These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

[Rubicon 1.1] Tracking Disruptor and Sensor Damp Strength Changes in Conjunction with Heat Iteration

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1 - 2014-01-16 15:10:53 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
Hello again! This thread will cover the changes to the base stats of Tracking Disruptors and Remote Sensor Dampeners alongside the expansion of heat to these modules.

I advise reading the Heat Iterations post before this one.

Since we're giving TDs and RSDs the ability to overheat in Rubicon 1.1, we are also going to be reducing their base strength slightly to compensate.

The TL:DR is that all Tracking Disruptors and Remote Sensor Dampeners will have their base effectiveness reduced by 10%, and at the same time be given the ability to get a 20% effectiveness through overheating.

This means that compared to current TQ values, these modules will be 10% worse when not heated, and 8% better when heated.

The fact that this change reduces the power of these modules a bit for extended engagements and increases their power for shorter bursts is intended. Ewar already lends itself well to longer fights, and now with the ability to increase effectiveness in short bursts more player decision making can play a part in the use of these modules.

These changes will be live on SISI very soon for you to try for yourself, and we look forward to your feedback on these changes and the others we have announced for Rubicon 1.1.

Thanks!

:The original version of this post included a reduction in strength to target painters as well. We have decided to leave their base strength as is for 1.1 and reevaluate from there:

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2014-01-16 15:16:58 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hello again! This thread will cover the changes to the base stats of Tracking Disruptors, Remote Sensor Dampeners, and Target Painters alongside the expansion of heat to these modules.

I advise reading the Heat Iterations post before this one.

Since we're giving TDs, RSDs, and Painters the ability to overheat in Rubicon 1.1, we are also going to be reducing their base strength slightly to compensate.

The TL:DR is that all Tracking Disruptors, Remote Sensor Dampeners, and Target Painters will have their base effectiveness reduced by 10%, and at the same time be given the ability to get a 20% effectiveness through overheating.

This means that compared to current TQ values, these modules will be 10% worse when not heated, and 8% better when heated.

The fact that this change reduces the power of these modules a bit for extended engagements and increases their power for shorter bursts is intended. Ewar already lends itself well to longer fights, and now with the ability to increase effectiveness in short bursts more player decision making can play a part in the use of these modules.

These changes will be live on SISI very soon for you to try for yourself, and we look forward to your feedback on these changes and the others we have announced for Rubicon 1.1.

Thanks!


Now.. can you a t least rethink the fact that the bellicose was the ONLY TP hull that did not got its bonus increased?

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Vinyl 41
AdVictis
#3 - 2014-01-16 15:22:45 UTC
rly were nerfing TPs now ? is that some sort of a hidden war against pve missle users ?
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2014-01-16 15:31:04 UTC
Overall I do nto like the changes. More and more thigns are pushed where they are only usable on extremely specialzied ships. That is dumb, bad design and make the fittign of the ship that used to be an important part of eve, more and more irrelevant.

It seems like each ewar is made to be used on a single ship and no way in others, and each ship is made to be fitted in a signle way.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#5 - 2014-01-16 15:34:15 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


The TL:DR is that all Tracking Disruptors, Remote Sensor Dampeners, and Target Painters will have their base effectiveness reduced by 10%, and at the same time be given the ability to get a 20% effectiveness through overheating.

This means that compared to current TQ values, these modules will be 10% worse when not heated, and 8% better when heated.


Nice move :)

I'm not sure about the necessity to include Target Painters in the base effectiveness nerf lot, though.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
Money Makin Mitch
Paid in Full
#6 - 2014-01-16 15:48:22 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Overall I do nto like the changes. More and more thigns are pushed where they are only usable on extremely specialzied ships. That is dumb, bad design and make the fittign of the ship that used to be an important part of eve, more and more irrelevant.

It seems like each ewar is made to be used on a single ship and no way in others, and each ship is made to be fitted in a signle way.


yep
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#7 - 2014-01-16 15:53:26 UTC
When are you nerfing unbonused ewar mods and fixing ecm + ecm drones?
Dato Koppla
Balls Deep Inc.
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#8 - 2014-01-16 15:56:06 UTC
It's not a bad change, but why? I've never felt that these modules needed overheating, they worked fine as they were. Why "fix" what's not broken? I understand the whole Omni thing as sentries are overpowered, but why did painters, TD, RSDs have to be nerfed?
Ayallah
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#9 - 2014-01-16 16:01:44 UTC
I really would like to see unbonused EWAR take a nerf and I think this will work in some way to at least break it up.

Too many mid slot heavy ships dominate the frigate meta right now because of unbonused EWAR

Goddess of the IGS

As strength goes.
Bloodmyst Ranwar
Menace of Morons
#10 - 2014-01-16 16:05:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodmyst Ranwar
Can't say that I'm a fan of this change.

I think it just simply isn't needed. I feel the 10% nerf/10% bonus to TD's for example hurts the ability to up-engage, therefore being a little too linear.

The agility nerf to inties is fine. But these EW strength changes just aren't needed......

EDIT: If CCP is so adamant to to implement this change, why not neft it by 5% and keep the overheat bonus to 10%. I think a 10% nerf is a little too much to say the least.
Diivil
Magellanic Itg
Goonswarm Federation
#11 - 2014-01-16 16:06:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Diivil
What about balancing meta 4 and tech 2 variants? Meta 4 has always been strictly better for ECM since they have the same power but can sustain heat much longer and use significantly less paste to repair. Also significant cap usage difference especially with damps AND have easier fitting requirements. Now there is no reason to use tech 2 target painters or sensor damps either.
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#12 - 2014-01-16 16:07:54 UTC
Vinyl 41 wrote:
rly were nerfing TPs now ? is that some sort of a hidden war against pve missle users ?


yes mostlikly though in all honesty TPs work better with guns and webs work better with missles, really give it a try for yourself.

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
Vinyl 41
AdVictis
#13 - 2014-01-16 16:13:44 UTC
Seranova Farreach wrote:
Vinyl 41 wrote:
rly were nerfing TPs now ? is that some sort of a hidden war against pve missle users ?


yes mostlikly though in all honesty TPs work better with guns and webs work better with missles, really give it a try for yourself.

not everyone here uses a ham tengu but ty for your reply
Syndi Alleile
#14 - 2014-01-16 16:14:17 UTC
Target Painters were already a hard choice when fitting because of how small of an advantage they give. Now Target Painters are a Bellicose module...
Alx Warlord
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2014-01-16 16:24:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Alx Warlord
Nerfing TPs, RSDs, TDs was a really bad move, They were somewhat balanced in the way they were...People were buying EAFs and starting to have fun with it... now many strategies will be ruined and we will get less diversity of ships in all fields of eve...

This will ruin PVE EW more then it is already ruined.. no one overheats TPs running missions, it is a pure nerf...

Also this rises the entrance barrier into the electronic warfare business for new players, since the overheat will becomes a must in all strategies...

Please... I'm glad with the overheat part, it brings dynamism to PVP. But Don't Nerf it !!!!! . Don't add this Nerf! You are ruining what you built in the 1.0 expansion!!!!

Remember CCP Seagul: "There is no turning back"... you are trying to do it...

Please read these!

New POS system New SOV system
Scarlet Thellere
Natasha Aleksejewa Republik
#16 - 2014-01-16 16:25:30 UTC
How bad it looks for dreds with 5% tracking nerf? Honestly i think that 10% nerf on TP is just too much. ATM they are almost not worth med slot in comparision to webs. Signature bonus they provide has stack penalty and
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2014-01-16 16:25:34 UTC
Ayallah wrote:
I really would like to see unbonused EWAR take a nerf and I think this will work in some way to at least break it up.

Too many mid slot heavy ships dominate the frigate meta right now because of unbonused EWAR



I would prefer opposite. Unbonused wewar should be useful. As of now TP and ECM are useles sif in a non bonused ship.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#18 - 2014-01-16 16:26:30 UTC
I assume you made double sure you can't get tracking disrupters over 100% effectiveness, right? Word on the street is that strange stuff happens when you do that...

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
CCP Vesna Prishla
Doomheim
#19 - 2014-01-16 16:28:32 UTC
Two step wrote:
I assume you made double sure you can't get tracking disrupters over 100% effectiveness, right? Word on the street is that strange stuff happens when you do that...


I am scared to test this now

CCP Vesna Prishla | Customer Support |  @CCPVesnaPrishla
iskflakes
#20 - 2014-01-16 16:31:59 UTC
I'm not sure the target painter nerf is required, but the other two make sense.

-
123Next pageLast page