These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#381 - 2013-03-27 13:58:23 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
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




    • rofl medium extender
    darkness reins
    Siberian Squad
    Siberian Squads
    #382 - 2013-03-27 13:58:28 UTC
    TE nerf. Mehh gonna kill off kiting frigs with that great idea. My executioner with max skills optimal abt 16km falloff abt 3 k with one tracking enhancer. Looks like im gonna have to scrap all my ships. Not unless u plan on giving the executioner an optimal and falloff bonus. Whichvim sure you wont.
    2manno Asp
    Death By Design
    #383 - 2013-03-27 14:00:08 UTC
    Fon Revedhort wrote:
    Mobility should matter much, just like IRL, otherwise the game is really dumb.


    qft
    Jonas Sukarala
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #384 - 2013-03-27 14:00:23 UTC
    i do think webs and links need a nerf to control the excessive range and strength of the mods.

    '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

    MainDrain
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #385 - 2013-03-27 14:00:45 UTC
    OldWolf69 wrote:
    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 ******* aroung 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.


    So your answer is to ignore things considered broken (like meta levels not working as they should) and instead just fire in a load of new modules so people have something new and shiny to play with ...

    Im of the mindset that fixing things that are broken is better. They cant just buff everything else to try and make those few broken modules come into line. Its easier to go to the source of the problem, and bring it down to the level it should have been originally.
    Sparkus Volundar
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #386 - 2013-03-27 14:01:21 UTC
    Kagura Nikon wrote:
    Sparkus Volundar wrote:

    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


    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.


    Thank you for agreeing with me.

    War Kitten wrote:

    CCP Fozzie wrote:

    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.


    Sparkus Volundar wrote:

    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).


    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.


    No, because you are talking about different things to what I talked about.

    The effect on optimal and falloff is the same regardless of what turret but that does not mean that the effect on projectiles is the same as on other types of turrets (due to falloff damage reduction mechanics).

    .
    Grath Telkin
    Amok.
    Goonswarm Federation
    #387 - 2013-03-27 14:01:30 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    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



    • You should be careful making sense like this, they have a box of tissues out and Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants loaded up and they know what to do with it

    Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
    Lyron-Baktos
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #388 - 2013-03-27 14:02:42 UTC
    have I missed the tears from the hi-sec gate camping faggots, i mean pirates?
    Naomi Knight
    Ministry of War
    Amarr Empire
    #389 - 2013-03-27 14:03:16 UTC
    Meditril wrote:
    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.

    heh?
    what another nerf? there was no matar nerf ever
    yeah op missiles are so op less and less people use them each day
    2manno Asp
    Death By Design
    #390 - 2013-03-27 14:03:30 UTC  |  Edited by: 2manno Asp
    Grath Telkin wrote:
    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.


    you're not getting it. it's not a matter of absolute figures. anyone can point to a large # and say it's a larger number than a smaller one.

    the effect will be felt much more on smaller ships, as the margins they play with are much smaller.

    and no, thank you for playing along from home.
    Hannott Thanos
    Squadron 15
    #391 - 2013-03-27 14:06:17 UTC
    Kil2 approves of the changes. /thread guys. You are all bad and should feel bad

    while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

         _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

    }
    Katsami
    Holy Amarrian Battlemonk
    Crimson Inquisicion
    #392 - 2013-03-27 14:06:32 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    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?


    My biggest objection is simply that it is a blanket nerf. You can't even begin to predict what the meta is going to look like when you adjust a major stim by 33%.
    OldWolf69
    EVE-RO
    Goonswarm Federation
    #393 - 2013-03-27 14:07:43 UTC
    @MainDrain:
    Ofc, fixing things is good. There's a ton of things that need more fix than weapons and ships. BTW, with the actual weapons ansd ships people did play just fine, in same time with having some eternal **** when using other modules or a POS.
    ...whatever. A game presumes it's fun to play it. Not screwing around with ways to go around things and make them usefull. I don't play the best EVE player, because i'm not. I just say that there's a lot of things wich could improve this game , not the Great Nerf, given as a answer to all the problems. It's just the easy way to get rid of a problem. Not necesarely solve the problem.
    Pinky Denmark
    The Cursed Navy
    #394 - 2013-03-27 14:07:54 UTC
    This is a huge buff to tacklers and armor ships which will be good for the metagaming in Eve.
    2manno Asp
    Death By Design
    #395 - 2013-03-27 14:08:49 UTC  |  Edited by: 2manno Asp
    Grath Telkin wrote:
    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.


    then you're making my point. unless you can explain how moving a ranged ship closer is a good idea?
    Sentient Blade
    Crisis Atmosphere
    Coalition of the Unfortunate
    #396 - 2013-03-27 14:12:55 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    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?


    The closer you push the ships together, the more it favours armour IMO. Close range implies a lesser need for manoeuvrability and more need for straight out EHP and Ewar, which armour ships excel at. Once you've been landed with a scram and web then you're just going to get pummelled if you're trying to skirmish, and these changes force skirmishes closer to the close-range ewar which will kill them.
    darkness reins
    Siberian Squad
    Siberian Squads
    #397 - 2013-03-27 14:13:23 UTC
    Can someone please show how this will affect kiting frig fits for the atron/slasher abd executioner
    War Kitten
    Panda McLegion
    #398 - 2013-03-27 14:13:40 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    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



    • Oh look, someone from CCP who plays the game. A LOT. As a kiter and solo/small gang pilot.

    Huh.

    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.
    Lelob
    Republic Military School
    Minmatar Republic
    #399 - 2013-03-27 14:14:50 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    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?


    Simply put, nobody is going to fly an armour harbinger or brutix in small gang situations unless they have a death-wish. What this change will do is force kiters closer in to hostile gangs and closer to their force multipliers: notably their huggins/lokis and lachs/proteus. It reduces small gang pvpers abilities to engage with larger hostile gangs, and will just force the kiters to run away instead of having a fun fight. Nobody in their right mind will suit up into armour though, simply because doing so means jumping into a slower, less agile ship that cannot kite and will simply be caught and utterly stomped on by any gang bigger then it.

    For ships where a range nerf like t3 bc's is desperately needed, it won't be the end of the world, given that the hulls are completely broken atm. For something like a hurricane, however, a 5-15% dps reduction unless they brawl is a pretty big deal. All I see this doing is making it harder for small gangs to engage larger gangs. It will not fix t3 bc's, it certainly won't make armour even marginally palpable for small gang, and will probably just force people into more and more t3 bc's for kiting.
    Bouh Revetoile
    In Wreck we thrust
    #400 - 2013-03-27 14:14:53 UTC
    2manno Asp wrote:
    then you're making the point. unless you can expalin how moving a ranged ship closer is a good idea again?

    Or the range ship will stay at the same distance than before and do a little less damage. But as 0 < some-but-a-little-less-than-before, you will still kill your target.

    The problem can only come with ships already at their max possible range (usually not minmatar ship, because of the way falloff work). The change can put these ships in the "out of range" range ; but if this is the case, they were probably using a too short range weapon anyway.

    IMO, this change will put some balance between short and long range weapons by making LR weapons more attractive at long short range.