These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
2manno Asp
Death By Design
#361 - 2013-03-27 13:00:29 UTC
Vaju Enki wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Vaju Enki wrote:
stagz wrote:
The TE nerf is to much
This damages small gang and skirmish play style far to much


Because small gang and skirmish play equals nano faceroll.

Yeah! Death to kiting! All ships should brawl at < 10 km!


Yeah! Nano ships should "brawl at 20 km" will doing the huge dps that real brawlling ships should do, all of this will going at 2500km/s.

Some of you guys are bias as hell, Nano ships are broken beyond belief, making most ships of the game useless, armor tanking useless, etc.

I can't wait for this patch.


or you could fit a mwd to your brawler, then scram and web the kiter.

ohh... wait. that would require skill.
2manno Asp
Death By Design
#362 - 2013-03-27 13:05:53 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:


Except several of us are also discussing ships e.g. the SFI that lose about 30-40 DPS in their standard operating regime, where they don't have all that much DPS to begin with. The ship goes from being just barely viable as a kiter to being completely useless because its DPS and tank are too weak to brawl with and it can't kite because its DPS is easy to shrug off.


And you're all wrong, the amount of range you'll lose is vastly exaggerated in this thread. The actual loss is very small.


Heres an example, the standard PL Blaster Rokh fit that uses 2 TE's:

24.6+28.7 before the nerf, to 22.6+24.6 after the nerf.


LOOK AT THAT MASSIVE RANGE CHANGE THERE OH MAN. Thas on a battleship, where the TE range boost is much more obvious. On smaller ships the change will be significantly lower.


wrong, on smaller ships the change will be considerably more noticeable.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#363 - 2013-03-27 13:08:39 UTC
CCP Fozzie
any plans to sort out the mess of having 10 different mods to do the same thing to slightly different levels half being meta 0 and any plans on tierciding mods/giving them roles that ships have so benefited from?.

'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

Lithorn
State War Academy
Caldari State
#364 - 2013-03-27 13:11:39 UTC
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.


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).


This has merit, the need to blob to compensate for the "balances" being made seems to increase..
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#365 - 2013-03-27 13:13:37 UTC
2manno Asp wrote:

wrong, on smaller ships the change will be considerably more noticeable.


On a battleship you lose 10km in fall off, on a cruiser you lose about 3km fall off, on a frigate you lose about 1km fall off.

So again, you'll notice those range differences more on larger hulls, thanks for playing along from home.



Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#366 - 2013-03-27 13:15:07 UTC
Lithorn wrote:


This has merit, the need to blob to compensate for the "balances" being made seems to increase..


Tell me more about how losing 3km in fall off from a cruiser makes you need to blob up.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Musashibou Benkei
State War Academy
Caldari State
#367 - 2013-03-27 13:16:44 UTC
While I welcome the TE changes, I do not agree the remote sebo changes were necessary.

Leave it to CCP to fix a "problem" without first thinking why they are so popular for gate camps. Given that CCP still hasn't addressed the age-old problem of the cloak-mwd trick (initiating a mod AFTER you've cloaked? please) it leaves the gate campers no choice but to maximise their lock time. Also, remote sebo's need locking of the target ship for it to activate much like projected ECCM.

Since the most logical ship to remote sebo for such gate camps are hic's, with their infinite point to catch those super-stabbed geddons or other battleships, it should be fairly obvious that the remote sebo'ing will turn off after the hic initiates its infinite point.

Remote sebo's encourage team uniformity unlike local sebo's do and should be rewarded as such.
Nomispanco
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#368 - 2013-03-27 13:17:17 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Lithorn wrote:


This has merit, the need to blob to compensate for the "balances" being made seems to increase..


Tell me more about how losing 3km in fall off from a cruiser makes you need to blob up.


Loosing 3KM only ? Actually if its true, we loose about 33% or the range on each TE ? So what will be the range exemple for a zealot with scorch which is shooting now at 54km with falloff and with this nerf ?

Since missiles blob bot will shoot a approx 70km even if you have the flight time to have missiles damages..

Next update NANO from 2k ms to 1k only coz nano is evil i guess..
2manno Asp
Death By Design
#369 - 2013-03-27 13:20:56 UTC  |  Edited by: 2manno Asp
Grath Telkin wrote:
Kaal Redrum wrote:


Lol, you're very passionate about this - do explain why exactly this change is needed. I'm a pirate, who flies pretty much all sub-Bs ships, I'll just enjoy my time in another hull/fit, but am very curious where this change comes from.

Finally, the 22km range used is an approximation - ofcourse you'll swing between 20-24km. Irrespective it's still a 15ish % nerf to applied dps. Why are you PL boys so bothered about the 22km number.

Use your 200 vs 250dps number, are you telling me that a 20% applied dps nerf isn't 'really that big a difference?' how much premium are people paying for 5-10% increases using faction/deadspace mods and implants?


I'm passionate because your argument doesn't seem to be based on facts. You said you like to hang around 22-24km.

Whats the major difference if you can manage that kind of control to hanging between 17-19km?

No new module has any effect at that range.

As to the DPS change, your words, not mine, yours, were that this change makes the ship fits "dead". You're over exaggerating so much that according to you this change kills the fits of about 8 or 9 ships. Dead. Non viable in any way.

That's not even close to accurate, because as I've shown with real live numbers, the difference after this change is fairly minimal, and shouldn't have any bearing on your playstyle if you're into kiting. You simply need to make a very VERY minor adjustment.


because one does not simply control range at 17-19km without an adversely high risk of being scrammed.

even if it were a straight line increase in risk, which it isn't (that is to say the closer you get to the scramming ship, the risk of being scrammed not only increases, but accelerates), you're talking about a 15% greater chance of being scrammed.

now i have heard ogb are incoming, but for now at least, 1 o/h boosted scram will scram out to 16km. one o/h boosted web will web out to 19km.

if you think that's a minimal increase in risk, think again.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#370 - 2013-03-27 13:22:34 UTC
And how about adding the missile change with them and TD's etc?

'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

Casha Andven
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#371 - 2013-03-27 13:23:17 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Kaal Redrum wrote:


Lol, you're very passionate about this - do explain why exactly this change is needed. I'm a pirate, who flies pretty much all sub-Bs ships, I'll just enjoy my time in another hull/fit, but am very curious where this change comes from.

Finally, the 22km range used is an approximation - ofcourse you'll swing between 20-24km. Irrespective it's still a 15ish % nerf to applied dps. Why are you PL boys so bothered about the 22km number.

Use your 200 vs 250dps number, are you telling me that a 20% applied dps nerf isn't 'really that big a difference?' how much premium are people paying for 5-10% increases using faction/deadspace mods and implants?


I'm passionate because your argument doesn't seem to be based on facts. You said you like to hang around 22-24km.

Whats the major difference if you can manage that kind of control to hanging between 17-19km?

No new module has any effect at that range.

As to the DPS change, your words, not mine, yours, were that this change makes the ship fits "dead". You're over exaggerating so much that according to you this change kills the fits of about 8 or 9 ships. Dead. Non viable in any way.

That's not even close to accurate, because as I've shown with real live numbers, the difference after this change is fairly minimal, and shouldn't have any bearing on your playstyle if you're into kiting. You simply need to make a very VERY minor adjustment.


For kiting setups with sub-par tanks that depend on speed for survival the difference between moving from 22km to 17km can be very critical. 17km is going very close to overloaded web range and any kiting setups once webbed is pretty much dead. Its interesting that you keep bringing up the example of the Machariel in an effort to downplay the effects of this nerf, when that billion isk ship already has a huge falloff. What about something like the Stabber, which is designed from the ground up to kite? Right now a Stabber fit like below can create about 120 dps at range of 19-20km.
Post nerf it has to come closer to a range of 16km, dangerously close to overloaded boosted web range. It just makes kiting way harder, which is of course not a consequence to the players who never try it. To small gang/ solo pvp examples of which we have seen in numerous videos and blogs (Kil2 and Garmon's come to mind) it is an unnecessary nerf.

[Stabber, kiter]
Tracking Enhancer II
Tracking Enhancer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II

Medium Shield Extender II
Medium Shield Extender II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Warp Disruptor II

220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M
5W Infectious Power System Malfunction
50W Infectious Power System Malfunction

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
2manno Asp
Death By Design
#372 - 2013-03-27 13:29:39 UTC
Nikuno wrote:
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.


yea you'd prefer that until you realize many ships, namlely amarr and gallente, have a crushing lack of mid slots, with the slicer, retri, and coercer having only 2.

maybe the TC should be boosted to make it worth using a mid for. but nerfing the TE? come on man.
Lelob
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#373 - 2013-03-27 13:43:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Lelob
Why am I not surprised that it's the usual blobbing suspects that are rejoicing in this proposed change.

Just like the hml nerf, this is too heavy. People kept saying oh look, hml nerf won't be so bad, you'll still be ok! Turns out, nope, the hml nerf has made tengu fleets all but obsolete, drakes are practically ******* useless and people actively look for ways not to use hml's. Don't make the same mistake of obsoleting whole classes of ships because you totally nerfed one thing.

If anything this feels more like a heavy-handed nerf intended to hit t3 bc's, but one that will completely invalidate a huge number of fun, nano shield-ships that are not t3 bc's. Personally, I cannot think of any ship currently using te's on it that needs to be nerfed that is not a t3 bc. Please, if you do care just fix the t3 bc hulls and don't go through with this heavy-handed nerf that will drive so many fun ships into the ground.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#374 - 2013-03-27 13:45:58 UTC
Nomispanco wrote:

Loosing 3KM only ? Actually if its true, we loose about 33% or the range on each TE ? So what will be the range exemple for a zealot with scorch which is shooting now at 54km with falloff and with this nerf ?.


Well assuming you're currently running a 3 t2 TE set up on your zealot your number should look something like this:

48+9.6

Post change:

43+7.8

A collective loss of 5km optimal and 1.8km fall off, no major hit at that range anyway, you literally won't notice, and will still likely be trying to keep your target over 40km, so net change to your playstyle: none.


2manno Asp wrote:

now i have heard ogb are incoming, but for now at least, 1 o/h boosted scram will scram out to 16km. one o/h boosted web will web out to 19km.
.


Look at the bigger picture bro, they've outright stated that the 5% boosts are going away, and that the 3% will return to being the peak command ship boost.

The time line for this was "likely this summer", which would be this release here. Instead of focusing on one single change try to keep the collected lot of them in mind when viewing something. They've said theres a technical bottleneck around removing off grid boosting, but that nuking the t3 cruiser command ship bonuses was 100% coming, the more specialized command ships will get their role back while the jack of all trades t3's will be exactly that, more options on boosting at a weaker power level.

In other words you wont be dealing with scrams and webs at that range unless they're faction, and to be honest you have to deal with faction webs and scrams at the ranges you're operating at now.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Katsami
Holy Amarrian Battlemonk
Crimson Inquisicion
#375 - 2013-03-27 13:46:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Katsami
Lelob wrote:
Why am I not surprised that it's the usual blobbing suspects that are rejoicing in this proposed change.

Just like the hml nerf, this is too heavy. People kept saying oh look, hml nerf won't be so bad, you'll still be ok! Turns out, nope, the hml nerf has made tengu fleets all but obsolete, drakes are practically ******* useless and people actively look for ways not to use hml's. Don't make the same mistake of obsoleting whole classes of ships because you totally nerfed one thing.

If anything this feels more like a heavy-handed nerf intended to hit t3 bc's, but one that will completely invalidate a huge number of fun, nano shield-ships that are not t3 bc's. Personally, I cannot think of any ship currently using te's on it that needs to be nerfed that is not a t3 bc. Please, if you do care just fix the t3 bc hulls and don't go through with this heavy-handed nerf that will drive so many fun ships into the ground.


How else would CCP get its daily amount of 'pissing off the playerbase' in?
Zenith Gravit
LionGate Enterprises
#376 - 2013-03-27 13:47:33 UTC
2manno Asp wrote:
[quote=Nikuno]
yea you'd prefer that until you realize many ships, namlely amarr and gallente, have a crushing lack of mid slots, with the slicer, retri, and coercer having only 2.

maybe the TC should be boosted to make it worth using a mid for. but nerfing the TE? come on man.


I support this!
Meditril
Hoplite Brigade
Ushra'Khan
#377 - 2013-03-27 13:52:38 UTC
Whow... another nerf to Minmatar ships. Sad

And on the other side of the coin it is a hidden boost to already OP caldari missile spammers.
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#378 - 2013-03-27 13:53:55 UTC
I thought the stabber fit linked about would be an interesting point of reference for the TE changes so I was just fiddling with it a little bit and the results are at the bottom. I think its likely that you will feel this effect (usually between a 5% and 15% Im guessing) at typical engagement ranges for kiting ships like the stabber or the talos - but it seems unlikely that the role of the ship will be compromised to an extent that they would be abandoned. More likely, there will just be some extra room for ships like armor harb or armor brutix to have a role.

The fundamental ability to engage large groups with small ones won't change at all. It may take slightly more time to wear down ships that you isolate, depending on relative ranges, and there may be slightly more flexibility for tackling frigs to be on grid for longer, but overall this change shouldn't shift the meta much.

[Stabber, kiter]
Tracking Enhancer II
Tracking Enhancer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II

Medium Shield Extender II
Medium Shield Extender II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Warp Disruptor II

220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M
5W Infectious Power System Malfunction
50W Infectious Power System Malfunction

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I


BARRAGE 6.5% dps drop at 20k
  • 3.51+37.2 with the old TE 187dps@20km
  • 3.23+32 with new TE 175dps@20km

    • RF EMP - 18% dps drop at 20km
  • 1.75+24.8 with old TE 170dps@20km
  • 1.61+21.3 with new TE 140dps@20km

    • @ccp_rise
    OldWolf69
    EVE-RO
    Goonswarm Federation
    #379 - 2013-03-27 13:55:15 UTC  |  Edited by: OldWolf69
    Too many specs. Why, in all the world would be the NERF be a answer to all the problems? Once again: this used to be a awesome game, with awesome starships and awesome weapons. Nerf proves nothing else than lacking imagination, and, more than that, lacking capacity in finding lucrative solutions. What will follow in a year or more: weapons shooting backwards to punish the user and pilots trolling other pilots to death because there's nothing left to kill with? This happening in stations, because there will be no ships worth flying? Too many isk in this game? Then admit it, and act accordingly. Removing fun means removing game. Stop ******* around with **** like " there's too many people doing the same thing in this game". Maybe they do it because there are just few fun things to do? Get content. Stop explaining broken tools are cool, because those aren't cool. One can scratch his left ear with his right foot, but this not cool, is just stupid.
    Sorry, mr. Fozzy. I can't agree with the fact that breaking the game actually improves it. And you guys should focus on getting new things to game. NEW THINGS, not new NERFS.
    CCP Rise
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #380 - 2013-03-27 13:57:18 UTC
    Small addition -

    Obviously many of you seem frustrated that X Y or Z ship that used shields and TEs is getting nerfed, how many ships that don't use TEs are picking up that slack to punish you for this change? HAM caracals maybe? Not drakes right because they just got a big change as well...

    I'm genuinely asking because the only space I see being created is for armor based ships that already needed the lows for their tanks - and I don't see those ships becoming stronger than skirmishers based on this change. Am I wrong?

    @ccp_rise