These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

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

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#41 - 2014-01-16 19:06:06 UTC
handige harrie wrote:
So you make modules worse 90% of the time, so they can be slightly better 10% of the time, making pilotting Solo PVP ships for newbs even harder (dealing with more possiblities), giving experienced players even more of an advantage.

Seems CCP forgot modules aren't only used in PVP. There is this thing called PVE I know it's not your forté Fozzie, but balancing everything for PVP only seems like a dumb thing to do, when the majority of your playerbase only does PVE.


That fact is lost on him.

It is no wonder the question of the week in the blogsphere is why is Eve online rate plateauing.
Of course, the answer is so obvious, when we have announcements from CCP like we have had in the past 48 hours.
Tarek Raimo
Eleutherian Guard
#42 - 2014-01-16 19:14:37 UTC
Hello Fozzie

Have you considered rebalancing armor plates for more realism when it comes to heat. I mean, by even the most liberally stretched rules of physics it makes no sense that a 1600mm plate would melt as easily as a 200mm one. Shouldn't the heavier plates have more structure hitpoints to absorb more heat?
Canthan Rogue
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#43 - 2014-01-16 19:16:16 UTC
Your stealth Tengu/Golem/SNI nerf is a really bad idea, please change it back. Thx in advance.
Oh Takashawa
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#44 - 2014-01-16 19:23:07 UTC
Good changes all in all - care to offer your thoughts on why ewar effectiveness is much more bound up in the modules than the hulls, comparatively speaking? I happen to think unbonused ewar is a bit too strong, but it doesn't seem to be something CCP wants to change, so I'm curious as to why you feel unbonused ewar is acceptable in its current state.
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#45 - 2014-01-16 19:31:03 UTC  |  Edited by: PotatoOverdose
Nerfing TP's is unnecessary and bad(imo). Everything else is fine assuming you can't get TD'd over 100% with the changes.

A tp nerf is a:
nerf to PvE missile boats. (drones seem to be way more common these days anyway)
nerf to torp bombers (which in the current meta are only really used against structures anyway).
nerf to any other pvp boat dumb enough to use torps.

None of those things are good, imo.
trader joes Ichinumi
Doomheim
#46 - 2014-01-16 19:48:08 UTC
Gimme more Cynos wrote:
I think Fozzie is affraid that TP's might provide more of a benefit than webs if TP's are left alone.

I can't imagine that this could happen, but If it's not that, I can't explain the TP nerf :/


TPs should give a bigger boost to damage as thats most of what they do. Webs are amazing for dictating range.
Jason Itiner
Harmless People
#47 - 2014-01-16 19:53:12 UTC
I agree with all those saying that a reduction of Target Painters is unnecessary. Overheating them for a greater signature bloom on the target is all well and good, but since they are most used in missions, which aren't 30 second things usually, overheating to regain the lost functionality would quickly destroy the module.

The only way I can see this resolved is by making the target painters exceedingly hardy (lots of structure HP, like in a Bastion module, and giving them very low heat emission values).
Onslaughtor
Phoenix Naval Operations
Phoenix Naval Systems
#48 - 2014-01-16 20:06:08 UTC
I would agree with the TP statements. I like the new direction, but I feel that a 10% nerf is a bit to harsh to start off with for them. I would recommend trying a 5% nerf and still have the 8% gain. If that proves to not be effective then you can change it, and no one will likely disagree.
Tilde Keys
RedHat Enterprises
#49 - 2014-01-16 20:11:31 UTC
CCP I "really" hate to make this statement but, you seem to be making nerf choices when it comes to PVE/PVP like another company we all know...

http://blizzard.comOops
Katrina Oniseki
Oniseki-Raata Internal Watch
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#50 - 2014-01-16 20:14:40 UTC
TP nerf was entirely unnecessary. Leave them as is and offer a 15% overheat increase if you're worried about them being better than webs, or even just 10%.

Katrina Oniseki
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#51 - 2014-01-16 20:14:49 UTC
Target painters don't need a nerf. That's not the best decision. CCP should rethink it.

Remove standings and insurance.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#52 - 2014-01-16 20:33:40 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
TD and SD nerf is fine, TP nerf doesn't really make any sense. If you really think overheated TP would be overpowered with this change then just reduce the overheat gain. People will still use it from time to time even if it's only a 10% gain.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#53 - 2014-01-16 20:52:46 UTC
For the mathematically challenged, the new heat bonus amount of 18% is figured as follows (1-.1)*1.2=1.08. This is .18 (18%) above the new base sigRad modifier.

tl;dr: These modules will be only gain 8% more effectiveness than it has now, and that is only while overheated. Not impressed.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Kasumi 'Goto
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2014-01-16 20:55:13 UTC
Please CCP dont nerf the TP. It is one of the few modules that can be used to help missiles, especially torps which need extra help. Mean while turrets still have many modules to help them. If your going to nerf TP's can you atleast do it when you give missiles the precision modules you have mentioned ?
Theon Severasse
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#55 - 2014-01-16 21:04:27 UTC
TPs need a slight buff really not a nerf.



Also while you're at it the faction TPs could probably do with getting a more significant increase in their performance, as is, you only gain 2-3% in strength (soon to be reduced apparently), for an extra 10 CPU and increased cap use. I would suggest at they should be 5-6% stronger and have the same cap use as the meta 4 ones do, for maybe 5 CPU more.

Maybe give the T2 variant a 2% strength increase over the meta 4, but leave it's fitting and cap use as is.
trader joes Ichinumi
Doomheim
#56 - 2014-01-16 21:15:52 UTC  |  Edited by: trader joes Ichinumi
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!


Your calculations don't account for people with bonuses to ewar already. Those all get nerfed too. For instance, someone with a 50% to ewar normally is only doing 3% better when overheating than they are currently. A 75% bonus brings that down to 1.43% better.

This also moderately bridges the gap between an ewar ship and regular ship. A perfect skilled hugenn, for instance, is only 42% better than a regular pilot with a target painter(if neither have any TP skills, investing in that makes the ewar ship look even worse).

If your goal was to nerf ewar ships and skills, this will accomplish that.
Del Vikus
Sundered Core
#57 - 2014-01-16 21:47:26 UTC
I don't mind the changes to Damps and Disruptors, but with Painters, you're just digging them a deeper grave. Their use-value is already incredibly situational. And what EWAR ship, in a big fleet fight, is going to risk burning out their painter? For a measly sig bloom bonus that, in balance, is less than where it was to begin with?

I understand the need to keep things simple -- as a design philosophy, simple is almost always better. But in this case, you've out-simplified the problem, and created a new one.

Lucas Quaan
Goryn Clade
#58 - 2014-01-16 21:47:31 UTC
The first two minutes of every tournament match ever just got 8% less lock range.
Oxide Ammar
#59 - 2014-01-16 21:48:44 UTC
You think Fozzie care about nerfing missile boats with this TP change ? absolutely not...he only here to inform you what they are going to do either you like it or not.

so much for feedback ..eh ?

Lady Areola Fappington:  Solo PVP isn't dead!  You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#60 - 2014-01-16 21:49:53 UTC
pve nerfed TPs is a horrible idea. How about leaving them as they are and just adding in the 8% bonus when overheated. Then pve retains what it needs and pvp gets a bit of a boost.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.