These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#341 - 2013-03-27 12:11:10 UTC
I haven't seen this many tears since the HM nerf.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#342 - 2013-03-27 12:13:20 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
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.


I do not disagree at all with you.


Problem is not that speed is too valuable. Problem is that currently due to the increasing focus on larger number of ships, speed is the ONLY way you can fight outnumbered. All the techniques that helped people fight outnumbered ( old NOS, ECM and dampeners on non dedicated ships, snipers (now easily probable) ) were all nerfed. The constant nerfing of force multipliers has relegated the game into a situation where you need to have more people than the enemy... or you must be faster (the only remaining way to fight outnumbered).


That is something CCP must keep in mind. Keep making so that only dedicated ships can use force multipliers effectively and you will continue to hurt more and more all the chances of small scale warfare . That is what makes speed so important.


Peopel, please I urge you. Stop trying to focus on modules and the layouts and think more about the current metagame and combat situations. There you will find the real culprints. And a lot of to blame are in the last years of nerfing of all force multipliers and area of effect (in the case of 0.0).

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#343 - 2013-03-27 12:16:29 UTC
That TE nerf is way too much... CCP seems to be working very hard to make this game appear less attractive to me.

I'm still not happy with how missiles were "balanced" and also many of my favourite ships were completely changed for totally different approach.

This constant nerfing of all the things i used to love is getting more painful every "balance" that you are making. Sure there has been few positive surprises here and there but it's mostly just negative things.

Oh, and where is my darn jukebox -_-
Sparkus Volundar
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#344 - 2013-03-27 12:16:29 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Taoist Dragon wrote:
TE's - ouch!

I agree they can be over powering (especially on hulls like the Talos) at times but this will pretty much kill the only advantage the minnies get with their weapon systems - nice falloff.

Now they will have the worst damage and not the best range. Any thoughts on uping their dps or base range to at least keep them competive?


This change affects falloff and optimal bonuses equally, so it doesn't decrease Minmatar falloff relative to any other ship that fits TEs. Minmatar feel the pain mainly because they have a lot of ships that shield tank and use extra lows for TEs.


Minmatar might feel pain because they can shield tank with more low slots but there is also the fundamental aspect that Minmatar weapons are biased towards a greater proportion of falloff relative to optimal.

So whilst yes, the % changes are the same against all weapons, this proposed change will affect projectiles proportionately more than hybrids or energy weapons because the starting point is TEs offering more falloff than optimal. Since Falloff mechanics incorporate damage reduction with range, I don’t personally think that a baseline of TEs offering a larger bonus to falloff than optimal is a problem incidentally (but others could disagree).

Examples with sub-capital turrets using 2 TEs each follow.

Close range turrets
Range = Optimal+25% Falloff:
Autocannons = 7.0% reduction in range (43.1% more than for Pulse Lasers).
Blasters____ = 5.6% reduction in range (15.9% more than for Pulse Lasers).
Pulse Lasers = 4.9% reduction in range.

Range = Optimal+50% Falloff:
Autocannons = 7.6% reduction in range (47.8% more than for Pulse Lasers).
Blasters____ = 6.6% reduction in range (27.8% more than for Pulse Lasers).
Pulse Lasers = 5.2% reduction in range.

Range = Optimal+75% Falloff:
Autocannons = 7.9% reduction in range (41.0% more than for Pulse Lasers).
Blasters____ = 7.0% reduction in range (24.9% more than for Pulse Lasers).
Pulse Lasers = 5.6% reduction in range.

Long range turrets
Range = Optimal+25% Falloff:
Artillery_____ = 5.6% reduction in range (10.5% more than for Pulse Lasers).
Rails________ = 4.9% reduction in range ( 1.5% more than for Pulse Lasers).
Beams Lasers = 4.9% reduction in range.

Range = Optimal+50% Falloff:
Artillery_____ = 5.9% reduction in range (15.3% more than for Pulse Lasers).
Rails________ = 5.5% reduction in range (6.2% more than for Pulse Lasers).
Beams Lasers = 5.2% reduction in range.

Range = Optimal+75% Falloff:
Artillery_____ = 6.3% reduction in range (12.4% more than for Pulse Lasers).
Rails________ = 5.8% reduction in range (3.4% more than for Pulse Lasers).
Beams Lasers = 5.6% reduction in range.


.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#345 - 2013-03-27 12:23:42 UTC
Sparkus Volundar wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Taoist Dragon wrote:
TE's - ouch!

I agree they can be over powering (especially on hulls like the Talos) at times but this will pretty much kill the only advantage the minnies get with their weapon systems - nice falloff.

Now they will have the worst damage and not the best range. Any thoughts on uping their dps or base range to at least keep them competive?


This change affects falloff and optimal bonuses equally, so it doesn't decrease Minmatar falloff relative to any other ship that fits TEs. Minmatar feel the pain mainly because they have a lot of ships that shield tank and use extra lows for TEs.


Minmatar might feel pain because they can shield tank with more low slots but there is also the fundamental aspect that Minmatar weapons are biased towards a greater proportion of falloff relative to optimal.

So whilst yes, the % changes are the same against all weapons, this proposed change will affect projectiles proportionately more than hybrids or energy weapons because the starting point is TEs offering more falloff than optimal. Since Falloff mechanics incorporate damage reduction with range, I don’t personally think that a baseline of TEs offering a larger bonus to falloff than optimal is a problem incidentally (but others could disagree).

Examples with sub-capital turrets using 2 TEs each follow.

Close range turrets
Range = Optimal+25% Falloff:
Autocannons = 7.0% reduction in range (43.1% more than for Pulse Lasers).
Blasters____ = 5.6% reduction in range (15.9% more than for Pulse Lasers).
Pulse Lasers = 4.9% reduction in range.

Range = Optimal+50% Falloff:
Autocannons = 7.6% reduction in range (47.8% more than for Pulse Lasers).
Blasters____ = 6.6% reduction in range (27.8% more than for Pulse Lasers).
Pulse Lasers = 5.2% reduction in range.

Range = Optimal+75% Falloff:
Autocannons = 7.9% reduction in range (41.0% more than for Pulse Lasers).
Blasters____ = 7.0% reduction in range (24.9% more than for Pulse Lasers).
Pulse Lasers = 5.6% reduction in range.

Long range turrets
Range = Optimal+25% Falloff:
Artillery_____ = 5.6% reduction in range (10.5% more than for Pulse Lasers).
Rails________ = 4.9% reduction in range ( 1.5% more than for Pulse Lasers).
Beams Lasers = 4.9% reduction in range.

Range = Optimal+50% Falloff:
Artillery_____ = 5.9% reduction in range (15.3% more than for Pulse Lasers).
Rails________ = 5.5% reduction in range (6.2% more than for Pulse Lasers).
Beams Lasers = 5.2% reduction in range.

Range = Optimal+75% Falloff:
Artillery_____ = 6.3% reduction in range (12.4% more than for Pulse Lasers).
Rails________ = 5.8% reduction in range (3.4% more than for Pulse Lasers).
Beams Lasers = 5.6% reduction in range.




I already posted math evidence of why fallof bonus must be exaclty double the range bonus. Go check it. That was discussed beyond any thinkable limits years ago when the changes were implemented.




50 range and 50 falloff. Distance where damage is half? apply only 10% range and 20% falloff and you get exact same distance where damage is half for BOTH cases.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#346 - 2013-03-27 12:26:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
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.


I do not disagree at all with you.


Problem is not that speed is too valuable. Problem is that currently due to the increasing focus on larger number of ships, speed is the ONLY way you can fight outnumbered. All the techniques that helped people fight outnumbered ( old NOS, ECM and dampeners on non dedicated ships, snipers (now easily probable) ) were all nerfed. The constant nerfing of force multipliers has relegated the game into a situation where you need to have more people than the enemy... or you must be faster (the only remaining way to fight outnumbered).


That is something CCP must keep in mind. Keep making so that only dedicated ships can use force multipliers effectively and you will continue to hurt more and more all the chances of small scale warfare . That is what makes speed so important.

Well, I'd say not the nerfing of force multipliers themsevles, but rather re-assigning these to dedicated ships perfectly suitable for creating one-sided ganks in favor of those with superior numbers. Non-bonused EW is really weak and sometimes next to useless (jammers, anyone?), while a dedicated boat renders any opposing ship of choice plain defenceless. Sure thing, the only thing that might get you some chances is mobility, but how is that wrong? What else could you bring in?

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
amurder Hakomairos
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#347 - 2013-03-27 12:30:55 UTC
I have an idea for you Fozzie, why not just give all races the exact same ships/weapons/modules, and only one ship in each class. Then everything will be balanced and there will be no variety and you will have the plain vanilla generic spaceship game you seem to be looking for.

TE need a nerf like we need a kick in the nuts. I'm so sick of training months to get good skills in a ship just to find out that CCP is deciding to nerf it in the name of more blandness. And when you guys nerf something it's never at a reasonable level. Like we will give a 10% nerf this patch, then re-evaluate. Its always some over the top massive nerf and then you know you are stuck with it for years before they look at it again.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#348 - 2013-03-27 12:31:29 UTC
Sparkus Volundar wrote:

So whilst yes, the % changes are the same against all weapons, this proposed change will affect projectiles proportionately more than hybrids or energy weapons because the starting point is TEs offering more falloff than optimal.


Proportionally is exactly the wrong word here.

The effect on projectiles versus the effect on hybrids is larger in magnitude. But proportionally, the effect is the same. TE's give 33% less to everyone. Same proportion.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Random Woman
Very Professional Corporation
#349 - 2013-03-27 12:32:04 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
I haven't seen this many tears since the HM nerf.


Aye.

Also, I dont see why TEs are so cheap right now, they seem to be the one module that keep eve running.
Lithorn
State War Academy
Caldari State
#350 - 2013-03-27 12:35:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Lithorn
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.

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%.


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!


The potential unintended consequences of this R.S.B/T.E. nerf will be that blasters now have even crappier optimal and fall off ratio, T.L.'s (tracking links) will be a practically required component of all fleets, ships using T.L.'s that have the bonus for it will now play an even bigger role in fleet set ups. T.L. boosting ships will be more expensive than before. (Oneiros/Scimitar)

Missile fleets will be more common perhaps, something CCP has been trying to discourage it seems.

E-War boosters will be seen more often, not necessarily a bad thing since there has been very little reason to ever put Gallente command ships as a priority in fleet setups over the other ships in a long time.
(This is something you should look into, Gallente command bonuses don't see much action in fleets.)

Rsebo nerf, ok sure that's not so terrible I suppose..

Armor tanked ships with bad low slot/mid slot ratios will be impacted the most by the T.E. nerf, this will hit Gallente hybrids where it lives pretty badly. Please reconsider this rather unnecessary nerf, if your not willing to back off then C.C.P will most likely be forced to REDO a lot of the ship balancing you guys have been doing lately to compensate for the imbalances this will create for ships that already had a built-in dis-advantage in that area.

P.S. 4 things I have to say to Foz,
1. Blaster ammo for cruisers still has crappy range bonuses, rail guns on cruisers totally not worth using due to sad damage output, please fix? :)
2. Why has there never been a ship with R.S.B bonuses?
3. Dont break our T3..
4. Thanks for the work you and the other guys put into eve, so long and thanks for the all fish!
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#351 - 2013-03-27 12:38:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Grath Telkin wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:

Oh wait, what's stopping these gate camping fleets from using more remote sebo's to compensate?


You're aware of stacking penalties right?


You're aware that after 3 mods the diminishing return on investment makes it not REALLY worth it right?

From 1-3 Rsebo's you get a noticeable difference, then from 4-6 you can't even reach the same boost as the first Rsebo that was applied.


I'm not familiar with how these insta-locking fleets are set up but effectively, what you guys are saying is that after these new changes are implemented, it will be IMPOSSIBLE to achieve the same scan resolution (or as high is needed to insta-lock) as these fleets have now because of stacking penalties...

If that's true then CCP has just removed a legitimate tactic from the game and if it's not true (i.e. you will be able to get the same scan res) then your reasoning, that stacking penalties somehow balance insta locking fleets, is flawed.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#352 - 2013-03-27 12:44:14 UTC
War Kitten wrote:
Sparkus Volundar wrote:

So whilst yes, the % changes are the same against all weapons, this proposed change will affect projectiles proportionately more than hybrids or energy weapons because the starting point is TEs offering more falloff than optimal.


Proportionally is exactly the wrong word here.

The effect on projectiles versus the effect on hybrids is larger in magnitude. But proportionally, the effect is the same. TE's give 33% less to everyone. Same proportion.



For God 's sake peopel. These modules are not used only on minmatar ships Also on scorch boats. The changes must be EXACLTY as they are proposed otherwise they will hit more one side than the toher.

Fozzie thinked this very well and is 100% correct on how to implement it

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#353 - 2013-03-27 12:45:33 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:

Oh wait, what's stopping these gate camping fleets from using more remote sebo's to compensate?


You're aware of stacking penalties right?


You're aware that after 3 mods the diminishing return on investment makes it not REALLY worth it right?

From 1-3 Rsebo's you get a noticeable difference, then from 4-6 you can't even reach the same boost as the first Rsebo that was applied.


I'm not familiar with how these insta-locking fleets are set up but effectively, what you guys are saying is that after these new changes are implemented, it will be IMPOSSIBLE to achieve the same scan resolution as these fleets have now because of stacking penalties...

If that's true then CCP has just removed a legitimate tactic from the game and if it's not true (i.e. you will be able to get the same scan res) then your reasoning, that stacking penalties somehow balance insta locking fleets, is flawed.



Issue is, Insta lockign firgs are deemed undesirable gameplay by msot of community and CCP. They must be nerfed so that the balance of low se cprevails. Low sec was made to be a place where frigates can travel more or less freely and larger ships cannot. Insta lock gate camps broke that.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#354 - 2013-03-27 12:46:30 UTC
amurder Hakomairos wrote:
I have an idea for you Fozzie, why not just give all races the exact same ships/weapons/modules, and only one ship in each class. Then everything will be balanced and there will be no variety and you will have the plain vanilla generic spaceship game you seem to be looking for.

TE need a nerf like we need a kick in the nuts. I'm so sick of training months to get good skills in a ship just to find out that CCP is deciding to nerf it in the name of more blandness. And when you guys nerf something it's never at a reasonable level. Like we will give a 10% nerf this patch, then re-evaluate. Its always some over the top massive nerf and then you know you are stuck with it for years before they look at it again.


I totally agree with you, simplifying everything and making everything similar in the name of "balance" seems to be the trend with everything these days and eve can't seem to avoid it either...
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#355 - 2013-03-27 12:48:52 UTC
Lithorn wrote:
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.

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%.


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!


The potential unintended consequences of this R.S.B/T.E. nerf will be that blasters now have even crappier optimal and fall off ratio, T.L.'s (tracking links) will be a practically required component of all fleets, ships using T.L.'s that have the bonus for it will now play an even bigger role in fleet set ups. T.L. boosting ships will be more expensive than before. (Oneiros/Scimitar)

Missile fleets will be more common perhaps, something CCP has been trying to discourage it seems.

E-War boosters will be seen more often, not necessarily a bad thing since there has been very little reason to ever put Gallente command ships as a priority in fleet setups over the other ships in a long time.
(This is something you should look into, Gallente command bonuses don't see much action in fleets.)

Rsebo nerf, ok sure that's not so terrible I suppose..

Armor tanked ships with bad low slot/mid slot ratios will be impacted the most by the T.E. nerf, this will hit Gallente hybrids where it lives pretty badly. Please reconsider this rather unnecessary nerf, if your not willing to back off then C.C.P will most likely be forced to REDO a lot of the ship balancing you guys have been doing lately to compensate for the imbalances this will create for ships that already had a built-in dis-advantage in that area.

P.S. 4 things I have to say to Foz,
1. Blaster ammo for cruisers still has crappy range bonuses, rail guns on cruisers totally not worth using due to sad damage output, please fix? :)
2. Why has there never been a ship with R.S.B bonuses?
3. Dont break our T3..
4. Thanks for the work you and the other guys put into eve, so long and thanks for the all fish!


NO. The effect will be much more prevalent in Barrage boats and Scorch boats. Blasters will suffer much less because the range reduciton can be covered in space movment in 1 second on their case. Scorch and barrage are made to kite or anti kite and the range changes need a more substantial adjustment of positioning, enough that the tactics will have to change a bit.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
2manno Asp
Death By Design
#356 - 2013-03-27 12:50:37 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Casha Andven wrote:

This.
CCP you are dumbing down the game. May I ask why?

Just a question . . . if kiting is "uber 1337 PvP for the skilled players" then doesnt making kiting harder raise the skill required to pull it off?


You can't kite if you can't project damage at all. Then it's just called "running away."

with just some quick math, my cynabal will drop from 3.9 + 44 to 3.6 + 38

Oh no, now my guns will never do any damage :(

EDIT:
more quick math

The above numbers mean that I drop from 379 at max long point range to 357

its a 5.81% decrease in DPS


awful that you'd use a cynabal to justify a TE nerf. awful.
2manno Asp
Death By Design
#357 - 2013-03-27 12:55:08 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Casha Andven wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:
Hellakhanasos wrote:
Venustas Blue wrote:
If your fighting at 0, say in scram & Webb range to be doing affective damage, theres no way to disengage say if your off gate. Unless your ****** fit with stabs or possibly AB fit and able to burn out. The more powerful ship or better counter fit ship will always win. You will not have the ability granted to kiting ships to disengagde by either burning away, or causing the hostile to lose point by pulsing MWD on cross axis so they burn out of range & lose point, allowing you to warp out. There's little skill in fighting at 0 (scram/Webb) range, nerfing TEs kiting ability, wich is an art and skill its self would be yet another mistake by CCP, and a great loss as far as skill goes for the game.
There is counters to kiting ships, & as far as minnie ships go, they have already been nerfed enough, dont ruin it by overstepping a reasonable current mark & success. This proposed change to TEs needs to be scrapped. All it would do is subject eve to yet a other nerf of making the game ever easier, this does not inspire anybody to become better within tactics and situational awareness, it only acts to dumb it down, even giving more reason to blob, and there should be no further reason given to blobbing WHAT SO EVER. Should be promoting skill and fun gfs instead.
Sometimes it becomes very apparent CCP are out of touch with the game and its tactics, this is as good as any example.
A resounding NO to TE nerf from me.


After sifting through the turd of many prior posts over the last couple of pages. This is more of less spot on.


Yeah basically this.


This.
CCP you are dumbing down the game. May I ask why?

Just a question . . . if kiting is "uber 1337 PvP for the skilled players" then doesnt making kiting harder raise the skill required to pull it off?

Doesnt that mean there is a clearer line between the "good PvPers who can kite" and the "bad PvPers who cant"?

That being said, in small gangs, life is a function of speed + damage projection thats what makes the shield tanking required in small gangs, because they get speed from not having armor plates and damage projection because they have a TON of free low slots.

This is now being brought into balance, so that armor tankers are now only down on one front not two.


wrong. it's like taking a 3 pt. shooter in basketball and moving him up to the free throw line. seems like an easier shot to make, until you realize his shots keep getting sent to section 127 in the upper deck in by the other teams 7 foot center.

not a case of better pvp, more like a case of no point.
Lithorn
State War Academy
Caldari State
#358 - 2013-03-27 12:55:56 UTC
amurder Hakomairos wrote:


C.C.P. deciding to nerf it in the name of more blandness. And when you guys nerf something it's never at a reasonable level. Like we will give a 10% nerf this patch, then re-evaluate.


10 percent more bland-ness per a level now that is a skill change I could get behind! Cool
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#359 - 2013-03-27 12:59:20 UTC
Lithorn wrote:
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.

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%.


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!


The potential unintended consequences of this R.S.B/T.E. nerf will be that blasters now have even crappier optimal and fall off ratio, T.L.'s (tracking links) will be a practically required component of all fleets, ships using T.L.'s that have the bonus for it will now play an even bigger role in fleet set ups. T.L. boosting ships will be more expensive than before. (Oneiros/Scimitar)

Missile fleets will be more common perhaps, something CCP has been trying to discourage it seems.

E-War boosters will be seen more often, not necessarily a bad thing since there has been very little reason to ever put Gallente command ships as a priority in fleet setups over the other ships in a long time.
(This is something you should look into, Gallente command bonuses don't see much action in fleets.)

Rsebo nerf, ok sure that's not so terrible I suppose..

Armor tanked ships with bad low slot/mid slot ratios will be impacted the most by the T.E. nerf, this will hit Gallente hybrids where it lives pretty badly. Please reconsider this rather unnecessary nerf, if your not willing to back off then C.C.P will most likely be forced to REDO a lot of the ship balancing you guys have been doing lately to compensate for the imbalances this will create for ships that already had a built-in dis-advantage in that area.

P.S. 4 things I have to say to Foz,
1. Blaster ammo for cruisers still has crappy range bonuses, rail guns on cruisers totally not worth using due to sad damage output, please fix? :)
2. Why has there never been a ship with R.S.B bonuses?
3. Dont break our T3..
4. Thanks for the work you and the other guys put into eve, so long and thanks for the all fish!

theorycraf online , you sir playing the wrong game
Miaaaw
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#360 - 2013-03-27 12:59:34 UTC
Yeah you guys at CCP should nerf small gang warfare even more so blobbing remain the only way to play this game...
Nano ships allow small entities to fight outnumbered and by nerfing TE you'll nerf nano gangs.

Bref...