These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

TPs should have no optimal or falloff
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1 - 2015-07-09 05:02:07 UTC
Just that...
They should have a max range and strength.
Optimal and falloff for TPs seems a bit....ehhh. Sorry, best way I can explain it.

Lot easier to balance that way as well.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2015-07-09 05:30:05 UTC
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3 - 2015-07-09 06:35:17 UTC
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
It basically comes down to TPs needing more pshhhhhh, right?


Well, maybe a little more grrrrr.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2015-07-09 06:44:53 UTC
pshhhhhhh ........don't steal Colonel Selene's grrr.




Falloff is important for the one size fits all aspect of target painters. Rather than make their range infinite, they have a rather long falloff so that they mostly work at decent ranges, but ultimately so that cruise missile ships can't properly use them, and also so that the Golem really only has effectively 3 skill bonuses instead of four.

It's all part of CCP's master plan.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
FireFrenzy
Cynosural Samurai
#5 - 2015-07-09 06:56:03 UTC
but then less GRRRRRrrrrrrr..... and more GRRR. amirite?
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6 - 2015-07-09 07:30:08 UTC
FireFrenzy wrote:
but then less GRRRRRrrrrrrr..... and more GRRR. amirite?


Oh yeah... You definitely don't want to give them the wrong grrr, or else they'll come off as blehhhh.

@Reaver...
I do find it odd that the weapon systems that most benefit from them are also the weapon systems that are most hindered by their optimal/falloff.
This effectively gives missile systems and optimal and falloff themselves.

Indo see the benefit of using TPs in combat for any type of weapon system, but in comparison to other ewar types, TPs are a bit underwhelming. People have mentioned before that they do help an entire fleet, but honestly, neut, jam, and damp likely have a stronger effect on the fleet, as they can outright remove DPS and/or tank completely.

I think if TPs were not limited on falloff, they would likely become a more effective ewar platform, thus being more competitive.

I don't think they should be infinite range, but instead a balance between range and strength.
In most cases, it would be a choice between fitting, range, and/or effectiveness.
You'd even have an option for a snip fit with extremely long range, but a bit weaker than shorter range versions.
Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2015-07-09 09:47:57 UTC
Can you imagine if this went through? Can you imagine how even more overpowered the Golem would be in pve, or any other long range missile boat?
Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#8 - 2015-07-09 10:19:02 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Just that...
They should have a max range and strength.
Optimal and falloff for TPs seems a bit....ehhh. Sorry, best way I can explain it.

Lot easier to balance that way as well.


Logical since it is desigend mostly for missiles most of which have long range. But than again why should it be a single e-war without falloff (dampers, ecm, disruptors etc.). I would say yes but as a part of a major ecm modules rebalance.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#9 - 2015-07-09 12:21:32 UTC
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
Can you imagine if this went through? Can you imagine how even more overpowered the Golem would be in pve, or any other long range missile boat?


To be fair no-one gives a crap about PvE and given the failboat that is the new missile mods....they need something.

Note to ccp: "Something" is not a nerf in drag again.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#10 - 2015-07-09 13:09:17 UTC
Considering the affect distance has on light beams in the real world the optimal and fall off seem to be acceptable ways to deal with it especially when you consider that CCP already has the optimal and fall off thingy figured out really welll since they use it so much.

Yep I know EvE is not about the real world for I will go with a -1 for balance issues.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#11 - 2015-07-09 13:14:31 UTC
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
Can you imagine if this went through? Can you imagine how even more overpowered the Golem would be in pve, or any other long range missile boat?


Depend what the total range is. If you just increase it to let's say 70 KM all in "optimal" and 0 fall-off. Then it always work within 70 KM but never beyond that. Then it only receive a buff compared to previous version from 45km to 70 KM and lose all bonus beyond that. The fixed range needs to be evaluated to make it workable but it does not mean long range missile automatically always benefit.
Tabyll Altol
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#12 - 2015-07-09 14:20:20 UTC
If you remove the falloff your max range would be 45 km. I think thats a bit short.

Just leave it that way it´s fine.

-1
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#13 - 2015-07-09 15:46:54 UTC
Tabyll Altol wrote:
If you remove the falloff your max range would be 45 km. I think thats a bit short.

Just leave it that way it´s fine.

-1


Well, that why I said give them a max range. I didn't say just take away falloff and call it good.

I'm looking at it this way.


TP 1 - 10 cap, 20 CPU, 75km range, +25%
PWN - 10 cap, 19 CPU, 70km, +28%
PWND - 9, 18, 65km, +30%
PWNT - 9, 18, 60km, +32%
PWNAGE - 8, 17, 50km, +35%
TP 2 - 12, 20, 100km, +30%
Inception - 12, 20, 140km, +28%

Obviously these numbers aren't exactly what the balancing would come out to, but it's and example to show that you get reduced range with higher power, and reduced fit and cap usage.

TP2 is kind of the mid balance.

As far as the republic and domination.

Domination would be short range with high power, while republic would be the longest range TP with about TP 2 effect.
Though, in the case of both, reduced fitting cost.

Something like that. I don't pretend to know how to effectively balance these, but am just showing a guideline of how reduced range means increased power, and you'd have one option that would be able to hit at a very high range, but with the least effect.
So, it's almost like there's an optimal/falloff, but the TPs themselves are manufactured with this in mind, and they're built to give optimal performance up to a certain range, but cannot reach beyond that range at all.
Think of it like a space age laser pointer.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2015-07-09 19:33:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Joe Risalo wrote:
TP 1 - 10 cap, 20 CPU, 75km range, +25%
PWN - 10 cap, 19 CPU, 70km, +28%
PWND - 9, 18, 65km, +30%
PWNT - 9, 18, 60km, +32%
PWNAGE - 8, 17, 50km, +35%
TP 2 - 12, 20, 100km, +30%
Inception - 12, 20, 140km, +28%



I've got a simpler fix for you:

Long-Range Target Painter I
Powergrid: 100MW
CPU: 40 Tf
Activation Cost: 80 Gj
Duration: 20 s
Optimal: 50,000 m
Falloff: 75,000 m
Effect: +25% target signature radius

Long-Range Target Painter II
Powergrid: 110MW
CPU: 48 Tf
Activation Cost: 96 Gj
Duration: 20 s
Optimal: 60,000 m
Falloff: 90,000 m
Effect: +30% target signature radius

This version of the module at max skills has an optimal plus falloff (tech II) of 225km, almost out to the range limit. It is ideal for use on a sniper battleship, but certain long-range cruisers such as the Naga or Cerberus may also find it useful. Its base capacitor cost (tech II) is 4.8 Gj/s, twice as high as the smaller target painter, higher than an Adaptive Invulnerability Field.


edit: as for the Golem becoming too powerful: that's due to large missiles being too powerful. The Raven seems balanced because it only fits 6 of them. I say nerf cruise missile and torpedo damage (torpedoes especially), then increase cruise missile velocity (but not range) and increase torpedo range and velocity (without increasing Stealth Bomber range). Torpedoes need the most work: they deal far more damage than they should, but it's supposedly "balanced" by their particularly high explosion radius and low explosion velocity. They have difficulty applying damage to battleships. They aren't a proper large version of HAMs, rather they are more like a half size above Battleships but with horrible range instead of a higher powergrid cost. Why don't we make torpedoes into a proper battleship weapon?

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#15 - 2015-07-09 19:52:30 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
TP 1 - 10 cap, 20 CPU, 75km range, +25%
PWN - 10 cap, 19 CPU, 70km, +28%
PWND - 9, 18, 65km, +30%
PWNT - 9, 18, 60km, +32%
PWNAGE - 8, 17, 50km, +35%
TP 2 - 12, 20, 100km, +30%
Inception - 12, 20, 140km, +28%



I've got a simpler fix for you:

Long-Range Target Painter I
Powergrid: 100MW
CPU: 40 Tf
Activation Cost: 80 Gj
Duration: 20 s
Optimal: 50,000 m
Falloff: 75,000 m
Effect: +25% target signature radius

Long-Range Target Painter II
Powergrid: 110MW
CPU: 48 Tf
Activation Cost: 96 Gj
Duration: 20 s
Optimal: 60,000 m
Falloff: 90,000 m
Effect: +30% target signature radius

This version of the module at max skills has an optimal plus falloff (tech II) of 225km, almost out to the range limit. It is ideal for use on a sniper battleship, but certain long-range cruisers such as the Naga or Cerberus may also find it useful. Its base capacitor cost (tech II) is 4.8 Gj/s, twice as high as the smaller target painter, higher than an Adaptive Invulnerability Field.


edit: as for the Golem becoming too powerful: that's due to large missiles being too powerful. The Raven seems balanced because it only fits 6 of them. I say nerf cruise missile and torpedo damage (torpedoes especially), then increase cruise missile velocity (but not range) and increase torpedo range and velocity (without increasing Stealth Bomber range). Torpedoes need the most work: they deal far more damage than they should, but it's supposedly "balanced" by their particularly high explosion radius and low explosion velocity. They have difficulty applying damage to battleships. They aren't a proper large version of HAMs, rather they are more like a half size above Battleships but with horrible range instead of a higher powergrid cost. Why don't we make torpedoes into a proper battleship weapon?



As far as your suggestion, I like the idea of separating TPs between short and long range, short having more effect just like weapons systems.
However, the intent I'm getting at is to remove the optimal/fall off, and this essentially gimps them when compared to other ewars.
Sure, the other ewars also have optimal/fall off, but they're also a lot more effective against your target.

As far as your comment on nerfing BS class weapons.... HELL no... As far as the Golem goes, it's the 10% per level to effectiveness of TPs that makes it seem OP. You can remove that, but I would argue that if done, you're gimping the Golem in comparison to other Marauders. Truth be told, it's probably the least favored marauder already.
My suggested change to TPs, plus keeping the bonus might actually make the Golem more favorable.

No, I'm not saying the Golem isn't used, or isn't popular, just less popular, mostly due to the fact that you don't have any higher application against targets that have no traversal, and the time it takes to put damage on target.