These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Pelea Ming
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#621 - 2013-03-28 02:44:36 UTC
PAPULA wrote:
Zilero wrote:
I don't understand the need for this nerf, but what's really bugging me about it is that in most cases it seems to be a idiotic divide by 2 in terms of bonuses..

It's Mr. Fozzie being bored and his PL friends doing idiotic changes.
Fozzie nerfed missiles first, now everything else will be nerfed also.

Dude, get off the drugs, your paranoid enough without them, these hallucinations are pushing you over the top
Pelea Ming
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#622 - 2013-03-28 03:09:41 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 (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.

For what it's worth, I have a legion fit that can almost instalock pods w/out a resebo, so the nerf to it doesn't bother me, it'll still be just that much more effective if I have one on it either way :P
Pelea Ming
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#623 - 2013-03-28 03:20:40 UTC
Sparkus Volundar wrote:


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).

That would be on purpose, otherwise CCP Fozzie wouldn't have made the comment about minmatar in the OP.
nat longshot
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#624 - 2013-03-28 03:46:46 UTC
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.

Let's start with Remote Sensor Boosters. They give pretty extreme bonuses to scan res at the moment, similar to officer sensor boosters. This has contributed to the growth of instalock camps that are in our opinion are a bit too easy nowadays.
So we're gonna decrease the scan res bonuses so that they give a solid but more reasonable benefit over local boosters. We're leaving the lock range bonus of the T1 and T2 remote boosters the same since we don't see them as overpowered for that role, and actually buffing the lock range bonus from the meta remote boosters since they are currently all giving T1 meta 0 level bonuses for that stat right now.

Key stat for this change is that the best Remote Sensor Boosters will have their Scan Resolution bonus reduced from 40.5% to 33%.

Apologies for the terrible formatting (you can copypaste into a spreadsheet and it looks good)

typeName Old ScanRes Bonus New ScanRes Bonus Old LockRange Bonus New LockRange Bonus
Remote Sensor Booster I 33.8 28 33.8 33.8
Coadjunct Linked Sensor Array I 35.4 29 33.8 35
Linked Sensor Network 40.5 30 33.8 36
Connected Scanning CPU Uplink 37.1 31 33.8 37
F-23 Reciprocal Sensor Cluster Link 38.8 32 33.8 38
Remote Sensor Booster II 40.5 33 40.5 40.5
'Boss' Remote Sensor Booster I 40.5 33 33.8 39
'Entrepreneur' Remote Sensor Booster I 40.5 33 40.5 40.5


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%.

Name OldFalloff NewFalloff OldOptimal NewOptimal
Azimuth Descalloping Tracking Enhancer 11 7.4 5.5 3.7
Basic Tracking Enhancer 10 6.6 5 3.3
Beam Parallax Tracking Program 12 8 6 4
Beta-Nought Tracking Mode 10.5 7 5.25 3.5
F-AQ Delay-Line Scan Tracking Subroutines 11.5 7.6 5.75 3.8
Tracking Enhancer I 20 13.4 10 6.7
Sigma-Nought Tracking Mode I 21 14 10.5 7
Auto-Gain Control Tracking Enhancer I 22 14.6 11 7.3
F-aQ Phase Code Tracking Subroutines 23 15.4 11.5 7.7
Fourier Transform Tracking Program 24 16 12 8
Tracking Enhancer II 30 20 15 10
Domination Tracking Enhancer 30 20 15 10
Republic Fleet Tracking Enhancer 30 20 15 10
Mizuro's Modified Tracking Enhancer 31.5 21 15.75 10.5
Hakim's Modified Tracking Enhancer 33 22 16.5 11
Gotan's Modified Tracking Enhancer 34.5 23 17.25 11.5
Tobias' Modified Tracking Enhancer 36 24 18 12

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!



So you just killed the Mach. with changeing the TE's are you fing kidding me. I just got a Vaugar and i own a Mach and you are going to kill my gun range on both of my mission ships are you fing kidding me.

Btw CCP Fozzie min. auto cannons are a med. range weapons you #@$%$%^%$^&$ they dont come close to blasters and dont have range of rails if we want to hit something far out we fit Atry with take way to much powergrid and cpu and they have **** POOR TRACKING so why do you just put a gun to my fing head and pull the damn trigger.

I dislike CCP Falcon and now iam really not like you on the whole nerf TE and killing the one + side flying min had. ccp thinking = goon meat shield MORONS!!!

 [13:12:18] CCP Punkturis nat longshot you're a cutie.. OH YAH I WIN!!

Streya Jormagdnir
Alexylva Paradox
#625 - 2013-03-28 04:22:42 UTC
I would quote Michael but ISD has already cautioned against that. Needless to say, he is in fact correct. While I consider myself enamored with smallgang, I find myself flying solo the majority of the time. While I can respect the need to keep things in balanced for large-scale fleets, do keep in mind that some of us log in after a long day of work just to solo. While I will not suggest that TE changes will stop solo PvP entirely, I can assure you that "solo PvP" will equate to "use missiles and drones". Sadly, I find myself abandoning further turret training in favor of drone/missile/ TD training because I know those are aspects of combat CCP feels satisfied with and won't touch for some time. I am not going to stop solo PvPing, even if an utter lack of flexibility and diversity in what constitutes a solid ship-choice for solo besets the game. Just keep in mind that while a four-year player such as myself won't up and quit over this, newer players who select turret-heavy races at start and want to try turrets might get frustrated and leave when their chosen weapon system is relatively ineffective against both players and TD-using rats.

I am also a human, straggling between the present world... and our future. I am a regulator, a coordinator, one who is meant to guide the way.

Destination Unreachable: the worst Wspace blog ever

Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#626 - 2013-03-28 04:26:13 UTC
Alli Othman wrote:
2manno Asp wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
2manno Asp wrote:


in all sincerity, would you care to share some of those mails in your t1 point slicer, unboosted, where you're not blobbing people to death?

i'd be genuinely interested.


I don't use booster alts, sorry, its soft weakass game play that the young bucks in groups like Pizza can't play without.

https://www.pandemic-legion.com/killboard/view_kill.php?id=498675

Theres more, I haven't been flying them lately because slicers are fairly easy mode compared to flying some of the other frigates, especially when you actually roam pure solo.


well... 1 kill against an ab frig from 2009 is hardly going to make the case. in looking at your kb, i'm not finding any solo kills for like, years. or any in frigates at all for that matter.

no offense, but i think you're a bit out of touch.

You have downs mate?
That's from 2012, not 2009.


Don't tell him he's a ******, it'll hurt is feelings

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

Torei Dutalis
IceBox Inc.
Rogue Caldari Union
#627 - 2013-03-28 04:56:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Torei Dutalis
I won't lie, did not see this particular nerf coming. Will this break eve? No, probably not. Condors and Atrons will still dominate the novice FW plexes, and Vagas and Cynabals will still kite their hearts out. Sure, dps on many ships will be reduced. Total kills will likely fall, and some ships will surely be flown less (long range null fits). I've never really considered the TE to be overpowered, but 30% is a big number I suppose. Frankly I've always wondered why the TE only takes 15 CPU, but maybe I'm the only one. On the flip side, I don't think that this nerf is necessarily "needed". I'd much rather see balancing team time spent on bringing the rest of the ship hulls into line that still need tweaking. It's good to see navy cruisers are making it in to the summer expansion, but it would be nice to maybe see a pass over some other ships instead of spending time on nerfs that aren't going to really do much to the landscape aside from lowering the variation of fits on the field and likely reducing the volume of pvp overall. Anywho, just thought I'd throw my two cents onto the fire.
PAPULA
Some Assembly Required.
#628 - 2013-03-28 05:12:54 UTC  |  Edited by: PAPULA
Pelea Ming wrote:
PAPULA wrote:
Zilero wrote:
I don't understand the need for this nerf, but what's really bugging me about it is that in most cases it seems to be a idiotic divide by 2 in terms of bonuses..

It's Mr. Fozzie being bored and his PL friends doing idiotic changes.
Fozzie nerfed missiles first, now everything else will be nerfed also.

Dude, get off the drugs, your paranoid enough without them, these hallucinations are pushing you over the top

Oh Mr. wise man.
I am just telling the truth here.
Everyone can see it.
Sigras
Conglomo
#629 - 2013-03-28 06:13:48 UTC
nat longshot wrote:
So you just killed the Mach. with changeing the TE's are you fing kidding me. I just got a Vaugar and i own a Mach and you are going to kill my gun range on both of my mission ships are you fing kidding me.

WHAT?! you mean CCP doesnt want there to be two mission ships that are head and shoulders above the rest?!

WOW

its almost like theyre trying to balance the ships so they all have downsidesRollRollRoll

nat longshot wrote:
I dislike CCP Falcon and now iam really not like you on the whole nerf TE and killing the one + side flying min had. ccp thinking = goon meat shield MORONS!!!

LOL the one plus side the minmatar had? LOLOLOL

you mean other than

  1. Able to switch damage types
  2. Capless weapons
  3. Speed Advantage
  4. Extra Low Slots (for damage mods / TEs)

Please come back when you know what youre talking about . . .
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#630 - 2013-03-28 06:13:59 UTC
nat longshot wrote:
I dislike CCP Falcon and now iam really not like you on the whole nerf TE and killing the one + side flying min had. ccp thinking = goon meat shield MORONS!!!


Because having the only turrets that don't use capacitor and can deal damage of any type isn't a plus side

e;fb

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Volstruis
Mise en Abyme
#631 - 2013-03-28 06:37:10 UTC
I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes)

Quote:


We have not forgotten solo pilots, even though this ship class does make things somewhat harder for them.


Quote:
I am aware that any expansion of logistics capability in eve makes things harder for solo players, and we are endeavoring to make sure that these frigates add options to combat instead of taking them away.


Quote:
Improving solo options without either killing fun aspects of group play or making solo too easymode is definitely a goal of ours, but the solution there isn't to keep the learning cliff facing support pilots.


Quote:
I understand how much solo players rely on killing key enemy ships fast and how anything that helps gangs keep their ships alive is going to make solo harder.
In the end I believe that the stats on these ships will make them managable for solo and small gangs to face.



Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok"[/quote]
Sigras
Conglomo
#632 - 2013-03-28 06:49:53 UTC
Torei Dutalis wrote:
I won't lie, did not see this particular nerf coming. Will this break eve? No, probably not. Condors and Atrons will still dominate the novice FW plexes, and Vagas and Cynabals will still kite their hearts out. Sure, dps on many ships will be reduced. Total kills will likely fall, and some ships will surely be flown less (long range null fits). I've never really considered the TE to be overpowered, but 30% is a big number I suppose. Frankly I've always wondered why the TE only takes 15 CPU, but maybe I'm the only one. On the flip side, I don't think that this nerf is necessarily "needed". I'd much rather see balancing team time spent on bringing the rest of the ship hulls into line that still need tweaking. It's good to see navy cruisers are making it in to the summer expansion, but it would be nice to maybe see a pass over some other ships instead of spending time on nerfs that aren't going to really do much to the landscape aside from lowering the variation of fits on the field and likely reducing the volume of pvp overall. Anywho, just thought I'd throw my two cents onto the fire.

Im responding to the part I underlined.

Yes, this will reduce the power and possibly the number of shield tanking fits, but you forget to take into account the number of armor ships this helps make viable.

This is a sizeable buff for ships that cannot spare the low slots to fit 3x damage mods AND 3x TEs
Sigras
Conglomo
#633 - 2013-03-28 06:51:36 UTC
Volstruis wrote:
I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes)

Quote:
We have not forgotten solo pilots, even though this ship class does make things somewhat harder for them.


Quote:
I am aware that any expansion of logistics capability in eve makes things harder for solo players, and we are endeavoring to make sure that these frigates add options to combat instead of taking them away.


Quote:
Improving solo options without either killing fun aspects of group play or making solo too easymode is definitely a goal of ours, but the solution there isn't to keep the learning cliff facing support pilots.


Quote:
I understand how much solo players rely on killing key enemy ships fast and how anything that helps gangs keep their ships alive is going to make solo harder.
In the end I believe that the stats on these ships will make them managable for solo and small gangs to face.



Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok"{/quote}

Thats because w/o AOE there is basically no way to do anything that effects the game that doesnt also help blobs.
Captain Africa
GRIM MARCH
#634 - 2013-03-28 06:53:35 UTC
CCP Fozzie I appreciate your work , but this is really becoming ridiculous. I view ship fitting as a fine art and spend a lot of time and money in maximizing every ounce of each ship and implants to enhance it.

Every damn time you change **** ,it costs me a fortune to adapt. I’m using t2 rigs on most of my setups . I don’t mind you changing ships , but then make RIGS changeable without losing them.

Btw I'm not talking one or two ships here I am talking huge losses .... Its so easy to just aaaahm lets change this lets change that ....get your **** together or give me my money back !
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#635 - 2013-03-28 07:12:11 UTC
Captain Africa wrote:
CCP Fozzie I appreciate your work , but this is really becoming ridiculous. I view ship fitting as a fine art and spend a lot of time and money in maximizing every ounce of each ship and implants to enhance it.

Every damn time you change **** ,it costs me a fortune to adapt. I’m using t2 rigs on most of my setups . I don’t mind you changing ships , but then make RIGS changeable without losing them.

Btw I'm not talking one or two ships here I am talking huge losses .... Its so easy to just aaaahm lets change this lets change that ....get your **** together or give me my money back !


Man I hope they compensate you the same way they compensated titan and supercarrier pilots after Crucible

oh wait

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Bobbechk
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#636 - 2013-03-28 07:12:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Bobbechk
BobFromMarketing
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#637 - 2013-03-28 07:14:25 UTC
Captain Africa wrote:
CCP Fozzie I appreciate your work , but this is really becoming ridiculous. I view ship fitting as a fine art and spend a lot of time and money in maximizing every ounce of each ship and implants to enhance it.

Every damn time you change **** ,it costs me a fortune to adapt. I’m using t2 rigs on most of my setups . I don’t mind you changing ships , but then make RIGS changeable without losing them.

Btw I'm not talking one or two ships here I am talking huge losses .... Its so easy to just aaaahm lets change this lets change that ....get your **** together or give me my money back !

So you're literally the guy who shows up to fleets in special snowflake setups instead of the actual fleet doctrine because "yours is better"

Well now yours is nerfed lolololol.
Torei Dutalis
IceBox Inc.
Rogue Caldari Union
#638 - 2013-03-28 08:02:41 UTC
Sigras wrote:


Yes, this will reduce the power and possibly the number of shield tanking fits, but you forget to take into account the number of armor ships this helps make viable.

This is a sizeable buff for ships that cannot spare the low slots to fit 3x damage mods AND 3x TEs



Is it really helping just armor ships or ships with smaller engagement ranges? Moas, shield raxes, and a plethora of other shield blaster ships benefit from an environment of smaller engagement ranges. This isn't so much a nerf that "helps armor ships" it just reduces damage projection. Therefore all ships with lower range (and thus a lower propensity to fit TEs) will benefit. This is of course assuming that said armor fit can catch said shield ship that now has less dps. The crux of the arguement that this nerf boosts armor seems to imply that shield ships will be coming into closer engagement ranges or that people will fly more armor ships, neither of which seems to be extremely likely in my opinion. People may force fits that are now borderline viable for kiting, but those fits will eventually die out. Additionally, nerfing the TE to the proposed levels has virtually no effect (read: can still engage at max disruptor range)on kitey Omens and the like as they are optimal users (yes there are like 2 ships who fit like this I know). Essentially this is mostly a nerf to mid-range TE users, as ships with extreme falloff such as Cynabals will still be able to kite with ease. Overall I think the argument has little to do with the shield versus armor dynamic.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#639 - 2013-03-28 08:32:42 UTC
Torei Dutalis wrote:
The crux of the arguement that this nerf boosts armor seems to imply that shield ships will be coming into closer engagement ranges or that people will fly more armor ships, neither of which seems to be extremely likely in my opinion. People may force fits that are now borderline viable for kiting, but those fits will eventually die out. Additionally, nerfing the TE to the proposed levels has virtually no effect (read: can still engage at max disruptor range)on kitey Omens and the like as they are optimal users (yes there are like 2 ships who fit like this I know).


A good argument that the TE nerf doesn't go far enough.
Swifty Blowback
Doomheim
#640 - 2013-03-28 08:47:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Swifty Blowback
Michael Harari wrote:
I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes)
...
Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok"


Yep. The TE nerf is possibly the harshest for solo / small gang PVP in a long time. Viable kiting platforms are being slowly reduced. CCP wants players to be social and play in large corps / blobs because their data says they get more monies when players do that. See last CSM summit write-up for details + see trial account spike after massive blob brawls are publicized. The future of solo PVP has never looked so grim.