These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Zircon Dasher
#861 - 2013-03-31 17:20:20 UTC
Change more stuff. Stop listening to comfortable people. Give them cheaper wardecs or some crap and be happy.
The rest of us are happy. We will adapt.
Make changes every 3mo just to keep things interesting.
Oh...and make all holes the same as C6 (in size/mass allowance)

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
#862 - 2013-03-31 17:32:53 UTC
Claire Raynor wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Just posting to say that I'm keeping an eye on this thread over the holiday weekend, we're not ignoring it. I'll be making some more substantial replies once work starts up again.

Also Micheal Harari I love how you think the two threads on T1 logistics ships in Retribution now count as "every other new thread" I create. How's life in a world with support frigates going? Have they killed off all solo pvp in the game yet as you predicted?


Hi Fozie!! Wow - I though this thread was dead already. Please can you expand! I know you've already said that TEs are Broken - Can you tell me what the symptoms are? What are we looking to see changed - or what are we wanting this to address. Are we looking to make the long range weapons more predominant - are we looking to reduce combat ranges (which is what I think will happen) - Are we looking to stimulate the economy as more ships will dies because they are in point range - Or is this actually the last part of balancing the Minmatar down?

Please dude - let me know what the thinking is. I already hurt after the drones and the 'Caine - I understood the Caine nerf but the drones have me confused and resentful. It's easier to swallow when you know why. But the TE issue. That really does come right out of the blue for me!


Yeah - I suppose what I'm saying is that Enthusiasm is contagious. I don't think you are doing change for change's sake. I don't think CCP has enough resources to do absolutely everything they want to do right now to be able to have people just altering things because they are bored. I hope you don't ever start doing changes just because you feel like it and meh to everyone else. The one thing I love about EvE is it's stability and it's carefully balanced mechanics. I know it's a sandbox. But let us know what your hopes are about this change - what it is that's not quite right - that you feel will be better - and that way I can go, "Ohhh yeah!" and feel like I know what's going on.
amurder Hakomairos
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#863 - 2013-03-31 19:04:19 UTC  |  Edited by: amurder Hakomairos
Claire Raynor wrote:
Claire Raynor wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Just posting to say that I'm keeping an eye on this thread over the holiday weekend, we're not ignoring it. I'll be making some more substantial replies once work starts up again.

Also Micheal Harari I love how you think the two threads on T1 logistics ships in Retribution now count as "every other new thread" I create. How's life in a world with support frigates going? Have they killed off all solo pvp in the game yet as you predicted?


Hi Fozie!! Wow - I though this thread was dead already. Please can you expand! I know you've already said that TEs are Broken - Can you tell me what the symptoms are? What are we looking to see changed - or what are we wanting this to address. Are we looking to make the long range weapons more predominant - are we looking to reduce combat ranges (which is what I think will happen) - Are we looking to stimulate the economy as more ships will dies because they are in point range - Or is this actually the last part of balancing the Minmatar down?

Please dude - let me know what the thinking is. I already hurt after the drones and the 'Caine - I understood the Caine nerf but the drones have me confused and resentful. It's easier to swallow when you know why. But the TE issue. That really does come right out of the blue for me!


Yeah - I suppose what I'm saying is that Enthusiasm is contagious. I don't think you are doing change for change's sake. I don't think CCP has enough resources to do absolutely everything they want to do right now to be able to have people just altering things because they are bored. I hope you don't ever start doing changes just because you feel like it and meh to everyone else. The one thing I love about EvE is it's stability and it's carefully balanced mechanics. I know it's a sandbox. But let us know what your hopes are about this change - what it is that's not quite right - that you feel will be better - and that way I can go, "Ohhh yeah!" and feel like I know what's going on.




Yeah I'd like to see some detailed examples from CCP about how this module is OP and how it's breaking the game. Not just "we think the stats are too good". That's an opinion, and not a reason to nerf something. How would you like it if you bought a car and then someone comes and says "we removed 2 cylinders from your engine because we can and we think your car is overpowered"
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#864 - 2013-03-31 21:16:39 UTC
At this point, I'm just waiting to see what Fozzie's replies are, all the rest of the post are nothing but repeats of what's been getting posted all along.
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#865 - 2013-03-31 21:18:21 UTC
amurder Hakomairos wrote:


Yeah I'd like to see some detailed examples from CCP about how this module is OP and how it's breaking the game. Not just "we think the stats are too good". That's an opinion, and not a reason to nerf something. How would you like it if you bought a car and then someone comes and says "we removed 2 cylinders from your engine because we can and we think your car is overpowered"


That is a terrible analogy because this is a video game. It should be fairly obvious the reasons why rebalances happen. It is fully within CCP's power to make all ships go 10000 m/s without a mwd, in the real world a car company would love to do that, CCP would not because this is a game.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
0racle
Galactic Rangers
#866 - 2013-04-01 00:12:55 UTC
I don't see this as a nerf to tracking enhancers as much as I see it as a buff to tracking disruptors. Hello Talos. Meet Pilgrim.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#867 - 2013-04-01 00:55:53 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
Repost corrected# Perhaps this will help make sense of it:#

falloff /Tracking speed/ Optimal
TC............ 15% / 15% / 7.5%
TC............ 30% / 0.0% / 15% (falloff script)
TC............0.0% / 30% / 0.0% (Tracking Script)
TE ............30% / 9.5% / 15%
TE (Prop)..20% / 9.5% / 10%
I would think that the OP of this module is very evident when you add it take less than half as much CPU and no PG.

I personally hate (Not emphatic enough; Abhor, Despise, Screaming with rage), the new proposed bonuses to the TE. But putting aside how I personally feel about the changes, and how they affect me, I am looking at why they needed changed in relation to the Balancing of ships and their respective abilities. I would hope that Fozzie reconsiders the 33% and goes for a 20% but I'm not holding my breath.

Edit: got the numbers right this time

Had a faction TE II caused a little error in my numbers, adding the proposed to iluminate the future

Except of course for the very subpar tracking speed bonus that you can't change. I don't suppose making an equivalent O/F bonus makes up for that at all.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
El Geo
Warcrows
THE OLD SCHOOL
#868 - 2013-04-01 01:29:40 UTC  |  Edited by: El Geo
TD's everywhere already, nerfs to ranged ships/weapons that excel at guerilla warfare.....

I disapprove

CDIA Based overlay resource for After Effects 6

Eve pathfinders Youtube
Unkind Omen
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#869 - 2013-04-01 08:25:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Unkind Omen
Sry guys for interfering you with my ideas but why do you really think that having TE and TC modules providing twice much falloff than optimal bonus is balanced? As for me the main problem with autocannon + TE combo is the actual fact that it allows to have a larger bonus from falloff than optimal. So Let's have a look at marvelous dps graphs each of close weapon has atm(hope my eft is not out of date too much so please check yourself)

First let's look at 0 skills no bonuses from ship one turret dps at sitting duck without TE.
http://clip2net.com/s/4QhH5h

Gun / Optimal (km) + Falloff (km)
Heavy Pulse Laser II / 6 + 4 = 10
Heavy Neutron Blaster II / 1.8 + 5 = 6.8
425mm Autocannon II / 1.2 + 9.6 = 10.8

Let's assume that this relatio is somehow balanced with other gun's propertires.
Now let's add 1 TE/TC for each test subject.
http://clip2net.com/s/4QhS1I

Gun / Optimal (km) + Falloff (km)
Heavy Pulse Laser II / 6.9 + 5.2 = 12.1 (+21%)
Heavy Neutron Blaster II / 2.1 + 6.5 = 8.6(+26%)
425mm Autocannon II / 1.4 + 12.5 = 13.9(+28.7%)

As you can see the the Autocannon's effective distance has grown by almost 29% while Lasors got only 21% growth because half of the bonus of TE was applied as 15% to optimal while autocannons got almost everything applied as 30% to falloff.

That's why I think that the maximal Falloff/optimal bonuses should be equalized on TC/TE to the value of 21% optimal bonus + 21% falloff bonus at first place. This will actually nerf projectiles to the place they belong and keep bonus different weapon groups get from these modules equal.

As the second step I think it is worth considering two half-measues:
1) Reduce TE falloff /optimal bonus by 15% in comparsion to TC to make it more balanced assuming bonus per slot ratio.
2) Increase CPU consumtion of TE module to make it more balanced from the perspective of bonus per fitting usage considering the fact that there are ships that are more ore less CPU tight in fitting while in general gun boats are PG limited in fitting as this part will only nerf those tight ships.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#870 - 2013-04-01 10:09:09 UTC
Sometimes what I beleive is that we need new way to people fight outnumbered. Even simple things as changign the warp speed rig to affect the whoel acceleration and de-acceleration (that could help with some hit and run tactics).

We need more ideads of how to expand the ways you can fight outnumbered. That would diminish the rpessure on everyone havign to fly kiting boats.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#871 - 2013-04-01 13:05:16 UTC
So, minmatar ships will now have to choose between short-range and long range? Rather than having everything all-in-one with auto-cannons?

+1

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Hikaru Kuroda
Extheria
#872 - 2013-04-01 13:31:46 UTC
I think it's a really bad idea nerfing in 1/3 the effectiveness of TE (especially for Amarr ships), instead of adjusting the bonuses of the ships that gets bonuses to falloff range. In other ships TEs works as intended, and you're breaking at all a module just because a couple of ships get advantage of the actual combination and bonus overlap.

And what about the Tracking Disruptor boosting/missile disruption? EVE has 10 years and still no EWAR for missiles.
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#873 - 2013-04-01 16:08:29 UTC
Unkind Omen wrote:
Sry guys for interfering you with my ideas but why do you really think that having TE and TC modules providing twice much falloff than optimal bonus is balanced? As for me the main problem with autocannon + TE combo is the actual fact that it allows to have a larger bonus from falloff than optimal. So Let's have a look at marvelous dps graphs each of close weapon has atm(hope my eft is not out of date too much so please check yourself)

First let's look at 0 skills no bonuses from ship one turret dps at sitting duck without TE.
http://clip2net.com/s/4QhH5h

Gun / Optimal (km) + Falloff (km)
Heavy Pulse Laser II / 6 + 4 = 10
Heavy Neutron Blaster II / 1.8 + 5 = 6.8
425mm Autocannon II / 1.2 + 9.6 = 10.8

Let's assume that this relatio is somehow balanced with other gun's propertires.
Now let's add 1 TE/TC for each test subject.
http://clip2net.com/s/4QhS1I

Gun / Optimal (km) + Falloff (km)
Heavy Pulse Laser II / 6.9 + 5.2 = 12.1 (+21%)
Heavy Neutron Blaster II / 2.1 + 6.5 = 8.6(+26%)
425mm Autocannon II / 1.4 + 12.5 = 13.9(+28.7%)

As you can see the the Autocannon's effective distance has grown by almost 29% while Lasors got only 21% growth because half of the bonus of TE was applied as 15% to optimal while autocannons got almost everything applied as 30% to falloff.

That's why I think that the maximal Falloff/optimal bonuses should be equalized on TC/TE to the value of 21% optimal bonus + 21% falloff bonus at first place. This will actually nerf projectiles to the place they belong and keep bonus different weapon groups get from these modules equal.

As the second step I think it is worth considering two half-measues:
1) Reduce TE falloff /optimal bonus by 15% in comparsion to TC to make it more balanced assuming bonus per slot ratio.
2) Increase CPU consumtion of TE module to make it more balanced from the perspective of bonus per fitting usage considering the fact that there are ships that are more ore less CPU tight in fitting while in general gun boats are PG limited in fitting as this part will only nerf those tight ships.


you have to consider that falloff is worth roughly half as much as optimal range

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#874 - 2013-04-01 16:23:42 UTC
as to everyone who tries to ***** that higher falloff bonuses then optimal on these mods is wrong, smack yourself now. When your in Optimal, your doing full applied dps, when your in fall off, your taking a penalty that only grows larger the further into falloff that your target is. ergo, falloff bonuses 1k to 1k are worth significantly less then optimal bonuses.
Funky Lazers
Funk Freakers
#875 - 2013-04-01 19:01:26 UTC
Capqu wrote:

you have to consider that falloff is worth roughly half as much as optimal range


So basically getting +20% of falloff is worse than +20% of optimal when my guns have 2km of optimal and 50km of falloff?!
Really?!

Whatever.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#876 - 2013-04-01 20:14:28 UTC
Funky Lazers wrote:
Capqu wrote:

you have to consider that falloff is worth roughly half as much as optimal range


So basically getting +20% of falloff is worse than +20% of optimal when my guns have 2km of optimal and 50km of falloff?!
Really?!


Optimal as a mechanic is much more powerful than falloff. I think trying to dispute that is silly.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Pinky Feldman
Amarrian Vengeance
Ragequit Cancel Sub
#877 - 2013-04-01 20:34:35 UTC
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
As someone who used to use heavy missiles and now don't I do have some sympathy with the people who don't want their TE's nerfed. Just to remind you though, when the Heavy Missile Thread was announced we ended up with 300+ pages of mostly whine telling ccp that it was a terrible idea, they went ahead and did it anyway.

However there was a small number of posts in that thread where people said 'this is not a good idea, 20% reduction in damage is too high, 10% is fairer for x,y,z reason etc. CCP listened and changed the proposed nerf from 20% to 10%.

That's what I am not seeing too much of in this thread. Before I get flamed, all I am saying is that if you don't like the nerf, instead of saying this is terribad propose something else, come up with another way of balancing the module. Only a few posts in this thread have done this (and I've read every post in the 40+ pages so far).

I don't approve of all of the nerfs and I don't like this obsession with balance/homogenisation, but I won't be so churlish as to say that CCP do what they like and don't listen to the player base, don't forget that the missile dps nerf was 10% in the end, and AAR now use nanite paste instead of cap as they were initially proposed. These changes are player suggestions taken up by the team, so they do listen. Make your case and you might get listened too as well.


Well said. Module rebalances are an important step in doing things right and establishing balance and a framework before they go on with the continued changes to ship rebalancing. Modules effect the potential fits across all ships, so it makes sense to adjust those first before you tweak the individual ships themselves to create some uniformity moving forward.

The moar you cry the less you pee
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#878 - 2013-04-01 21:55:58 UTC
Personally, I think that, compared to the mid slot occupying, cap using, scriptable TC, the current TE is overpowered, and if the TE doesn't get nerfed, then the TC needs to be buffed.
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#879 - 2013-04-01 22:38:52 UTC
Hikaru Kuroda wrote:
I think it's a really bad idea nerfing in 1/3 the effectiveness of TE (especially for Amarr ships), instead of adjusting the bonuses of the ships that gets bonuses to falloff range. In other ships TEs works as intended, and you're breaking at all a module just because a couple of ships get advantage of the actual combination and bonus overlap.

And what about the Tracking Disruptor boosting/missile disruption? EVE has 10 years and still no EWAR for missiles.





They have defender missiles as counter, they are just broken.
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#880 - 2013-04-01 22:41:58 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
Perhaps this will help make sense of it:#

falloff /Tracking speed/ Optimal
TC 15% / 15% / 7.5%
TC 30% / 0.0% /15% (falloff script)
TC 0.0% / 30% / 0.0% (Tracking Script)
TE 30% / 9.5% / 15%

I would think that the OP of this module is very evident when you add it take less than half as much CPU and no PG.

I personally hate (Not emphatic enough; Abhor, Despise, Screaming with rage), the new proposed bonuses to the TE. But putting aside how I personally feel about the changes, and how they affect me, I am looking at why they needed changed in relation to the Balancing of ships and their respective abilities. I would hope that Fozzie reconsiders the 33% and goes for a 20% but I'm not holding my breath.

Edit: got the numbers right this time


Don't underestimate the freedom of using scripts, since this nerf is going to happen anyway make TE also able to use scripts.