872 Shield
17 Talwar 25,621 N/A
18 Cynabal 25,341 Shield
19 Stabber Fleet Issue 24,882 Shield
20 Proteus 23,988 Armor

~725,000 in the top 20
~100,000 on armor ships.
~125,000 on speed tanked ships
~500,000 kills on traditional shield ships.
~385,000 kills on shield ships that utilize TEs.


Now let's look at why this trend exists:
* Mobility. Shields are faster, accelerate better, align faster.
* Shield reps hit instantly and still rep for the same amount.
* More base damage potential due to abundance of lowslots

And in addition comes the TE.

* A TC gives 7.5/15/15, 0/0/30 or 15/30/0 (Optimal/Falloff/Speed)
* A TE gives 15/30/9.5 (Optimal/Falloff/Speed)
* New TE gives 10/20/9.5 (Optimal/Falloff/Speed)

Except when you want insanely high tracking speed, currently the TC is just inferior.

But even for speed, since transversal does not matter but angular - when you pull range angular velocity goes down. (Even unbonused) Webs also work a lot better than tracking computers, and they work for everyone that is shooting the target - meaning a single web in the fleet can replace a speed scripted tracking computer for *everyone*.

Conclusion: TE offer better damage application than TC.

The upcoming TE will be like an unscripted TC, except it has bit better optimal/falloff but worse tracking speed, rather than being a downright superior version of Tracking Comps.


I like the change, armor is becoming more viable for null/lowsec with every patch! Hooray!
Mariner6
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#334 - 2013-03-27 11:41:12 UTC
So this change will now unbalance guns vs. missile boats. Missile boats will be now OP and dominate in the range department for many fits (even with shorter range rockets, hams etc). So everyone has to now get in closer to fight....except missile boats.

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#335 - 2013-03-27 11:46:02 UTC
Weasel Juice wrote:
Rather than fancy EFT warrior skills, I present you with numbers about reality.

Rank Ships Kills
1 Oracle 54,779 Shield (primarily)
2 Naga 51,812 Shield
3 Tornado 50,412 Shield (primarily)
4 Hurricane 47,395 Shield (primarily)
5 Loki 44,967 Armor (shield possible though)
6 Talos 44,429 Shield
7 Rokh 42,509 Shield
8 Thrasher 40,014 N/A
9 Maelstrom 34,905 Shield
10 Zealot 32,453 Armor
11 Rupture 32,351 Shield
12 Caracal 32,316 Shield (missiles)
13 Sabre 31,227 N/A
14 Hound 29,868 N/A
15 Tempest Fleet Issue 29,182 Shield
16 Drake 27,872 Shield
17 Talwar 25,621 N/A
18 Cynabal 25,341 Shield
19 Stabber Fleet Issue 24,882 Shield
20 Proteus 23,988 Armor

~725,000 in the top 20
~100,000 on armor ships.
~125,000 on speed tanked ships
~500,000 kills on traditional shield ships.
~385,000 kills on shield ships that utilize TEs.


Now let's look at why this trend exists:
* Mobility. Shields are faster, accelerate better, align faster.
* Shield reps hit instantly and still rep for the same amount.
* More base damage potential due to abundance of lowslots

And in addition comes the TE.

* A TC gives 7.5/15/15, 0/0/30 or 15/30/0 (Optimal/Falloff/Speed)
* A TE gives 15/30/9.5 (Optimal/Falloff/Speed)
* New TE gives 10/20/9.5 (Optimal/Falloff/Speed)

Except when you want insanely high tracking speed, currently the TC is just inferior.

But even for speed, since transversal does not matter but angular - when you pull range angular velocity goes down. (Even unbonused) Webs also work a lot better than tracking computers, and they work for everyone that is shooting the target - meaning a single web in the fleet can replace a speed scripted tracking computer for *everyone*.

Conclusion: TE offer better damage application than TC.

The upcoming TE will be like an unscripted TC, except it has bit better optimal/falloff but worse tracking speed, rather than being a downright superior version of Tracking Comps.


I like the change, armor is becoming more viable for null/lowsec with every patch! Hooray!


woooa assuring that ruptures are mostly shield tank is a bit far fetched. You can be sure a VERY large ammount of them are armor tanked.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
General Escobar
State War Academy
Caldari State
#336 - 2013-03-27 11:47:13 UTC
Quote:
...as well as contributing to the relative strength of shield tanking over armor tanking by inflating the value of non-tank low slots.

way to buff armor tanking over shield tanking even more.... it`s getting a lill excessive don`t you think?
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#337 - 2013-03-27 11:49:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Naomi Knight
Kagura Nikon wrote:


woooa assuring that ruptures are mostly shield tank is a bit far fetched. You can be sure a VERY large ammount of them are armor tanked.

nah that would make his datas far fetched and highly questionable, and we dont want that do we ?:O

btw shield tanking arent that good , in eve speed/agility matters too much ,no wonder ppl want to use the tools wich gives them the most
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#338 - 2013-03-27 12:01:22 UTC
Naomi Knight wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:


woooa assuring that ruptures are mostly shield tank is a bit far fetched. You can be sure a VERY large ammount of them are armor tanked.

nah that would make his datas far fetched and highly questionable, and we dont want that do we ?:O

btw shield tanking arent that good , in eve speed/agility matters too much ,no wonder ppl want to use the tools wich gives them the most

Mobility should matter much, just like IRL, otherwise the game is really dumb.

And it's not like you can get double or tripple speed in comparison to conventional setups, like it used to be before the Great Nano Fix.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Vulfen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#339 - 2013-03-27 12:08:20 UTC
@ CCP fozzie. Im hoping that these changes are a precursor to the TE/TC/TD beginning to affect missiles, because yes having the same range boost on as a TC on a TE for a shield missile ship would make them a little OP. And if that's the plan then great sounds like your doing the right thing but release it at the same time don't just dos around giving us half a change to a very important module. I hate when CCP dont just do the job right first time.

for example, you took PWG off the cane in the winter update and then took a high-slot from it in the 1.1 release. i think you need to take more time and do a complete job to make it balanced.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#340 - 2013-03-27 12:09:44 UTC
General Escobar wrote:
Quote:
...as well as contributing to the relative strength of shield tanking over armor tanking by inflating the value of non-tank low slots.

way to buff armor tanking over shield tanking even more.... it`s getting a lill excessive don`t you think?


No, armor tanking has a long way to go before its anywhere near ready to be compared to shield tanking.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.