These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Capt Retard
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#121 - 2014-01-17 14:16:56 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
Sure the bigger the fight the better the TP gets, but in small gang or solo its simply more effective to use webs and scrambler instead of TPs and dont gain any advantages of the longer range because you gimp it anyways by using points and scramblers.



yes, but there is still place for 1 or 2 TP in a gang.


That place wont go to the ship that has bonuses for it sadly, because the web one wins hands down.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#122 - 2014-01-17 14:51:59 UTC
Capt ****** wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
Sure the bigger the fight the better the TP gets, but in small gang or solo its simply more effective to use webs and scrambler instead of TPs and dont gain any advantages of the longer range because you gimp it anyways by using points and scramblers.



yes, but there is still place for 1 or 2 TP in a gang.


That place wont go to the ship that has bonuses for it sadly, because the web one wins hands down.


Bellicose for tp. Rapier/huggin for web

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Zand Vor
OpSec.
Wrong Hole.
#123 - 2014-01-17 14:58:15 UTC
I had already taken my TP off in place for a web....damn.

*switches back*

Please fix wormhole combat sites: c1 20mil - c2 40 mil - c3 80 mil - c4 160 mil - c5 320 mil - c6 640 mil
Capt Retard
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#124 - 2014-01-17 14:58:52 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Capt ****** wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
Sure the bigger the fight the better the TP gets, but in small gang or solo its simply more effective to use webs and scrambler instead of TPs and dont gain any advantages of the longer range because you gimp it anyways by using points and scramblers.



yes, but there is still place for 1 or 2 TP in a gang.


That place wont go to the ship that has bonuses for it sadly, because the web one wins hands down.


Bellicose for tp. Rapier/huggin for web


Sad huh - T2 ship - expensive, sexy, full of fun. Bonuses for special painting ewar .... meh.
vs
The least used ship in eve. The Bellicose.


Go figure.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#125 - 2014-01-17 15:02:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Soldarius
@CCP, thx for listening.

For giggles, I ran the numbers on a Domination Target Painter (best faction) using the newest numbers 1x and overheated at 1.2x. On a best bonused ship with all level 5s and max links you can currently you can get the Domi TP up to 83.22% effectiveness. That is a 2.5218x increase from base due to links, skills, and ship.

Overheated, you should see an effectiveness of 99.86328%. So almost a doubling of signature radius. I like this (almost) big round number. Now if we could get similar effectiveness at base values like a meta 0 webber in the hands of a total noob using a noob ship. (-50% velocity)

Ah, well. At least it still works from half the grid away.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Destoya
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#126 - 2014-01-17 15:54:28 UTC
Capt ****** wrote:


Sad huh - T2 ship - expensive, sexy, full of fun. Bonuses for special painting ewar .... meh.
vs
The least used ship in eve. The Bellicose.


Go figure.


Why not the Vigil/Hyena?

You can make very very successful TP fits with them that can sit 175-200km from the fight, go 4.5km/s with decently small signature, and have excellent scan res so you can actually leverage the advantage of helping your heavier ships to lock better. Same strength bonus as the larger ships but also get a very very useful range bonus.

Theyre small and dont have much (any) tank, but I still find them very enjoyable to fly even with hundreds of billions of isk and with 100m+ SP characters at my disposal. It's a different sort of game than flying a bog standard DPS ship, as you need to be careful with your positioning and recognize potential threats (namely interceptors/dramiels that are slightly faster than you with links) as they appear.

It would be nice to get the TP range bonus on one of the cruisers, but the minmatar EW frigates is where TP's belong.
Capt Retard
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#127 - 2014-01-17 16:35:23 UTC
Destoya wrote:
Capt ****** wrote:


Sad huh - T2 ship - expensive, sexy, full of fun. Bonuses for special painting ewar .... meh.
vs
The least used ship in eve. The Bellicose.


Go figure.


Why not the Vigil/Hyena?

You can make very very successful TP fits with them that can sit 175-200km from the fight, go 4.5km/s with decently small signature, and have excellent scan res so you can actually leverage the advantage of helping your heavier ships to lock better. Same strength bonus as the larger ships but also get a very very useful range bonus.

Theyre small and dont have much (any) tank, but I still find them very enjoyable to fly even with hundreds of billions of isk and with 100m+ SP characters at my disposal. It's a different sort of game than flying a bog standard DPS ship, as you need to be careful with your positioning and recognize potential threats (namely interceptors/dramiels that are slightly faster than you with links) as they appear.

It would be nice to get the TP range bonus on one of the cruisers, but the minmatar EW frigates is where TP's belong.


Sitting at 170k? Painting with what - max boosted Nhawk and domination painter - at the far end of falloff. Nope - your doing little to nothing at that range. And for most others, having a max skilled, max boosted ... its painfully situational. Warp on top and kill it.

Yes - I can imagine how useful it is at 90k even to 120k, and its quite safe out there .... sentries cant shoot ... oh **** (the Omni changes might help though).
I am disposable
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#128 - 2014-01-17 16:42:25 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Good morning everyone. I've been chatting with Rise and Ytterbium a bit this morning and we've decided to leave the change to the base strength of Target Painters out of Rubicon 1.1. You'll still be able to overheat them, but their base values will remain the same for now.

We're going to reevaluate the peak strength of these modules after the patch and I won't rule out making changes in the future if deemed necessary.

Thanks for the feedback so far.


Glad to see you guys listen to reason.
Destoya
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#129 - 2014-01-17 16:56:35 UTC
Capt ****** wrote:

Sitting at 170k? Painting with what - max boosted Nhawk and domination painter - at the far end of falloff. Nope - your doing little to nothing at that range. And for most others, having a max skilled, max boosted ... its painfully situational. Warp on top and kill it.

Yes - I can imagine how useful it is at 90k even to 120k, and its quite safe out there .... sentries cant shoot ... oh **** (the Omni changes might help though).


They are 81+90 with a single T1 range rig and no links, or 107+90 with EW links. 2 range rigs is 95+90/120+90

Even just hitting with 2-3 of your TPs is fine becuase of the stacking penalties, so it all works out in the end.
Komodo Askold
Strategic Exploration and Development Corp
Silent Company
#130 - 2014-01-17 17:32:12 UTC
Not a fan of these changes...

As others said, no one should ever be overheating in PVE. Yet TP's are mostly used there, and not only with missiles (there's a non-small difference between TP and not-TP when using turrets or drones too).

I personally wouldn't include TP's on the modules able to be overheated, therefor not nerfing their usual stats.
Maggeridon Thoraz
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#131 - 2014-01-17 17:42:26 UTC
How will this nerf pilgrim and curses ?

Anybody thought that we have now even more micro management to do ? aslo a nerf to all ships and pvp action, imho
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#132 - 2014-01-17 18:10:02 UTC
Capt ****** wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Capt ****** wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
Sure the bigger the fight the better the TP gets, but in small gang or solo its simply more effective to use webs and scrambler instead of TPs and dont gain any advantages of the longer range because you gimp it anyways by using points and scramblers.



yes, but there is still place for 1 or 2 TP in a gang.


That place wont go to the ship that has bonuses for it sadly, because the web one wins hands down.


Bellicose for tp. Rapier/huggin for web


Sad huh - T2 ship - expensive, sexy, full of fun. Bonuses for special painting ewar .... meh.
vs
The least used ship in eve. The Bellicose.


Go figure.


Lol true. But I fly around in a solo belli. Its pretty fun. Easy to get fights in. Double Lse + single tp and some nanos make it decent for defrigging.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#133 - 2014-01-17 18:11:58 UTC
When's the riot? Can I bring missiles? Lol

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Kirren D'marr
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#134 - 2014-01-17 18:24:47 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Good morning everyone. I've been chatting with Rise and Ytterbium a bit this morning and we've decided to leave the change to the base strength of Target Painters out of Rubicon 1.1. You'll still be able to overheat them, but their base values will remain the same for now.

We're going to reevaluate the peak strength of these modules after the patch and I won't rule out making changes in the future if deemed necessary.

Thanks for the feedback so far.


I'm glad to see that you have reversed your decision regarding TPs, however I am troubled that such a reversal was necessary.

Lately, there seems to be a trend in EVE's development:

1. CCP spends a period of time (presumably months?) working on a new feature

2. CCP announces said new feature

3. Players complain about new feature, and in the space of hours point out all of the flaws/unintended consequences of the new feature

4. After having the obvious issues the feature would introduce pointed out to them, CCP adjusts or retracts the new feature in an attempt to avoid disaster


This pattern really raises a lot of doubt among the players as to how well you (the devs) know your game, and it really does not help customer confidence to see you constantly having to reverse decisions. With large sweeping changes, it makes sense that no matter how much internal testing you do, you will need the test and feedback of the playerbase. However, with such minor and direct changes as the recent Rubicon 1.1 announcements (module overheating, deployable structures, etc.), it appears that barely any thought or consideration was given to the impact these changes would have on any aspect of the game in which they would be used.

If you have any other changes planned for Rubicon 1.1, can I suggest putting them on hold until you've had time to review them again and really evaluate whether they are a good idea in their planned versions? You don't want to come back here with more egg on your face. Your development cycle needs to move beyond just the "hey, this is a cool idea," phase, and spend more time on the "how will this change the way the game is played, and will the effect be good or bad for the health of the game as a whole?" before pushing anything out the door.

From a player's perspective, right now it looks like you're just throwing everything at us and seeing what sticks, and there is little vetting being done and no long term plan to guide these changes. That gives the appearance of desperation; like there is a whole department just trying to churn out as much stuff as possible in order to justify their jobs, rather than there being any true sort of development going on. I may be wrong, but if so, then it's because you've done a poor job of disuading that view.

Anyway, that's my .02 ISK, take it for what it's worth. J

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal

Why a switch on/off? Because the new animation doesn't add anything to gameplay and it's graphically annoying. In other words, it's worse than bad: it's useless. Simple as that.     _ - Kina Ayami_
Inspiration
#135 - 2014-01-17 19:38:36 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Good morning everyone. I've been chatting with Rise and Ytterbium a bit this morning and we've decided to leave the change to the base strength of Target Painters out of Rubicon 1.1. You'll still be able to overheat them, but their base values will remain the same for now.

We're going to reevaluate the peak strength of these modules after the patch and I won't rule out making changes in the future if deemed necessary.

Thanks for the feedback so far.


I never saw the strength (or lack of)...as a problem. The main issue with TPs is their long cycle time in respect to their intended use.

I am serious!

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#136 - 2014-01-17 19:42:39 UTC
The only buff I've ever wanted for TP was to have them moved to high slots.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#137 - 2014-01-17 20:00:56 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Good morning everyone. I've been chatting with Rise and Ytterbium a bit this morning and we've decided to leave the change to the base strength of Target Painters out of Rubicon 1.1. You'll still be able to overheat them, but their base values will remain the same for now.

We're going to reevaluate the peak strength of these modules after the patch and I won't rule out making changes in the future if deemed necessary.

Thanks for the feedback so far.

This is good news. Thanks for listening!

Remove standings and insurance.
Dariusz Betonowy
Doomheim
#138 - 2014-01-17 22:55:32 UTC
Yay, Fozzie cares! Now, could you PUH-LEEZE get SoniClover to rethink just as you did? ;)
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#139 - 2014-01-17 23:18:24 UTC
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.
Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

The rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

30. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.

CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, “outing” of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties.
Our forums are designed to be a place where players and developers can exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who attack or abuse employees of CCP, or ISD volunteers, will be permanently banned from the EVE Online forums across all their accounts with no recourse, and may also be subject to action against their game accounts.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
#140 - 2014-01-18 00:56:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Wrayeth
Mara Rinn wrote:
The only buff I've ever wanted for TP was to have them moved to high slots.


TBH, this would quite nicely fix the fact that almost no one running a huginn or rapier uses them due to lack of midslots.