These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Anya Klibor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#961 - 2013-04-19 06:44:37 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
*Give Machariel and Cynabal a 10% bonus to falloff per level*
OMFG MACHARIEL AND CYNABAL DAMAGE PROJECTION TOO HIGH WAT DO
*Nerf TE O/F by 33%*


I think we'll still see the nerfs to the hulls in the near future, anyways.

As a player with three characters who can fly Minmatar (two can fly up to the Vargur, and one can fly all sub-BC hulls for all races), I am not too upset with this. I will admit, however, that you have designed hulls specifically to kite, and I hope you keep that in mind when you look at the Cynabal, Vagabond, and many other ships. The falloff is needed to make them viable. Otherwise, those ships sit in station, replaced by other ships.

Leadership is something you learn. Maybe one day, you'll learn that.
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#962 - 2013-04-19 07:15:49 UTC
Anya Klibor wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
*Give Machariel and Cynabal a 10% bonus to falloff per level*
OMFG MACHARIEL AND CYNABAL DAMAGE PROJECTION TOO HIGH WAT DO
*Nerf TE O/F by 33%*


I think we'll still see the nerfs to the hulls in the near future, anyways.

As a player with three characters who can fly Minmatar (two can fly up to the Vargur, and one can fly all sub-BC hulls for all races), I am not too upset with this. I will admit, however, that you have designed hulls specifically to kite, and I hope you keep that in mind when you look at the Cynabal, Vagabond, and many other ships. The falloff is needed to make them viable. Otherwise, those ships sit in station, replaced by other ships.

And when you think about it. Those ships are made for kiting, but the short range runs using short range ammo, are not made for kiting. I can't believe my eyes when I se forumwarriors cry about this nerf. The self entitlement is too damn high. Want to kite? Fit long range guns or use long range ammo like every other damn race in the game.

Tracking is bad with artillery or Barrage? Well ****, I guess that's the tradeoff you have to deal with when fighting in perfectly safe, untouchable distance.

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

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#963 - 2013-04-19 08:04:33 UTC
As I recall, the pre-buff TEs were all but identical to the current ones with the exception of the falloff bonus (which is what was added).
It is the falloff bonus which effects ships like the Macherial, and is also one of the primary drivers on the increased value of lowslots leading to shield gank Brutix and so forth.

I would have thought it better for the changes to be more along the lines of 15%Opt (unchanged)/15%Fall (-15%).
This would reduce the value in short ranged fits (including the Mach, Vargur...etc.) but not reduce them to below their pre-buff state. It would also maintain the tension between sensor boosters for lock-range and tracking computers/enhancers in long ranged fits.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#964 - 2013-04-19 08:21:19 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Anya Klibor wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
*Give Machariel and Cynabal a 10% bonus to falloff per level*
OMFG MACHARIEL AND CYNABAL DAMAGE PROJECTION TOO HIGH WAT DO
*Nerf TE O/F by 33%*


I think we'll still see the nerfs to the hulls in the near future, anyways.

As a player with three characters who can fly Minmatar (two can fly up to the Vargur, and one can fly all sub-BC hulls for all races), I am not too upset with this. I will admit, however, that you have designed hulls specifically to kite, and I hope you keep that in mind when you look at the Cynabal, Vagabond, and many other ships. The falloff is needed to make them viable. Otherwise, those ships sit in station, replaced by other ships.

And when you think about it. Those ships are made for kiting, but the short range runs using short range ammo, are not made for kiting. I can't believe my eyes when I se forumwarriors cry about this nerf. The self entitlement is too damn high. Want to kite? Fit long range guns or use long range ammo like every other damn race in the game.

Tracking is bad with artillery or Barrage? Well ****, I guess that's the tradeoff you have to deal with when fighting in perfectly safe, untouchable distance.

Except the hilarious thing is you're not even talking about the best guns for kiting, which are usually used with tracking computers.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
OldWolf69
EVE-RO
Goonswarm Federation
#965 - 2013-04-20 09:01:49 UTC
How about letting things how they are for a year and see what happens? People starting to train other things, improve their skills, and all the sh*t that should usually happen. I really have enuf of the stupid "if i can't use it, it's OP" thing. Hit the TE's, and hybrid buff gets anulated at same time. Then we will see a nerf hitting all the rest of the ships because "baaad bad customers won't fly useless gallente ships"? The "it could be worser" example is for the poor minded and non-pro's to give.
***
I want my EvE back. You know, the one wich used to be awesome, and really nice to play. And in wich you needed to TRAIN to use things, or win, and noone was complaining about lacking free cookies.Big smile
DeLindsay
Galaxies Fall
#966 - 2013-04-20 15:34:16 UTC
OldWolf69 wrote:
How about letting things how they are for a year and see what happens? People starting to train other things, improve their skills, and all the sh*t that should usually happen. I really have enuf of the stupid "if i can't use it, it's OP" thing. Hit the TE's, and hybrid buff gets anulated at same time. Then we will see a nerf hitting all the rest of the ships because "baaad bad customers won't fly useless gallente ships"? The "it could be worser" example is for the poor minded and non-pro's to give.
***
I want my EvE back. You know, the one wich used to be awesome, and really nice to play. And in wich you needed to TRAIN to use things, or win, and noone was complaining about lacking free cookies.Big smile


As much as I agree with the "leave it alone, it's fine now" type of statement, one part of your comment is understated. The incoming TE nerf is not from recent PvP complaints about kiting, people have been yelling at CCP to fix that since shortly after Eve started, almost a decade ago. Giving it a year more won't change anything as the same idiots will complain that they can't figure out how to counter kiters so CCP has to do something or potentially lose subs. And after all, money is the ONLY reason we are still playing this game. If it weren't for the subs, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I don't at all agree with the way most game developers "fix" the game (which ever MMO it is) as most times it skews another part of the game just to keep a few people happy. ALL of them need to start acting like Trion Worlds (Rift) and learn how to code abilities/skills/weapons/etc to act differently in PvP from PvE. Although it's likely a difficult task, that one concept would help tremendously to balance the game without a perceived nerf to it.

I also agree with one of the above poster, if CCP removed 15% of the Falloff bonus to TE's that'd be a reasonable change. Conversely, they should ACTUALLY look at the very few ships that are the issue and maybe try and balance those few ships instead of an across the board change, since we're only talking 3-5 ships in Eve that people **** and moan about in PvP. Just because some players learned to adapt their ship(s) to outperform yours doesn't make that ship/fitted modules OP, it means either learn to counter said ships or your bad at Eve, simple.

The Operative: "There are a lot of innocent people being killed in the air right now".

Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: "You have no idea how true that is".
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#967 - 2013-04-20 16:15:36 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
To those who say that the TE is overpowered because its falloff and optimal bonus are the same as the scripted tracking computer:

I really believe this is compensated by the fact that the TE's tracking speed bonus is less than 2/3 that of the unscripted TC and less than 1/3 that of the tracking scripted TC, as well as by the fact that the module takes up a low slot that could be used for another damage mod or DC II on ships that don't always have many low slots to begin with.
What does a tracking computer displace? Generally utility modules, cap modules... generally things that don't affect survivability or utility. My point here is that low slots on shield-tanking ships have more value than mid-slots on armor-tanking ships. That's part of why even though the TE looks imbalanced from its stats, it really isn't because of slot value.


So when you consider that, does the entire module really need to have only 2/3 of the effectiveness of the TC, especially since it can't compensate with scripts?

It's been almost two weeks since the last dev reply to the subject.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Sergant Steel
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#968 - 2013-04-21 01:37:41 UTC
Aww lol you can kinda hear the machariels and the minmatar pilots screaming... "No we are no longer op"
Katsami
Holy Amarrian Battlemonk
Crimson Inquisicion
#969 - 2013-04-21 03:10:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Katsami
Do I get to roll my eyes when the post nerf 'ACs are still too strong crowd' starts to spout off?

Change TEs, I'm cool with that. I'm just not okay with TCs being the point of reference for the balance.
Aznwithbeard
OMGROFLSTOMP
#970 - 2013-04-21 05:32:31 UTC
Minmatar dominance? Have you flown minmatar since you started messing around with ships?


And another thing, why do armor tanks need help? They are SOO much easier to use then shield (especially active tanks) .
Ever try to fight a harbinger with a cyclone? not fun.

You've boosted the speed to buffer armor already with the honeycomb skill which i think is great, i think you guys really need to work on active shield/brawling shield.

Example - dual web armor rupture engages 4 brawl frigates. they all die.
Try that with a moa.


If you REALLY wanna do something constructive, get rid of off grid boosts. sure you'll lose a lot of money from alt accounts but..... yea ur never gunna nerf off grid boosting are you :(


I <3 you ccp, but dont mess with TEs, please, gallente already have horrible range compared to all other races, and minnies best tank IS range, which you are nerfing.

OMGROFLSTOMP

"We sort of mean business 75% of the time"
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#971 - 2013-04-21 06:59:15 UTC
Sergant Steel wrote:
Aww lol you can kinda hear the machariels and the minmatar pilots screaming... "No we are no longer op"

Stick to constructive, logical arguments, please.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#972 - 2013-04-21 07:16:37 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
To those who say that the TE is overpowered because its falloff and optimal bonus are the same as the scripted tracking computer:

I really believe this is compensated by the fact that the TE's tracking speed bonus is less than 2/3 that of the unscripted TC and less than 1/3 that of the tracking scripted TC, as well as by the fact that the module takes up a low slot that could be used for another damage mod or DC II on ships that don't always have many low slots to begin with.
What does a tracking computer displace? Generally utility modules, cap modules... generally things that don't affect survivability or utility. My point here is that low slots on shield-tanking ships have more value than mid-slots on armor-tanking ships. That's part of why even though the TE looks imbalanced from its stats, it really isn't because of slot value.


So when you consider that, does the entire module really need to have only 2/3 of the effectiveness of the TC, especially since it can't compensate with scripts?

It's been almost two weeks since the last dev reply to the subject.


I've already said that I do believe the TE needs this change, and that I'd go further. You've separated the bonuses in your comparison but failed to allow for the fact that the TE gets the range AND tracking bonuses at all times, the TC has to be either much the same as the TE with both bonuse at a greater fitting cost and, being an active module, using cap and being susceptible to neuts or it has to lose either it's range or tracking bonus with a script present. The TE has all the advantage to my eyes (and I use them a lot so a nerf to TEs is a change to my current playstyles).
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#973 - 2013-04-21 07:32:50 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
No, I didn't fail to allow for it. The TC gets the higher tracking bonus while unscripted but still getting a decent range bonus. The TE in return gets the higher range bonus while getting a tracking bonus that's less than the unscripted TC.
TC CPU use should really be reduced, IMO.
Cap is really a non-issue. The TC uses 7 cap every 10 seconds. Unless you're being really heavily neuted this isn't going to matter a whole lot.

This change simply affects far too many ships disproportionally. Some ships which didn't need a nerf are getting hit. Other ships that do need a nerf will shrug it off because their damage projection is so overpowered that even this won't make a difference.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Sylvous
Bigger than Jesus
#974 - 2013-04-21 08:53:22 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
No, I didn't fail to allow for it. The TC gets the higher tracking bonus while unscripted but still getting a decent range bonus. The TE in return gets the higher range bonus while getting a tracking bonus that's less than the unscripted TC.
TC CPU use should really be reduced, IMO.
Cap is really a non-issue. The TC uses 7 cap every 10 seconds. Unless you're being really heavily neuted this isn't going to matter a whole lot.

This change simply affects far too many ships disproportionally. Some ships which didn't need a nerf are getting hit. Other ships that do need a nerf will shrug it off because their damage projection is so overpowered that even this won't make a difference.


This.

Target problem ships, don't make a blanket fix with a module. Freeing up the mids in a armor tanked ship and allowing more EWAR to me easily seems to counterballance the nonsensical choice to fit TE's on a armor tank.

And on that note. If TE's are so OP, why do people never fit 3x TE and 1X damage mod (I see the opposite all the time)? The problem isn't that TE's are OP, its that several ships might have too much of that they boost all ready (but even that's a stretch).

100% down for reduced fitting costs on TC, and perhaps a counterballance for TE nerf as is would be a CPU requirement increase say to 20 or so. +1/3 fitting on such an OP mod would make sense seeing as multiples must be being fit making for fittings to be tight.

Though personally I see it fine as is.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#975 - 2013-04-21 09:20:07 UTC
anybody else a bit scared about module rebalance part two?

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
smoking gun81
Doomheim
#976 - 2013-04-21 23:44:46 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
:Edit: I answered a large set of questions from the thread on April 8th

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!


Just bump up stacking penalties problem solved ( a lot of people in eve have no idea about stacking penalties anyway ).
Donedy
Lulzsec Space
#977 - 2013-04-22 22:33:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Donedy
Fozzie, i really dont like what you do with my game.
Please replace him by Rise. At least he played enough the game to see whats wrong and whats not.
Honestly TEs are not the problem, let them be.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#978 - 2013-04-23 12:36:36 UTC
smoking gun81 wrote:
Just bump up stacking penalties problem solved ( a lot of people in eve have no idea about stacking penalties anyway ).

You mean the stacking penalties that apply to thousands of modules? Yeah, that'll end well.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
lollerwaffle
Perkone
Caldari State
#979 - 2013-04-24 12:51:22 UTC  |  Edited by: lollerwaffle
HTFU and adapt, or die and GTFO.

TE's were overbuffed years ago when the projectiles were balanced against lasers (leaving hybrids out in the cold). Everyone got used to TE's being 'must-fit' modules on their ships, and now that's going away, instead of whining about losing the OP-ness of your ship, why don't you go away and look at other alternatives? Shaking up the game keeps it from stagnating.

I'm sure after these rounds of ship and module balancing, something else will emerge as the new 'OMGZZ FOTM OP IF YOU DON'T FLY THIS YOU LOSE' ship, and you crybabys can look to the more creative players to learn how to fit and fly it.

Edit: PS. I fly 3 races of subcaps, and tend towards shield tanks. I had to live through armor tanks being dominant and people laughing at you for shield tanking, all the way to shield tanks being the only thing in game, and I STILL agree with the changes.
Chessur
Full Broadside
Deepwater Hooligans
#980 - 2013-04-24 23:16:34 UTC
CCP Thanks to the new EFT- i have done some number crunching for you and present to you some interesting results.

Ships shown are level 5 skilled. No drugs, no heat, no implants. 2 gyros and 2 TE's are used with barrage. The dps shown is damage applied at 28K (Or around kiting ranges) The use of the word kiting in my semantics is this:

Kiting is flying well out of web / scram range. Kiting is a range greater than 24K.

hurricane
Old TE: 226 DPS
New TE: 178 DPS

Cynabal
Old TE: 264 DPS
New TE: 236 DPS

Vagabond:
Old TE: 242 DPS
New TE: 211 DPS

'New' Stabber
Old TE: 157 DPS
New TE: 137 DPS

'New' Hurricane Fleet issue
Old TE: 233 DPS
New TE: 185 DPS

As a joke: RLM Caracal 2 BCS, lv 5 skills no heat, Fury lights

DPS: 236 (Yes a t1 cruiser on par with a cynbal, and beating out every other minmitar ships at kiting range.) CCP Was this your intention?

Why are you doing this to projectile guns CCP? AAs the power creep with EHP increases in ships- using an auto cannon based weapon system to kite is becoming pointless. We are looking at abysmal dps. The lack of projection is what was already hurting minmitar ships, this will compound it more.

The stabber has always been useless. And with the TE nerf will continue to be. The new hurricane and hurricane fleet issue struggle with projection currently, and this nerf puts them in the grave.

When we look at the 'quintessential' kiting ship the vaga- again the damage is beyond anemic. The cynabal has passable damage, but its still nothing great. 236 DPS takes some time to chew through the EHP monsters that one can create with T1 cruisers.

Those ships are also going to be taking a huge drop in projected damage. Why? With the DPS you are giving the class now, they simply will not stand a chance. Please explain yourself CCP? Minmitar ships have been hurting since the days of the nano drake. Why the projection reduction? You realize that with this change, RLM missiles, and t2 pulse lasers (of any size) are going to rule?