These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

Tracking enhancer nerf, broke medium autocannons

Author
Keith Planck
Hi-Sec Huggers
#1 - 2014-04-22 19:10:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Keith Planck
Blaster vs Auto Graph

Null is too strong.
EMP is too weak.

This isn't about lowsec 1v1 cruiser hulls.


This is what these medium weapon systems SHOULD look like. (you'll notice all i did was swap null and EMP around :P)



Side note: http://imgur.com/2b0hJAV (something is wrong with XL autocannons as well)
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#2 - 2014-04-22 19:28:10 UTC
Keith Planck wrote:
http://imgur.com/syL593X

Blasters do everything better now except cap
Hell, a blaster moros gets better projection then an autocannon nag

http://imgur.com/2b0hJAV

Autocannons get such ****** close range dps compared to blasters, the fact that ammo like antimatter has better projection then EMP is just broken, barrage is fine on some ships with a bonus like vagabonds, but on the whole, autos are in a pretty ****** place right now

I'm not sure why they nerfed the TE so badly. From what I understand it was due to so many complaints about the Macharel being OP with its bonuses.
Nimrod vanHall
Van Mij Belastingvrij
#3 - 2014-04-22 19:52:28 UTC
Isnt the problem that XL blasters have too much optimal/falloff?
Desivo Delta Visseroff
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2014-04-22 20:13:30 UTC
Nimrod vanHall wrote:
Isnt the problem that XL blasters have too much optimal/falloff?



Don't you DARE touch my MorosAttentionEvil

I was hunting for sick loot, but all I could get my hands on were 50 corpses[:|]..............[:=d]

IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#5 - 2014-04-22 20:16:23 UTC
Nimrod vanHall wrote:
Isnt the problem that XL blasters have too much optimal/falloff?

That's one way to fix it. When something gets nerfed so it sucks, nerf everything else so it sucks too. I like it!
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#6 - 2014-04-22 20:52:11 UTC
Desivo Delta Visseroff wrote:
Nimrod vanHall wrote:
Isnt the problem that XL blasters have too much optimal/falloff?



Don't you DARE touch my MorosAttentionEvil


The Moros is almost garuanteed to be nerfed. It is way too good. It's weak points (tank and cap) don't even come close to making up for the huge lead it has in damage.
Keith Planck
Hi-Sec Huggers
#7 - 2014-04-22 21:11:39 UTC
Paikis wrote:
Desivo Delta Visseroff wrote:
Nimrod vanHall wrote:
Isnt the problem that XL blasters have too much optimal/falloff?



Don't you DARE touch my MorosAttentionEvil


The Moros is almost garuanteed to be nerfed. It is way too good. It's weak points (tank and cap) don't even come close to making up for the huge lead it has in damage.


except when fighting other caps where burst tank is 'EVERYTHING' >.>
Atomeon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2014-04-22 21:37:36 UTC
Keith Planck wrote:
http://imgur.com/syL593X

Blasters do everything better now except cap

Make Blaster capless!

then ask for boost dont ask blasters to be nerfed
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#9 - 2014-04-22 22:12:01 UTC
Keith Planck wrote:
http://imgur.com/syL593X

Blasters do everything better now except cap
Hell, a blaster moros gets better projection then an autocannon nag

http://imgur.com/2b0hJAV

Autocannons get such ****** close range dps compared to blasters, the fact that ammo like antimatter has better projection then EMP is just broken, barrage is fine on some ships with a bonus like vagabonds, but on the whole, autos are in a pretty ****** place right now


when my blaster can EM and explosive damage I'll consider your argument valid
Hrett
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2014-04-22 22:21:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Hrett
Keith Planck wrote:
http://imgur.com/syL593X

Blasters do everything better now except cap
Hell, a blaster moros gets better projection then an autocannon nag

http://imgur.com/2b0hJAV

Autocannons get such ****** close range dps compared to blasters, the fact that ammo like antimatter has better projection then EMP is just broken, barrage is fine on some ships with a bonus like vagabonds, but on the whole, autos are in a pretty ****** place right now


Just curious - what do those charts looks like when you add 1 and 2 ("nerfed") TEs to both weapon systems? What about the pre-nerf TEs?

I dont know the answer, but I would guess it favors the minmatar systems by a good margin. A lot with the pre-nerf TEs, and some smaller amount with the post-nerf TEs. Again - this is just a guess.

ACs/TEs were a large part of the term/era of "Winmatar." At least that is how I remember it. Its been a good while since the discussions, but IIRC, TEs were nerfed because ACs were not a bad choice in any close range situation. Blasters did far more paper DPS, but because they had tracking issues close in (which makes no sense, but its true) and couldnt swap ammo quickly, they were really hard to justify over ACs except in rare situations (station and gate games, stationary dps situations, etc). AC actual applied DPS was far better in most situations. I still believe this to be true, but far less so than before.

I flew almost exclusively Gallente before, and now since the change I fly both Gallente and Minmatar. Both have numerous uses now. The same was not true before. I really think the current meta is the most balanced I have seen in Eve since 2007 (Ive taken a lot of extended breaks though). Literally all races have numerous useful ships. At least on the sub-cap level. I dont fly caps, so I cant comment on XL turrets.

spaceship, Spaceship, SPACESHIP!

chaosgrimm
Synth Tech
#11 - 2014-04-22 22:38:34 UTC
IIshira wrote:
Keith Planck wrote:
http://imgur.com/syL593X

Blasters do everything better now except cap
Hell, a blaster moros gets better projection then an autocannon nag

http://imgur.com/2b0hJAV

Autocannons get such ****** close range dps compared to blasters, the fact that ammo like antimatter has better projection then EMP is just broken, barrage is fine on some ships with a bonus like vagabonds, but on the whole, autos are in a pretty ****** place right now

I'm not sure why they nerfed the TE so badly. From what I understand it was due to so many complaints about the Macharel being OP with its bonuses.

If I recall correctly, the above is true, but also they felt that TEs offered too much compared to TCs which also use cap
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#12 - 2014-04-22 22:56:38 UTC
chaosgrimm wrote:
IIshira wrote:
Keith Planck wrote:
http://imgur.com/syL593X

Blasters do everything better now except cap
Hell, a blaster moros gets better projection then an autocannon nag

http://imgur.com/2b0hJAV

Autocannons get such ****** close range dps compared to blasters, the fact that ammo like antimatter has better projection then EMP is just broken, barrage is fine on some ships with a bonus like vagabonds, but on the whole, autos are in a pretty ****** place right now

I'm not sure why they nerfed the TE so badly. From what I understand it was due to so many complaints about the Macharel being OP with its bonuses.

If I recall correctly, the above is true, but also they felt that TEs offered too much compared to TCs which also use cap

True but with TC's you can chose between range, tracking speed, or a mixture of both. Also the little bit of cap they use is trivial on a battleship. I guess if you're getting neuted by a Bhaalgorn the TE would be superior but at that point you probably have other more pressing issues... Like lack of a tank and trying to get your pod out Lol

Tracking enhancers were easier to deal with on shield tank ships. I'm not saying they didn't need adjustment but CCP nerfed them so badly they're not worth using anymore. The only complaints I've heard was with the Machariel but that was because it has a 50% falloff bonus
The Djego
Hellequin Inc.
#13 - 2014-04-23 00:27:59 UTC  |  Edited by: The Djego
The reason they nerfed TEs where to improve armor tanks in pvp(because shield tanked TE fittings where miles ahead in engagement range, speed and dps) and because they did give higher bonuses then TCs(full range of the range script with another 9.5% tracking on top of it).

As for blasters vs auto cannons, it is not like I pointed out back in 2011 that the extra falloff and making blasters more like auto cannons is a bad thing. I guess people did get what they asked for with "give more range, make them more like auto cannons" instead of actually revisiting the core point blank engagement mechanic of blaster pvp, separating it from auto cannons and lasers not by range and dps stats but viability in solo/small gang pvp by offering advanced range control options at point blank.

Then again I stopped caring because it is fairly unlikely that they ever will become a interesting weapon system with her own game play mechanic again. It's not that I requested a bit more optimal on blasters(and a 100% optimal bonus on caldari hulls with reduced rail optimal) and reworking point blank mechanics of gallente hulls instead of all the falloff nonsense for no reason back then. Sad

Improve discharge rigging: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246166&find=unread

Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#14 - 2014-04-23 01:13:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Jack Miton
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Keith Planck wrote:
http://imgur.com/syL593X
Blasters do everything better now except cap
Hell, a blaster moros gets better projection then an autocannon nag
http://imgur.com/2b0hJAV
Autocannons get such ****** close range dps compared to blasters, the fact that ammo like antimatter has better projection then EMP is just broken, barrage is fine on some ships with a bonus like vagabonds, but on the whole, autos are in a pretty ****** place right now

when my blaster can EM and explosive damage I'll consider your argument valid

^this.
ACs are in a bad place not because of the weapon system but because CCP swung the pendulum way too far in their balance passes.
minmatar ships used to be the best in all sub BS classes by a pretty wide margin and theyre now the worst by an almost equal margin because CCP buffed everything else and left them as is/nerfed them to the ground (looking at you hurricane, I miss you).

if you look at your charts, the curves of the projectile ammos are fine, they just start at a much lower point.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout

Valleria Darkmoon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#15 - 2014-04-23 06:16:19 UTC
According to the chart you linked barrage is best damage choice for medium turrets past 17 km and on any ship with a falloff bonus it's bound to be more than that, just saying.

Reality has an almost infinite capacity to resist oversimplification.

Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#16 - 2014-04-23 06:43:47 UTC
The problem is that the Moros has ****** range for some reason...

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Luwc
State War Academy
Caldari State
#17 - 2014-04-23 07:15:08 UTC
Keith Planck wrote:
http://imgur.com/syL593X

Blasters do everything better now except cap
Hell, a blaster moros gets better projection then an autocannon nag

http://imgur.com/2b0hJAV

Autocannons get such ****** close range dps compared to blasters, the fact that ammo like antimatter has better projection then EMP is just broken, barrage is fine on some ships with a bonus like vagabonds, but on the whole, autos are in a pretty ****** place right now


ehhhhh

You forgot about the range (fall off) but gg on the rage post.

http://hugelolcdn.com/i/267520.gif

Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#18 - 2014-04-23 07:32:22 UTC
The TE nerf was a little less than logical. The reasons were sound but the execution was a little odd. When TEs were boosted to their pre-nerf values they were an underused module, the boost was designed to counter the problem - the current nerf not only counters the boost but (as I recall) reduces them to below their pre-boost value.

XL Blasters were boosted along with XL ACs. Prior to the change the Moros was all but useless for its intended purpose as, even loading Iron, they were in deep falloff even pressed right up against a large POS shield. Siege Moros were better off running rails... XL ACs weren't much better off at the time. The boosts to XL Blasters and ACs made it possible to remove the Moros' drone bay and reduced the pressure towards Revelations.

The TE nerf was severe, probably too severe, but I would not suggest that they broke XL weapons...
Danny John-Peter
Blue Canary
Watch This
#19 - 2014-04-23 07:42:28 UTC
Posting to say that Medium AC's were mediocre pre-nerf and are now barely worth using for long point kiting.
Gal'o Sengen
Doomheim
#20 - 2014-04-23 08:07:33 UTC
Danny John-Peter wrote:
Posting to say that Medium AC's were mediocre pre-nerf and are now barely worth using for long point kiting.


Medium ACs really are kinda crap. Their main advantage is their selectable damage type... Which gets completely thrown out the window in practice, simply because they only operate better than Blasters deep in Barrage range, which limits you to explosive damage, which in turns tanks your damage far, far below what it would be if you were using Lasers or Missiles.

Honestly, i think Point Range itself is part of the problem. I've thought for a while that tackle modules should be revamped to be more like other Ewar, with optimal and falloff ranges where their effect diminishes.
123Next page