These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#781 - 2013-03-29 18:51:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Pelea Ming
Sorana Bonzari wrote:
All this "re-balance" is doing it making it easier for blob PVP. Don't over complicate this topic. Put simply CCP is siding with the masses and rationalizing that it should be even harder for a smaller fleet using tactics and paying attention to the game, to beat a larger fleet using the "approach MWD fire" key while eating a cookie. Tailoring games to the retards is why MMO's start to fall of the deep end.


BTW to the above post ^^^^ I dont want tracking I want damage projection L2 read what we are bitching about?

SFI needs range
Vaga needs range
exc......

A nerf to these ships rage puts me nearly at web range. So whats the point of flying them unless i have numbers + long rage ammo to do the same thing. again tailored to more blob warfare yay because that's what eve needs. -_-

well, per that 'above' post of Goldiiee's, they ARE balancing out these TE nerfs by giving a variety of hulls a range boost, so your kiting issues won't 'die' and as Fozzie has stated, the tracking speed buff of the TE is remaining unchanged, so you don't need to see more tracking as your not losing any.

-edited to add link to relevant post-
Sorana Bonzari
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#782 - 2013-03-29 18:53:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Sorana Bonzari
Hakan MacTrew wrote:
Sean Parisi wrote:
Won't the tracking enhancer changes pretty much screw over the navy slicer? Haven't done the math on it, so maybe the change is minor for it. But just thought I'd mention it.

COMPARISON: T2 and T1 TE's
(After rebalance, a T2 TE will be the same as current T1)

Quote:
All V's Slicer with 1 x T2 TE / Small Focused Pulse Laser II's / Scorch S
19.4km Optimal + 3.3km Falloff

All V's Slicer with 1 x T1 TE / Small Focused Pulse Laser II's / Scorch S
18.6km Optimal + 3.0km Falloff


Overall lose: 0.8km Optiamal + 0.3km Falloff
Not what I would call a drastic change.


Quote:
All V's Dramiel with 1 x T2 TE / 200mm AC II's / Barrage S
1.7km Optimal + 17.6km Falloff

All V's Dramiel with 1 x T1 TE / 200mm AC II's / Barrage S
1.7km Optimal + 16.2km Falloff


Overall lose: 0.0km Optiamal + 1.4km Falloff
Again, not the end of the world.


I'm not sure if you know it based on your KB (Just an observation not an attack) but a few Km Difference when the buffer between you and death in 5k is a Big deal.

Take this

http://choke.eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=16793591 (Use Copy&Paste for this to work)

for example 1-5k less I would of never got kills and would be webbed to kindomcome and dead.

I try to get fights like this all the time and this is how tactics > massive blob



Edit to respond to above:

Again I can care less about tracking I care for damage projection and yes overall damage projection will decrease.

Just in case you don't know:
Damage projection = Damage that can be effectively applied at range. For medium size ships like vagas - SFI exct.... this is a big deal and no the damage projection is not fixed due to hull changes.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#783 - 2013-03-29 18:56:01 UTC
Turgon Barash wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:
Pelea Ming wrote:
Thank you , for being one of those RARE few to actually do some research before bitching (also, if any of those threads are from the last month, could you send me a mail with the links?)

Sadly I have lots of time on my hands to read, but never thought to save any of the things I read. But for the rest of the guys perusing this thread here are just a few examples the can be found in a few seconds within the sticky’s right here.

RIFTER:
Frigate skill bonuses: +5% to small projectile turret damage and +7.5% to small projectile turret tracking per level

TRISTAN:
Gallente Frigate bonuses: +7.5% to small hybrid turret tracking and +10% to drone tracking and hitpoints per level

IMPERIAL NAVY SLICER:
Frigate skill bonuses: +25% to small energy turret damage and +10% to small energy turret optimal range per level

FEDERATION NAVY COMET:
Gallente Frigate bonuses: +7.5% to small hybrid turret tracking and +20% to small hybrid turret damage per level

REPUBLIC FLEET FIRETAIL:
Frigate skill bonuses: +25% (+5%) to small projectile turret damage and +7.5% to small projectile turret tracking per level

Stabber:
Minmatar Cruiser bonuses: -5% medium projectile turret rate of fire and +10% (+2.5) medium projectile turret falloff per level

Omen Navy Issue:
10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage
10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret optimal range

Stabber Fleet Issue:
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret firing speed
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed

And sure Pela Ming, I will spend a little time later today and see if I can find some of the old posts and forward them to you.




Did you even read OP its not about tracking that stays the same its about optimal and falloff that we are talking about....great research lol

Sorana Bonzari is right if this change hits there will be bunch of ships in need of major redoing of their bonuses or they will be utter crap...worth it???

but that IS the point, the hulls that would be hurt the most by this nerf of TEs are already or will be adjusted to balance out the lost ranges, and those that need the nerf the most won't be receiving such changes.
Sorana Bonzari
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#784 - 2013-03-29 19:01:53 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:

but that IS the point, the hulls that would be hurt the most by this nerf of TEs are already or will be adjusted to balance out the lost ranges, and those that need the nerf the most won't be receiving such changes.



Wrong damage projection for medium size ships will decrease. Please refer to above post for the definition of damage projection.

SFI
Vaga
Cynable
Vigelnt
Exc,,,,,
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#785 - 2013-03-29 19:09:30 UTC
Sorana Bonzari wrote:
Pelea Ming wrote:

but that IS the point, the hulls that would be hurt the most by this nerf of TEs are already or will be adjusted to balance out the lost ranges, and those that need the nerf the most won't be receiving such changes.



Wrong damage projection for medium size ships will decrease. Please refer to above post for the definition of damage projection.

SFI
Vaga
Cynable
Vigelnt
Exc,,,,,

Yes, I read the proposed changes to the Navy Cruisers, and I don't like that the current low tank/high damage ships are all being nerfed on damage pretty severely, but something that specific I left to that specific thread. You have an issue like that over a specific ship class, put it on that thread, this thread is for the mod nerfs, and bringing up specific ship gripes in regards to that is actually rather bad form for an attempt to argue against it.
Sorana Bonzari
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#786 - 2013-03-29 19:16:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Sorana Bonzari
Pelea Ming wrote:

Yes, I read the proposed changes to the Navy Cruisers, and I don't like that the current low tank/high damage ships are all being nerfed on damage pretty severely, but something that specific I left to that specific thread. You have an issue like that over a specific ship class, put it on that thread, this thread is for the mod nerfs, and bringing up specific ship gripes in regards to that is actually rather bad form for an attempt to argue against it.



Fair point but counter point the TE nerf effects everything but the one ship they already fixed for damage projection. This TE debuff is focused because of the T3 BC grievance so I believe it is relevant to this mod. Again why not put a debuff on what the devs consider to be OP and not debuff everything and rebuff everything but what you originally wanted to debuff? Then we can talk about specific ships.


Edit:
For nano PVP tank is almost irrelevant. its about damage projection and speed. The former is being cut and makes a difference.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#787 - 2013-03-29 19:19:56 UTC
Sorana Bonzari wrote:
Pelea Ming wrote:

Yes, I read the proposed changes to the Navy Cruisers, and I don't like that the current low tank/high damage ships are all being nerfed on damage pretty severely, but something that specific I left to that specific thread. You have an issue like that over a specific ship class, put it on that thread, this thread is for the mod nerfs, and bringing up specific ship gripes in regards to that is actually rather bad form for an attempt to argue against it.



Fair point but counter point the TE nerf effects everything but the one ship they already fixed for damage projection. This TE debuff is focused because of the T3 BC grievance so I believe it is relevant to this mod.

but from what I'm seeing, both in this thread, and the one relating to the Navy cruisers, and the little bit I gleaned from Goldiiee's post providing me with some info on the upcoming Navy frig changes, it will be balanced in the long run, we just need to be patient. Also, the changes to the TEs aren't going through until Odessy, which is when they are doing these other changes, so it will all get put through at the same time, essentially meaning that they will all be balanced out at the same time.
Hakan MacTrew
Konrakas Forged
Solyaris Chtonium
#788 - 2013-03-29 19:24:27 UTC
Sorana Bonzari wrote:
I'm not sure if you know it based on your KB (Just an observation not an attack) but a few Km Difference when the buffer between you and death in 5k is a Big deal.

Take this

http://choke.eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=16793591 (Use Copy&Paste for this to work)

for example 1-5k less I would of never got kills and would be webbed to kindomcome and dead.

I try to get fights like this all the time and this is how tactics > massive blob

I would hope that it does not take a genius to work out that this character does not take part in PvP. But, much like the vast majority of the player base, I do have other accounts. I do PvP and the I'm about 50/50 for solo kills vs group kills. I'm also about 55/45 for kills/deaths. I am no "1337 PvP'a".
I prefer brawling, though I have tried kiting. It is an art form I admire. I just prefer the more visceral brawler approach.

I am also acutley aware, from both sides of the coin, just how important that extra bit of range can be.

Sorana Bonzari wrote:
Edit to respond to above:

Again I can care less about tracking I care for damage projection and yes overall damage projection will decrease.

Just in case you don't know:
Damage projection = Damage that can be effectively applied at range. For medium size ships like vagas - SFI exct.... this is a big deal and no the damage projection is not fixed due to hull changes.

Projection will decrease, your right. No one is arguing that. It will also decrease marginally less than your range, which overall, with 1 TE, is by approximately 7.5%.

Friends
Sorana Bonzari
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#789 - 2013-03-29 19:28:16 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
[quote=Sorana Bonzari]
but from what I'm seeing, both in this thread, and the one relating to the Navy cruisers, and the little bit I gleaned from Goldiiee's post providing me with some info on the upcoming Navy frig changes, it will be balanced in the long run, we just need to be patient. Also, the changes to the TEs aren't going through until Odessy, which is when they are doing these other changes, so it will all get put through at the same time, essentially meaning that they will all be balanced out at the same time.


And that's exactly why every once in awhile people like me come out of the woodwork and post on the forms to get their voice heard so when that final rebalanced happens and is rolled out that small fleet PVP'er like myself don't get left behind. Ive loved lot of the other changes don't get me wrong but small fleet PVP needs to be heard as just as big of an issue as big fleet pvp where IMHO balancing doesn't even matter. After 100 people are on the field individuals are so diluted +- a little of this and that don't matter.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#790 - 2013-03-29 19:30:33 UTC
Sorana Bonzari wrote:
Pelea Ming wrote:
[quote=Sorana Bonzari]
but from what I'm seeing, both in this thread, and the one relating to the Navy cruisers, and the little bit I gleaned from Goldiiee's post providing me with some info on the upcoming Navy frig changes, it will be balanced in the long run, we just need to be patient. Also, the changes to the TEs aren't going through until Odessy, which is when they are doing these other changes, so it will all get put through at the same time, essentially meaning that they will all be balanced out at the same time.


And that's exactly why every once in awhile people like me come out of the woodwork and post on the forms to get their voice heard so when that final rebalanced happens and is rolled out that small fleet PVP'er like myself don't get left behind. Ive loved lot of the other changes don't get me wrong but small fleet PVP needs to be heard as just as big of an issue as big fleet pvp where IMHO balancing doesn't even matter. After 100 people are on the field individuals are so diluted +- a little of this and that don't matter.

Oh, I completely agree, when I do pvp I MUCH prefer small gangs. So I don't mind it when people break out and bring things like this up. if you like armor fleets, btw, I might have to get you in touch with a good mate of mine that runs a very tight organization specializing in small gang armor fleets :)
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#791 - 2013-03-29 20:45:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Johnson Oramara
In my opinion the nerf is already set in stone and this thread exists only for those that are against it to vent their anger.
The proposed nerf numbers were intentionally set high so they can lower the nerf later by some % to sooth the anger and they have accomplished their planned nerf goal.

I'm afraid same happened with missiles too.

Please let me believe this isn't so and our voices actually matter to you.
amurder Hakomairos
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#792 - 2013-03-29 21:46:27 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

These are broke, so we're fixing them.


Says who? You or people who play the game? Because I'm looking at a 40 page thread of your customers telling you this change is unnecessary.


Sorana Bonzari wrote:

Since the problem is T3's then nerf them don't blanket nerf all of the other ships. But that makes to much common sense so its not going to happen.


Agree 100%
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#793 - 2013-03-29 22:06:55 UTC
amurder Hakomairos wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

These are broke, so we're fixing them.


Says who? You or people who play the game? Because I'm looking at a 40 page thread of your customers telling you this change is unnecessary.


Sorana Bonzari wrote:

Since the problem is T3's then nerf them don't blanket nerf all of the other ships. But that makes to much common sense so its not going to happen.


Agree 100%

1) T3 nerfs have been scheduled, and
2) this is again trying to use a specific ship class to justify an argument against the proposed module change, very weak if not pretty much just invalid reasoning, please provide some reason relevant specific to the module, not whatever ship you feel it should/would affect the most.
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#794 - 2013-03-29 22:15:22 UTC
Attack battlecruisers is a recent development. The issues surrounding tracking enhancers has been a long one. That module alone moved Minmatar ships away from close range combat with Gallente. Leaving Gallente as the long close range race while the game was moving towards more dynamic engagements. Where damage projection is a very important part.

However, there was nano-skirmishing even before that change. Even if CCP removed the module we would just go back to using mainly tech 2 ships to skirmish properly instead of basically every ship as we have now.

The change p much just expanded skirmishing from a handfull of ships to most of them now.

By the way. CCP has also introduced force multipliers like ASB's and AAR's. Which are annoying things, but whatever. Also, CCP has never made changes based on solo players input. Tracking enhancers were boosted to help artillery in what was the meta in fleet warfare at the time. Apparently, lasers were just to good and Railguns and more importantly Minmatar needed the help.

I didnt agree but I was not into fleet warfare at the time and never really been in a fleet passed 10 dudes at the time. To me it just seemed like something done to help terribubble pilots (98% of the player) because they are bad v0v

In anycase. More challenges will make you a better pilot and this change is not that serious to even cry about. There have been worse in the near past.


- killz

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]
Torei Dutalis
IceBox Inc.
Rogue Caldari Union
#795 - 2013-03-29 22:25:45 UTC
I find the composition of responses to this change to be rather amusing. As expected a majority of posters seem opposed to the TE change, which is unsurprising as the module has become a staple of certain fitting types. The really interesting part though is the other portion of responses. The argument that "this nerf doesn't do anything so get over it" seems to be rather prevalent in many of the posts. I think people are taking this attitude as a pro-nerf stance, which it may be in some cases. However, the fact that people are arguing that a nerf is ok due to the fact that it is not really relevant is an argument that the nerf does not go far enough. There have been significant posts in the threads showing the numbers differences on falloff and optimal on some of the more standard fits that operate in the 20~ km range. It seems that the loss in range falls into the 1-3~ km range, or an overall loss of 5%~ dps for falloff. These are just generalized numbers of course. Essentially the nerf does very little to ships that have solidly established kiting styles, and has more impact on mid range ships. Which is interesting in and of itself as almost all of the examples in this thread pertain to ships with exceptional range with or without TEs

Also the cause of the nerf seems to be interesting. In the OP, Fozzie seems to be motivated by "Minmatar dominance in recent years" Which could be backed up by the fact that twelve out of the top twenty used ships in pvp are minmatar, but that doesn't necessarily establish a link between TE and minmatar being overpowered. I think that people seem to believe that minmatar ships have fallen out of favor, but on the aggregate this is not true. In some arenas such as solo-duo and FW caldari and gallente ships have seen a significant rise in usage, but in the 0.0 blocks minmatar ships are still highly prevalent. As a small gang player myself I of course am going to have a skewed perspective to that type of play and so I would caution people to form their opinions more holistically.

Of course there is the armor shield debate, but I already posted my opinion on that subject in a previous post and don't think it needs repeating. Overall I think people, players and CCP balancers, need to consider whether a nerf that is widely viewed as either bad or ineffective is really the way to go.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#796 - 2013-03-29 22:29:47 UTC
Torei Dutalis wrote:
I find the composition of responses to this change to be rather amusing. As expected a majority of posters seem opposed to the TE change, which is unsurprising as the module has become a staple of certain fitting types. The really interesting part though is the other portion of responses. The argument that "this nerf doesn't do anything so get over it" seems to be rather prevalent in many of the posts. I think people are taking this attitude as a pro-nerf stance, which it may be in some cases. However, the fact that people are arguing that a nerf is ok due to the fact that it is not really relevant is an argument that the nerf does not go far enough. There have been significant posts in the threads showing the numbers differences on falloff and optimal on some of the more standard fits that operate in the 20~ km range. It seems that the loss in range falls into the 1-3~ km range, or an overall loss of 5%~ dps for falloff. These are just generalized numbers of course. Essentially the nerf does very little to ships that have solidly established kiting styles, and has more impact on mid range ships. Which is interesting in and of itself as almost all of the examples in this thread pertain to ships with exceptional range with or without TEs

Also the cause of the nerf seems to be interesting. In the OP, Fozzie seems to be motivated by "Minmatar dominance in recent years" Which could be backed up by the fact that twelve out of the top twenty used ships in pvp are minmatar, but that doesn't necessarily establish a link between TE and minmatar being overpowered. I think that people seem to believe that minmatar ships have fallen out of favor, but on the aggregate this is not true. In some arenas such as solo-duo and FW caldari and gallente ships have seen a significant rise in usage, but in the 0.0 blocks minmatar ships are still highly prevalent. As a small gang player myself I of course am going to have a skewed perspective to that type of play and so I would caution people to form their opinions more holistically.

Of course there is the armor shield debate, but I already posted my opinion on that subject in a previous post and don't think it needs repeating. Overall I think people, players and CCP balancers, need to consider whether a nerf that is widely viewed as either bad or ineffective is really the way to go.

Personally, I can't help but agree with your observations of this, and I agree that the TE nerf should go further.
Dez Affinity
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#797 - 2013-03-29 22:33:22 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:

2) this is again trying to use a specific ship class to justify an argument against the proposed module change, very weak if not pretty much just invalid reasoning, please provide some reason relevant specific to the module, not whatever ship you feel it should/would affect the most.



What ships are using TEs 'unfairly' that makes them 'overpowered'?
Ava Starfire
Khushakor Clan
#798 - 2013-03-29 22:38:52 UTC
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)

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"


Between the AF changes, the T1 frigate changes, the cruiser changes, the removal of the 2/10s from losec, the stupid incidence of Ewar/Sensor Damps/TDs, the off grid boosters, the falcon alts, and now all of this, no, Fozzie, it wont be ok.

Stop attacking solo and actual SMALL gang pvp, please?

"There is no strength in numbers; have no such misconception." -Jayka Vofur, "Warfare in the North"
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
#799 - 2013-03-29 22:41:32 UTC
This ^^
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#800 - 2013-03-29 22:53:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Major Killz
Well CCP are trying to catch up but the meta has changed. I would think CCP F would know this but I'm not sure.

Artillery is the reason why Minmatar ships are being used ALOT more. Alpha is very powerful and some have argued in the past to much so. Autocannons is in the past for the most part and have made way for missiles, lasers and artillery.

I hope CCP does not go after artillery. As far as autocannons? I dont use it that much at all anymore. I do use artillery, missiles and Hybrids to a lesser extent. Nothing in these changes can hurt my gameplay because autocannons have become next to outmoded.

I've been trying to think back to why and when it happened and I can only say I adapted.

The introduction of attack battlecruisers ment I no use for a Hurricane. The BOOST to ewar ment that I used turrents that had far more range to counter tracking disruptors (which is why I use a rail harpy). Artillery's ability to end engagements quickly long before help can arrive or instantly decide an engagement, ment limited losses. Asb's was an issue too and I've also used it against superior forces in terms of numbers.

I can go on to recent advances in fleet doctrines and meta but it just change. I use less ships that use autocannons and rely on ships and weapon systems to deal with our current enviroment vov

Artillery is just slowly displacing autocannons. Long range turrets in general are seeing more use and light missiles and not just only heavy missiles.


- killz

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]