Player Features and Ideas Discussion

i too dont like the pve tp nerf the change implies

Gah! Another nerf to ratting and PVE in general, if you are going to nerf TP usage in PVE, change the missile application bonus on the Golem to explosion radius, like it's on CNR.

Target painters should remain 100% of present effectiveness, but be 90% of present range baseline and 112.5% of present range overheated. I agree they are considerably weaker than webs while doing a broadly similar thing.

The RSD changes will really shake up some nullsec subcapital fights. I'm glad I am not at all invested in the Celestis/meta 4 RSD market at the moment as I feel they will be weaker overall with these changes.

One thing to keep in mind is how stacking penalties magnify the effect of the baseline decrease. In numbers:


Presently - Decreased targetting range 34% on non-bonused ship, 34% * 1.375 = 46.75% on a Celestis, Lachesis or Arazu

One module: Range = (1-0.4675) = 0.5325 x baseline
Two modules: Range = (1-0.4675) (1-0.4675*0.87) = (approx) 32% baseline
Three modules: Range = (1-0.4675) (1-0.4675*0.87) (1-0.4675*0.57) = approx 24% baseline

New:
One module: Range = ~58% baseline
Two modules: ~38% baseline
Three modules: ~29% baseline

Note that the changes make diminishing returns more significant than before. 29% baseline is more than 20% 'less effective' than 24%.



Suggestion: Those modules that are subject to diminishing returns should be tested at 95% of present strength baseline, with +15% effectiveness OH'ed. In practice, a -5% penalty will feel like the module is 10% worse anyway.

With -10% reduction to TP values, your also making the choice of RLML vs HAM or HML even more abundantly clear: Do not touch them:

A 10% reduction in TP values reduces the damage application of a missile by 5% when overheating it increases the damage application for 4% vs current values. If the TP doesn't get any base reduction, the overheat damage application increases to 8%

For full effect against a target of similar size, you need 2 target painters now to get full effect of sig radius, with the nerf you still need 2 target painters for full effect. With the overheated value, you still need 2 target painters.

So what you are essentially saying, is: We are not changeing in any way shape or form the amount of target painters you need to use in pvp to get your sig radius up in similar sized categories, but we are drasticly reduceing your ability to fight off smaller targets, and were reducing the effectiveness of any missile based shield ship in pve situations.

Currently Rubicon has done this for missile players:

-Remove all practical use of RLML in pve Situations, Makeing the transition from Frigate / Destroyer sized to Cruiser / Battlecruiser size a lot harder.
-Increase frustration levels of RLML users in pvp, cause a decline in use of all medium missile launcher ships, while simultaneously making frigate and Destroyer pilots that still encounter a RLML ship, even more pissed, since this change hasn't benefitted them, but made their lives even more miserable.
-Made PvE Caldari missile users happy that the Golem Finally is on par or better then a Tengu in PvE
-Made PvE Caldari Missile users mad cause they now have to switch from tengu to Golem
-Have done absolutly nothing that implies that the missile situations are beeing looked at

And now with the proposed changes your doing the following:
-Reduce the damage application for missile users in most situations by 5%
-Increase the damage application for gun and drone users in some situations by 15%

Even the lower cycle for TP they promised to introduce with rubicon never saw the light till date, and now this ?

I don't support the changes either, but you should at least do some extremely basic fact checking so you don't look like an idiot.

This is going to cause problems.

TPs are mostly used in PvE over extended periods, so this change is just a nerf to an already underpowered module.

As for the rest... heat on mid racks is already tricky to balance, with prop mods burning out as quick as they do. Forcing a ship to keep their TD or RSD overheated (which is basically what this change means) is just asking for trouble. They're already situational modules that are often better replaced with another web. Why keep them if they're just going to add heat to my mid rack?

I'm losing all hope in you people. A nerf to TPs? Do you even play your own game?

TPs? Really?

-1


Also, I am beginning to think that the influx of consumables, i.e. deployables, fixing damaged modules, etc., is to drain isk from the economy.

Maybe this is the time to consider the weakness of unbonused TPs relative to missiles when compared to webs relative to missiles. TPs are already pretty weak as a form of ewar, they don't need to be nerfed anymore.

Also, please, please CCP take a second look at the golem, its powergrid is far too low and it's the only marauder which still carries an ewar bonus. Don't make us wait years on this. Keeping the ewar bonus on the golem was a mistake that shouldn't take you years to fix.

While were on the topic of marauders, you really need to take a second look at all of them. The hulls need to be balanced better against the bastion module; i.e. they should offer some advantage over t1 hulls outside of bastion module.