These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#421 - 2013-03-27 14:52:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
Pinky Denmark wrote:
This is a huge buff to tacklers and armor ships which will be good for the metagaming in Eve.

its more a buff to missile boats than anything else. There are less and less reasons to fly ships like slicers if you can do almost the same in condors with a tenth of the isk investment. Sure the nerf "only" removes 800m optimal and 350m falloff from the slicer, but the ship already had a very popular direct counter: TD

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#422 - 2013-03-27 14:55:05 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
I understand the allure of hyperbole related to the death of the small gang versus the blob - but this change should definitely be considered in the context of a game where a gang with some standard cruisers and BCs with a couple skirmish links can engage at almost any ratio of friend to foe.

Its fun to engage outnumbered (I've heard), but expecting a few extremely strong mods to do a large portion of the work for you seems a bit over the top.

It also seems important to me that since speed isn't actually being effected here, fast moving skirmish engagements will likely look very similar except that during critical moments there will be a slightly higher tendency to commit. This could mean more vulnerability for the awesome small gang of nano pilots, or it could also mean that your prey now has to venture closer to actually apply dps.

I like writing posts but I'm not sure its doing any good Ugh


You're going to nerf those links, right?
Tsubutai
Perkone
Caldari State
#423 - 2013-03-27 14:56:19 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
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]

(fit snipped)

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're right that by itself, this change isn't huge - it slightly reduces the effectiveness of all kitey shield tanking turret ships. The problem is that the general usefulness and power of those ships ranges hugely, from utterly non-existent (such as that stabber - a cruiser with less dps at its working range than you get out of a well-fit t1 frigate) to extremely high (talos, cynabal, machariel). I think a lot of people would happily agree that ships in the latter category could stand to be toned down a little, but many of the ships affected by the nerf are just mediocre and somewhat underwhelming like shield canes, OK but unspectacular like arty ruptures, or straight up bad (hi stabber). I can certainly get behind a reduction to the power of kiting tier 3s and the like - if anything, they probably need more adjustment - but I don't see why it's necessary to whack a whole bunch of lesser ships at the same time.
    Krell Kroenen
    The Devil's Shadow
    #424 - 2013-03-27 14:59:14 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:

    Not drakes right because they just got a big change as well...


    Just going to point out that in my opinion the drake changes weren't really big changes and it will still retain it's BC crown unless there is another rebalancing pass in the works for it. As for the the changes being discussed in this thread, I am rather sure that this will decrease the use and popularity of some kitting ships. But I don't believe by much, there are many people that favor that style of play and are very proficient at it. CCP has the numbers on ships used and how popular and successful they are so I guess they don't like what they are seeing and want to change it some.

    On that note I hope the new fleet cane coming is more brawler/armor friendly *smirks*
    Kagura Nikon
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #425 - 2013-03-27 15:00:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Kagura Nikon
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Quote:
    I hope I was able to transmit my toughts and that they can be helpful.


    I really like the idea of looking at the meta rather than only picking at some flat idea of balance based purely on numerical comparison.

    However, I think Eve's meta (or specific eve combat environment metas) is extremely complex, and it many cases is the result of a sum of many small, number based powerlevels. For instance I imagine that there's some threshold related to damage projection that makes kiting the preferred method of balancing damage output and survivability. If we can push the player decisions back towards the threshold instead of leaving everything way past it, we hopefully create more meaningful decisions for players to make. Sometimes a small numerical tweak like this might be the easiest path to creating more of those decisions.

    Make any sense?



    It can make sense, when its brought together with the analysis of the metagame. Sometimes that changes will be enough because you can identify that threshold you speak of. Sometimes things cannot be qualified (as my example of why buffered armor battleships were predominant in the AoE doomsday days).

    I will give you another example of why people try so hard to keep SO MUCH range nowadays. MWD overheat bonus is too huge. How that relates? When you are mid of a MWD cycle you cannot react fast enough to your target overheating its MWD if you are just 2-3 km outside their best range. What can you do? You need to increase your range buffer so that when the target overheat the MWD that doe snot mean that all your range control approach fall into pieces. Reduce the MWD overheat bonus and you reduce ONE (not all, only ONE) of the reasons why you need SO MUCH range to kite effectively nowadays (and I do not need to explain how the need of range favors massive usage of TE on falloff bonus ships and range bonuses ships )

    And that goes exactly alongside your lines of bringing the threshold closer! MWD overheat bonus is one example of issues that force the player to go WAY over on that threshold limit.

    "If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
    Jenn aSide
    Soul Machines
    The Initiative.
    #426 - 2013-03-27 15:01:38 UTC
    My only comment about the TE nerf is this. Before going ahead with the Mach nerf mentioned elsewhere, anayluse mach performance after this TF nerf.

    in other words, don't DOUBLE nerf the Mach and Cynabal into uselessness as had be done with other ships.
    sabre906
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #427 - 2013-03-27 15:03:11 UTC  |  Edited by: sabre906
    It was never about the range, or Caldari would've been top of the hill for the past few years.

    It was always about the speed - kite something forever until it dies, if not, gtfo. What took over since the nano nerf? Oh yeah, the next fastest thing.Roll

    TE nerf hits all turret boats, especially the blasterboats that don't need a nerf.

    Minmatar falloff should be increased, and their speed decreased to below shorter range boats, so you get to do a mental calculation: Can I whittle away enough of this thing's hp before it catches up to win the dps race?
    Kagura Nikon
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #428 - 2013-03-27 15:07:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Kagura Nikon
    sabre906 wrote:
    It was never about the range, or Caldari would've been top of the hill for the past few years.

    It was always about the speed - kite something forever until it dies, if not, gtfo. What took over since the nano nerf? Oh yeah, the next fastest thing.Roll

    TE nerf hits all turret boats, especially the blasterboats that don't need a nerf.

    Minmatar falloff should be increased, and their speed decreased to below shorter range boats, so you get to do a mental calculation: Can I whittle away enough of this thing's hp before it catches up to win the dps race?



    Speed does not kill anyone without range. And caldari have been the king on larger scale warfare for quite some time. That is why heavy Missiles were nerfed.


    Minmatar concept is speed. They have less EHP, capacitor, sensors etc. They cannot defeat other races on direct confrontation, you cannot expect them to do anything but kite.

    I repeat MINMATAR CONCEPT IS SPEED. gallente Concept is firepower. Caldari concept is range and Ammarr concept is endurance. DO not try to make races equal...

    "If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
    Grath Telkin
    Amok.
    Goonswarm Federation
    #429 - 2013-03-27 15:09:15 UTC
    sabre906 wrote:


    Minmatar falloff should be increased, and their speed decreased to below shorter range boats, so you get to do a mental calculation: Can I whittle away enough of this thing's hp before it catches up to win the dps race?


    This is a terrible idea and you should be ashamed.

    Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
    Kaal Redrum
    The Tuskers
    The Tuskers Co.
    #430 - 2013-03-27 15:10:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaal Redrum
    Tsubutai wrote:
    CCP Rise wrote:
    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]

    (fit snipped)

    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're right that by itself, this change isn't huge - it slightly reduces the effectiveness of all kitey shield tanking turret ships. The problem is that the general usefulness and power of those ships ranges hugely, from utterly non-existent (such as that stabber - a cruiser with less dps at its working range than you get out of a well-fit t1 frigate) to extremely high (talos, cynabal, machariel). I think a lot of people would happily agree that ships in the latter category could stand to be toned down a little, but many of the ships affected by the nerf are just mediocre and somewhat underwhelming like shield canes, OK but unspectacular like arty ruptures, or straight up bad (hi stabber). I can certainly get behind a reduction to the power of kiting tier 3s and the like - if anything, they probably need more adjustment - but I don't see why it's necessary to whack a whole bunch of lesser ships at the same time.


    No no no - you don't get it, it's a very very very small adjustment that us plebs will hardly notice - its been said so 'honestly' by Mr. Panda leg , so it MUST be true, especially since all his acolytes are also repeating the same 'brilliant' math - its not about a ~15% nerf to applied dps of already sub-standard ships, noooooo it's about a very very very small adjustment in your range. PL says so, you're wrong, he's right ... Okie ?

    See Mach and Cynabal - so stronk - nerf TEs!

    *Sarcasm off*
    monkfish2345
    School of Applied Knowledge
    Caldari State
    #431 - 2013-03-27 15:10:35 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Quote:
    I hope I was able to transmit my toughts and that they can be helpful.


    I really like the idea of looking at the meta rather than only picking at some flat idea of balance based purely on numerical comparison.

    However, I think Eve's meta (or specific eve combat environment metas) is extremely complex, and it many cases is the result of a sum of many small, number based powerlevels. For instance I imagine that there's some threshold related to damage projection that makes kiting the preferred method of balancing damage output and survivability. If we can push the player decisions back towards the threshold instead of leaving everything way past it, we hopefully create more meaningful decisions for players to make. Sometimes a small numerical tweak like this might be the easiest path to creating more of those decisions.

    Make any sense?


    Couldn't agree more, it is so important the players have to make decisions and compromises within EVE. as soon as you fall into the situation where something is a must have or a cookie cutter fit, the amount of skill and experience a player can add is last. not to mention the mistakes that can be made.

    the people that bemoan changes like these are the ones not willing to think and innovate. they just want to fly around in whatever the fotm ship is knowing that they have the best of all worlds.

    EVE is hard, let's keep pushing to make sure it stays that way.
    seth Hendar
    I love you miners
    #432 - 2013-03-27 15:10:51 UTC  |  Edited by: seth Hendar
    well done, after nerfing the cane, making the cyclone useless, now you just kill the whole matar race viability

    it will be soooo coool to run sanshas sites in projectile fit, or to pvp with them or to...oh wait, nevemind, projectile are useless anyway....


    a plan to refound all the matar / projectile SP now?

    matar capitals suck, but they had great subcaps, but now, well, they suck everywhere.

    good job!
    Rroff
    Antagonistic Tendencies
    #433 - 2013-03-27 15:14:12 UTC
    Tsubutai wrote:

    You're right that by itself, this change isn't huge - it slightly reduces the effectiveness of all kitey shield tanking turret ships. The problem is that the general usefulness and power of those ships ranges hugely, from utterly non-existent (such as that stabber - a cruiser with less dps at its working range than you get out of a well-fit t1 frigate) to extremely high (talos, cynabal, machariel). I think a lot of people would happily agree that ships in the latter category could stand to be toned down a little, but many of the ships affected by the nerf are just mediocre and somewhat underwhelming like shield canes, OK but unspectacular like arty ruptures, or straight up bad (hi stabber). I can certainly get behind a reduction to the power of kiting tier 3s and the like - if anything, they probably need more adjustment - but I don't see why it's necessary to whack a whole bunch of lesser ships at the same time.



    This is the problem for every ship that actually warrants the change theres another ship/doctrine/fitting thats going to be hit hard by it - I'm not sure what the solution is without ugly special casing it but indiscrimnatly knocking a significant chunk off TEs IMO is somewhat heavy handed.
    amurder Hakomairos
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #434 - 2013-03-27 15:17:30 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:


    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



    • If this change is so "small" and "minor" then why is it even necessary in the first place? Just quit with the damn nerfing of everything already. All ships and modules shouldn't be completely balanced, the game is very boring that way.
    War Kitten
    Panda McLegion
    #435 - 2013-03-27 15:18:08 UTC
    Kaal Redrum wrote:

    No no no - you don't get it, it's a very very very small adjustment that us plebs will hardly notice - its been said so 'honestly' by Mr. Panda leg , so it MUST be true, especially since all his acolytes are also repeating the same 'brilliant' math - its not about a ~15% nerf to applied dps of already sub-standard ships, noooooo it's about a very very very small adjustment in your range. PL says so, you're wrong, he's right ... Okie ?

    See Mach and Cynabal - so stronk - nerf TEs!

    *Sarcasm off*


    Already sub-standard? Winmatar?

    Right.

    Why do you fly them then, for the challenge?

    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.
    Templar Dane
    Amarrian Vengeance
    Ragequit Cancel Sub
    #436 - 2013-03-27 15:19:14 UTC
    Sigras wrote:
    I was just thinking of writing a treatise on why low slots are more valuable than mid slots in a PvP ship.

    Many people get this backwards because there are two modules that are basically required in PvP that are mid slot items(prop mod and point), while there are basically no "required" low slot items, but I say that low slots are more valuable because every other mid slot module provides only slight bonuses in combat while you can add 6-8 low slot modules which all really effect how well the ship performs.

    This is evidenced in most popular fits, and is probably most clear in the battlecruiser lineup. The hurricane is most commonly a shield tanking ship, despite its 7/4/6 slot configuration, This is because it uses all of its low slots for non tank applications and still gets to fit the 2 "required" mid slots. Nobody in their right mind would armor tank a ship with a 7/6/4 slot configuration unless they had bonused mid slots or a special role like the falcon, and even if you could fit a good tank with four slots, what would you put in the 4 free mids? a cap booster is probably the third most useful mid, and then what? two random jammers? maybe a web if you need to/can get that close?

    even the Brutix and the Hyperion, both of which have armor tanking bonuses, commonly field a shield tank + damage mods.
    I even have a dominix shield fit because it does insanity damage, but nobody would ever think of armor tanking a Maelstrom.

    This is a problem for small gang PvPers, but scales up even worse. In large fleets, you have dedicated tackle and dedicated e-war reducing the need for tackle mods in your general fleet.

    TL;DR
    lows are more valuable than mids because there are more combat effecting low slot modules; the TE nerf changes that.


    Try brawling with 2-3 mids and with guns that use cap.

    Also...

    Dual prop
    Web
    Tracking Disruptor
    ECCM(twice as powerful as a lowslot)
    ASBs
    Injector

    The classic holy trinity of midslots for brawling pvp is mwd + injector + point + web. Practically any ship with less than the 4 mids would be improved by the addition of an additional midslot up until it gets 4. 5 would still be pretty useful for the eccm/ab/td/additional webs.

    I counter that lowslots are underpowered.

    Example:

    Would you rather have a ship with zero mids and 30 lowslots, or a ship with zero lowslots and 25 mids?
    Zilero
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #437 - 2013-03-27 15:19:53 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    I understand the allure of hyperbole related to the death of the small gang versus the blob - but this change should definitely be considered in the context of a game where a gang with some standard cruisers and BCs with a couple skirmish links can engage at almost any ratio of friend to foe.

    Its fun to engage outnumbered (I've heard), but expecting a few extremely strong mods to do a large portion of the work for you seems a bit over the top.

    It also seems important to me that since speed isn't actually being effected here, fast moving skirmish engagements will likely look very similar except that during critical moments there will be a slightly higher tendency to commit. This could mean more vulnerability for the awesome small gang of nano pilots, or it could also mean that your prey now has to venture closer to actually apply dps.

    I like writing posts but I'm not sure its doing any good Ugh


    Don't nerf off grid links then.
    MainDrain
    Applied Anarchy
    The Initiative.
    #438 - 2013-03-27 15:20:24 UTC
    amurder Hakomairos wrote:
    CCP Rise wrote:


    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



    • If this change is so "small" and "minor" then why is it even necessary in the first place? Just quit with the damn nerfing of everything already. All ships and modules shouldn't be completely balanced, the game is very boring that way.


    Ever module shouldn't be balanced, but neither should one module make such a massive difference that it becomes the defacto option for a low slot.

    It's a minor change because it only majorly impacts a few different playstyles rather than the entire game.
    Deerin
    East Trading Co Ltd
    #439 - 2013-03-27 15:21:02 UTC
    Ouch!!

    I guess this is it for long range kiting using short range guns....time to check the options on table again. Probably moving on to bellicose or trying some arty fits.

    Was good while it lasted. On to next meta.

    Speaking of arties, can you buff their rof and tracking a bit please. As they are now, they are kinda useless if your ship does not have double damage bonus. All our t1 frigs are single damage bonused. Only double bonused ship is rupture, which has one less turret and could use some help after the recent patch.
    TrouserDeagle
    Beyond Divinity Inc
    Shadow Cartel
    #440 - 2013-03-27 15:22:14 UTC
    Kaal Redrum wrote:
    Tsubutai wrote:
    CCP Rise wrote:
    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]

    (fit snipped)

    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're right that by itself, this change isn't huge - it slightly reduces the effectiveness of all kitey shield tanking turret ships. The problem is that the general usefulness and power of those ships ranges hugely, from utterly non-existent (such as that stabber - a cruiser with less dps at its working range than you get out of a well-fit t1 frigate) to extremely high (talos, cynabal, machariel). I think a lot of people would happily agree that ships in the latter category could stand to be toned down a little, but many of the ships affected by the nerf are just mediocre and somewhat underwhelming like shield canes, OK but unspectacular like arty ruptures, or straight up bad (hi stabber). I can certainly get behind a reduction to the power of kiting tier 3s and the like - if anything, they probably need more adjustment - but I don't see why it's necessary to whack a whole bunch of lesser ships at the same time.


    No no no - you don't get it, it's a very very very small adjustment that us plebs will hardly notice - its been said so 'honestly' by Mr. Panda leg , so it MUST be true, especially since all his acolytes are also repeating the same 'brilliant' math - its not about a ~15% nerf to applied dps of already sub-standard ships, noooooo it's about a very very very small adjustment in your range. PL says so, you're wrong, he's right ... Okie ?

    See Mach and Cynabal - so stronk - nerf TEs!

    *Sarcasm off*


    Stabbers are awful either way, and making AC shield canes slightly worse is fine by me - 720s fit just fine and are better.
    Stabber needs a new bonus and a load more powergrid so it can do armour, not better AC kiting ability, imo. AC kiting is dumb.