These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[March] Warp Disruptor and Scrambler Tiericide

First post
Author
AtramLolipop
Space Wolves ind.
Solyaris Chtonium
#101 - 2016-02-14 23:13:27 UTC
Leisha Miralen wrote:
Hilti Enaka wrote:
Murkar Omaristos wrote:
Hilti Enaka wrote:


Seriously what game are you playing? T1 fit frigates "catching" t2 fit battleships. Are you remotely aware how horrible this type of game play is. Why should warp disrupters and scrambles, webs and for that matter jams be exempt from the list of modules that are already grouped into small medium and large categories?


If you take warp disruptors/scrams away from frigs, you lose the ability to tackle stuff on gate (or elsewhere). Ceptors are basicalyl built specifically to tackle stuff (although combat ceptors arguably can DPS, they are still a tackle ship) complete with bonuses set up specifically for tackling.

People are already whining that ceptors etc. warp too fast to be caught. Put scrams and disruptors into the hands of larger ships onl, which have MUCH lower scan resolution, and tackle is broken completely. Your suggestion is so bad on so many levels, I shouldn't even have wasted the time responding to it.


Jesus if this is the intelligence of the people that play eve no wonder the game has become boring and predictable. I argue the modules like warp disrupters, scrambles and webs, should follow suit and be split into groups like all the other modules are. I also said that they should also have relevant penalties just like how medium shields on frigs and ceptors effect the overall fit of the ship. The reply, no because you can't tackle stuff on gates.... GG. That's laughable, wanting a game to focus on people putting together fleet comps to compete against specific ship hulls will provide a far more enjoyable than what is "blob the **** out of anything".


This is just so idiotic I almost have no words....you do realize that lots of fights, including small gang fights and solo, happen on gates, wormholes, etc. right? Not just blobs? And that tackle is an important part of the way roles are structured in EVE?

Also large ships like supercarriers already have ewar immunity, so the argument that frigs shouldn't tackle big ships falls down. there IS ALREADY a size limit on what frigs can tackle. They cannot tackle supers. CCP chose to draw this line at supers instead of battleships.

None of the armor hardeners, membranes, shield hardeners, etc. Should those all be resized too? What about cap rechargers, ECM? By your logic everything should come in all sizes. Where do we draw the line, frigate-battleship sized nanite repair paste?

Put your tears in the jar on the way out.


Thought I'd stop by and comment on this. I actually think Hilti is on to something. As far as i'm concerned you lost all credibility with your ignorant reply followed by your cheap shot, typically this occurs when a. you have no idea or b. the person wrote a reply that actually makes a lot of sense making your look stupid.

Back on topic though, making modules depend more on the size of the hull is a fantastic idea and might actually make this game more interesting to play. Just by the reply above it shows you how 1 track minded the game is and how horrible the game play actually is. Personally any idea that looks to promote more focus on people thinking about their role in a fleet the better, and anything that makes gate camping more strategic than sitting a bunch of t1 fit frigates on a gate the better.

For me Armor hardeners , membranes, shield hardeners are a "percentage increase" module, in my opinion when there is a percentage attribute, a sized module is not needed.

This idea actually has some wheels and i'll plus 1 it. Thanks Hilti.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#102 - 2016-02-14 23:25:12 UTC
Hilti Enaka wrote:
Pandora Deninard wrote:
StuRyan wrote:
Hilti Enaka wrote:
Why stop at "fitting requirements" these modules should be restricted to ship class too.

Frigates should not be scrambling/distrupting battlecruisers/capitals etc or is that is the intention something needs to give.

These modules NEED to be thought of in the same lights as Neuts and Nos. It ridiculous that you have a 6kms nano ship sit tidy at 40km + and not in the slightest be affected.

My 2 cents this change isn't enough. You should be forcing people into bringing the right types of ships to a fight instead allowing gangs to get away with fitting the same size module across several ship hulls.

Small / Medium / Large for
frigs / cruisers / battleship

meaning a small warp disrupter has very little effect on a large ship.


This....


No, not this. Frigates are literally designed for tackle, that's their major role - to catch stuff. A frigate on its own does nothing to the battleship. And they NEED scrams to shut off MJDs, anything larger than a cruiser won't get there and scram in time to prevent ships getting away. This is literally one of the worst suggestions I've ever seen on this forum (and THAT is saying something).


Seriously what game are you playing? T1 fit frigates "catching" t2 fit battleships. Are you remotely aware how horrible this type of game play is. Why should warp disrupters and scrambles, webs and for that matter jams be exempt from the list of modules that are already grouped into small medium and large categories?



No this is extremely good game design or forces larger ships to need support for smaller ones the problem is not frigates or battle ships it's cruisers they way to good against both smaller and larger ships and they can do almost every role in the game meaning there is no reason to fly anything bigger. Either battle ships and battle cruisers need to be buffed to resist cruisers better or cruisers need to be brought back down to earth
AtramLolipop
Space Wolves ind.
Solyaris Chtonium
#103 - 2016-02-14 23:38:11 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Hilti Enaka wrote:
Pandora Deninard wrote:
StuRyan wrote:
Hilti Enaka wrote:
Why stop at "fitting requirements" these modules should be restricted to ship class too.

Frigates should not be scrambling/distrupting battlecruisers/capitals etc or is that is the intention something needs to give.

These modules NEED to be thought of in the same lights as Neuts and Nos. It ridiculous that you have a 6kms nano ship sit tidy at 40km + and not in the slightest be affected.

My 2 cents this change isn't enough. You should be forcing people into bringing the right types of ships to a fight instead allowing gangs to get away with fitting the same size module across several ship hulls.

Small / Medium / Large for
frigs / cruisers / battleship

meaning a small warp disrupter has very little effect on a large ship.


This....


No, not this. Frigates are literally designed for tackle, that's their major role - to catch stuff. A frigate on its own does nothing to the battleship. And they NEED scrams to shut off MJDs, anything larger than a cruiser won't get there and scram in time to prevent ships getting away. This is literally one of the worst suggestions I've ever seen on this forum (and THAT is saying something).


Seriously what game are you playing? T1 fit frigates "catching" t2 fit battleships. Are you remotely aware how horrible this type of game play is. Why should warp disrupters and scrambles, webs and for that matter jams be exempt from the list of modules that are already grouped into small medium and large categories?



No this is extremely good game design or forces larger ships to need support for smaller ones the problem is not frigates or battle ships it's cruisers they way to good against both smaller and larger ships and they can do almost every role in the game meaning there is no reason to fly anything bigger. Either battle ships and battle cruisers need to be buffed to resist cruisers better or cruisers need to be brought back down to earth


I'd have to say "was" good game design but the game has changed and people are more savvy now meaning it's a lot harder to enjoy playing the game. I've often heard the argument that risk versus reward is what the game is built on but todays meta just make this argument completely redundant. Especially when you see things like retributions, griffins fleet gate camping low sec gates and having no trouble tanking the gate guns at the same time as t1 modules on griffins jam out t2 fit battleships.

I actually think all of the "no grouped" electronic warfare modules need to be redone. They should have the same diminishing returns as neuts and noses do. e.g. medium nos can be fit on frigs but makes the hull ceptable to the right counters.
Shalashaska Adam
Snakes and Lasers
#104 - 2016-02-14 23:49:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Shalashaska Adam
CCP Fozzie wrote:

As for the range on named scramblers, the current design isn't an accident but we are also willing to re-evaluate once we see how things develop on SISI. The goal is to provide an actual choice between named and T2 scramblers and this means each option must have tradeoffs. The old system with meta 4 modules dominating T2 was far from ideal. This new version means that fitting a T2 scram will be something many fits will want, but many fits will need to make sacrifices in other areas to reach that goal. The decision of which attributes you value most will be up to each individual pilot.


There is indeed legitimate merit to the idea behind the rebalance.

One of your primary goals behind all the tiericide has been to reduce redundancy but open up worthwhile choices.

I would hope everyone here understands that intention, and I think most do.

However, as someone quite rightly pointed out, and your own market data can confirm, people are currently prepared to pay 30 TIMES as much isk for a scrambler that has a mere 375 meter increase in range over another one.

The scoped can maintain its range advantage, which for this class of module in question, is the main selling feature, and extraordinarily valuable no matter what, without the need to exponentially widen the gap between them and the T2.

As mentioned before, even if you go with the much more straightforward and easy for newbros to remember option of 8000-8500-9000, you are still not giving people a functional equivalent to the J5B, and the gaps between them in range would still be very significant, much more so than they are now.

I think the intention is well understood, but the implementation of it in the first pass of numbers is far too extreme for such an incredibly range sensitive module, and the intention and balance can still be had without such a large blanket nerf.

Can I ask what is happening with the loot tables? I assume they will be changed to make the three meta options all similarly priced.
Aaril
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#105 - 2016-02-15 02:55:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Aaril
I still say the progression should be 8250m->8650m->9000m. Players today already have been paying many times the cost of the J5b (I believe it can be over 40x the cost) just to get those extra 350m with the Faint Epsilon. Here is the list of nerfs to expect with this patch (because most fits require some meta items already):

-Expect to lose 400m-1500m of scram range
-Expect to lose 3%+ damage to gain a meager 5 CPU (the cpu on the compact damage modules should be 20 CPU)
-Expect to lose 2.5%-5% web strength (metas after the patch are 55% instead of today's 57.5%)
-Expect to lose 2.5% TP power (the new metas should have been 28.5% at the very least)

I could keep going on, but you get the idea.

Basically, I completely agree with the principle of choice and tradeoffs. These first pass numbers have gone beyond tradeoffs and choice into straight up nerfs where there is very little choice. Basically, new players are going to be nerfed and vets will just buy genos and keep their same power. Please bring up these first pass numbers to something reasonable. T2 can be the clear winner (i.e. PWNAGE and Faint Epsilon should now be 28.5% and 8650m respectively...not the same as T2 with better fitting), but not so much worse that it becomes nearly zero choice.

I really hope the citadels with the new clone (implant) swapping mechanic has no cooldown (since the cooldown is there to prevent teleporting around the universe continually). That way I can have a CPU clone and a PG clone. Either that or split the CPU and PG implants into different slots (also maybe reconsider having CPU missile implants in slot 6...I am finding the Nemesis is pretty much impossible to fit after these changes without an implant).
Dantelion Shinoni
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#106 - 2016-02-15 08:10:15 UTC
Aaril wrote:
I still say the progression should be 8250m->8650m->9000m.
-Expect to lose 400m-1500m of scram range
-Expect to lose 3%+ damage to gain a meager 5 CPU (the cpu on the compact damage modules should be 20 CPU)
-Expect to lose 2.5%-5% web strength (metas after the patch are 55% instead of today's 57.5%)
-Expect to lose 2.5% TP power (the new metas should have been 28.5% at the very least)

I could keep going on, but you get the idea.


Pretty much my sentiment, this is going to nerf a playstyle and invalidate a lot of hulls.

Worse, directly nerfing scram ranges like that is a straight buff to kiting. Like that playstyle needed help getting even more binary.

Plus, the invisible metrics here, this is result in less fights all around New Eden, hundreds of guys warping out while a couple hundred meters from your scram.
Fights are the lifeblood of this game, I don't think this is a good idea to nerf it.
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#107 - 2016-02-15 08:17:14 UTC
again fozzie - how much heat can stuff take?

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#108 - 2016-02-15 14:06:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
As with the webs it seems to me not all meta 8 are equal. A cpu reduction does not equate to a range increase when it comes to faction webs or faction points.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#109 - 2016-02-15 14:13:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitch Kaneland
can the hookbill get a CPU or PG buff? Its always been tight even before these module changes. Hookbills aren't out terrorizing the meta, and got a decent damage buff recently. But now they will struggle to fit rocket launchers, MSE and webs+scram. Unless you want them to only fit AB's, which negates roaming in null.
Mad Abbat
Talon Swarm
#110 - 2016-02-15 15:24:01 UTC
almost every frigate will strugle to fit web+sram. But fear not, there is always the room for long dis on meta_garmur Attention
Onslaughtor
Phoenix Naval Operations
Phoenix Naval Systems
#111 - 2016-02-16 00:40:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Onslaughtor
A few things that imidiatly stood out to me.

The ranges on the t1 compact and enduring scrams are all way too short. Id even say that the range on the t2 could be buffed up by 500m to make it match better with webs but that is more a personal observation about fitting styles.

The compact scram could be a little bit more compact, I know you want there to be competitive reasons between fitting modules but its a little too weak, even if it got a 1km buff to range. bring it down to 24 cpu might help a bit.

Just as a thought there could be some room for a point and scram that are very light on cpu but nerf the powergrid of the hull, in the same vein of thought as polarized weapons. T2 min max module style.
Cartheron Crust
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#112 - 2016-02-16 11:49:59 UTC
Cearain wrote:
As with the webs it seems to me not all meta 8 are equal. A cpu reduction does not equate to a range increase when it comes to faction webs or faction points.


Actually it does. That is a valid trade off. After years of EFT warrioring fits and then using them in game, many times the Caldari Navy Scram (i think it was that faction one) was the scram of choice. Because of that very low cpu use allowing the fit I wanted, while still having a slight increase in range over T2 and being quite a bit cheaper than the other faction variants. Smile

Fitting, range, strength and isk (done via LP store and/or drop rate) are all valid ways of "balancing" when it comes to modules for pvp.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#113 - 2016-02-16 16:53:38 UTC
Cartheron Crust wrote:
Cearain wrote:
As with the webs it seems to me not all meta 8 are equal. A cpu reduction does not equate to a range increase when it comes to faction webs or faction points.


Actually it does. That is a valid trade off. After years of EFT warrioring fits and then using them in game, many times the Caldari Navy Scram (i think it was that faction one) was the scram of choice. Because of that very low cpu use allowing the fit I wanted, while still having a slight increase in range over T2 and being quite a bit cheaper than the other faction variants. Smile

Fitting, range, strength and isk (done via LP store and/or drop rate) are all valid ways of "balancing" when it comes to modules for pvp.


Hi Cartheron

If you want to bet which disruptors or webs will cost more in one year I would be happy to bet you. If this clear inequality is left The caladari and dread guristas will be cheaper.

When it comes to faction items it is going to be much more useful to have the range when fitting to cruiser or above than the cpu. For fitting to frigates maybe the cpu will be helpful but you will find that overall the demand for the faction items with better primary stats will be much more in demand. If the cpu ones actually go up to much in price no one flying a frigate will even want to fit them. So this is doomed to inequity.

But what we think is by and large irrelevant. CCP already reached the conclusion I did without even talking about more expensive faction mods. So it seems they are now doing a 180 on that.

"It’s important to note that none of the named modules specialize in stronger “primary” stats, as those modules would become the obvious best choice for most situations."
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/rebalancing-eve-one-module-at-a-time/?_ga=1.221320859.2033440685.1432326094

And here again the faction distruptors and webs with longer range (and in the case of webs greater reduction in speed) will "become the obvious best choice for most situations."

What is odd is they fully articulate this problem before they balance the modules but still leave it unbalanced. No explanation at all. I mean whether you agree or disagree with what they say I hope we can all at least recognize this is a change from their goals. The clearest example of this is the webs where caldari webs have both less range *and* less speed reduction in exchange for cpu.


Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Asinae Antaelis
#114 - 2016-02-16 17:27:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Asinae Antaelis
o/
In another thread ( https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6297261#post6297261 ) i emit the idea that ewar module should have capacitor consumption based on the target ship size:
Quote:
Hello,
I am not into pvp for now, but an idea that comes to my mind is that point/scram/turret disruptor/web have the same cap usage whatever they are aimed at.
Maybe they should adjust the cap consumption of these modules depending on the target size:
For example, using a web against a frigate will burn 1Gj per cycle, but 2Gj to web a destroyer, 3Gj to web a cruiser and so on.
so a frigate trying to web something bigger will burned faster its capacitor so less capacitor available for dps/afterburner etc...
this way it will be a little bit harder for the small to control the big...
Just an idea, passing by!
Kibitt Kallinikov
Crimson Serpent Syndicate
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#115 - 2016-02-16 18:48:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Kibitt Kallinikov
I like most of these changes, but in the world of Interceptors, all I can say is that the Ares is about to get rekt.

Here's an example fit before I go into specifics:

[Ares, Fast Ares.]
Damage Control II
Overdrive Injector System II
Overdrive Injector System II
Type-D Attenuation Signal Augmentation

5MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Warp Disruptor II

125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Iridium Charge S
125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Iridium Charge S
125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Iridium Charge S

Small Polycarbon Engine Housing II
Small Polycarbon Engine Housing II


You have 4 CPU left after max skills. Typical Malediction fit is more agile, has smaller sig radius, better application with LML, and only slightly worse EHP. The signal amplifier change won't let you meet that mark with compact sig amplifier as you need to hit 8 CPU but will only get a total of 6.25 from that change. The other issue is that the GJ cost of t2 disruptors is being increased.

I feel that the Ares simply won't fit guns after this change. You will have to use either compact MWD (in which case you're only capstable with perfect skills and no guns) in which case other inty have significantly better sig, or remove your sig amp (which was being buffed to aid you against ECM) or downgrade DC to have almost no tank. Small shield extender Crow will have more EHP and similar sig.

What I propose is simple - let Ares have stronger capacitor than other interceptors. It won't break anything, it won't even change all of what I detailed above, but at least it will make it so that if you choose to fit a weapon, you can actually cycle it throughout a fight. If you feel the Ares could use more CPU - that's awesome, but I don't expect it. Alternatively, it also helps Ares run an armor repairer during a fight, which holds the theme of Amarr being buffer, Gallente being active tank.

It's just sad because it looks like a ship that was already an underdog is about to get thrown into the dumpster, even though I doubt it was intentional.

P.S. - Malediction has the same agility as Ares once MWD is cycling. Isn't Ares supposed to be the agile one?

EDIT: If you want to reduce the complaints about CPU cost for t2 scram, just make it 34 CPU. It's the same change from compact to scoped, only it's scoped to t2 (26 -> 30, then 30 -> 34). I feel it would still be a meaningful difference from scoped.
Cartheron Crust
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#116 - 2016-02-16 23:10:02 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Cartheron Crust wrote:
Cearain wrote:
As with the webs it seems to me not all meta 8 are equal. A cpu reduction does not equate to a range increase when it comes to faction webs or faction points.


Actually it does. That is a valid trade off. After years of EFT warrioring fits and then using them in game, many times the Caldari Navy Scram (i think it was that faction one) was the scram of choice. Because of that very low cpu use allowing the fit I wanted, while still having a slight increase in range over T2 and being quite a bit cheaper than the other faction variants. Smile

Fitting, range, strength and isk (done via LP store and/or drop rate) are all valid ways of "balancing" when it comes to modules for pvp.


Hi Cartheron

If you want to bet which disruptors or webs will cost more in one year I would be happy to bet you. If this clear inequality is left The caladari and dread guristas will be cheaper.

When it comes to faction items it is going to be much more useful to have the range when fitting to cruiser or above than the cpu. For fitting to frigates maybe the cpu will be helpful but you will find that overall the demand for the faction items with better primary stats will be much more in demand. If the cpu ones actually go up to much in price no one flying a frigate will even want to fit them. So this is doomed to inequity.



It is indeed strange then that I and the corp I am in largely fly cruiser and above (and prefer BC/BS really) and still have found use many times for the CN scram because of the exact reason of lower cpu use and ISK cost, while still getting a small range increase over t2. Pretty much the only frigate we use is the keres and only for damps. But please carry on and ignore my point.
Hilti Enaka
Space Wolves ind.
Solyaris Chtonium
#117 - 2016-02-17 00:34:40 UTC
Asinae Antaelis wrote:
o/
In another thread ( https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6297261#post6297261 ) i emit the idea that ewar module should have capacitor consumption based on the target ship size:
Quote:
Hello,
I am not into pvp for now, but an idea that comes to my mind is that point/scram/turret disruptor/web have the same cap usage whatever they are aimed at.
Maybe they should adjust the cap consumption of these modules depending on the target size:
For example, using a web against a frigate will burn 1Gj per cycle, but 2Gj to web a destroyer, 3Gj to web a cruiser and so on.
so a frigate trying to web something bigger will burned faster its capacitor so less capacitor available for dps/afterburner etc...
this way it will be a little bit harder for the small to control the big...
Just an idea, passing by!


Great idea.

just anything to get away from the constant spurge of t1 frigate tying ships 20 times bigger down.
Fr3akwave
Mercury Arms Inc.
#118 - 2016-02-17 07:12:09 UTC
Those CPU requirements on the meta scrams are literally going to kill 90% of all remotely close frigate fits.
Whenever you used any meta scram to save some CPU, you are now forced to downgrade to compact and its ****** range.

Fun times for FW pilots ahead. Lets rework ALL the fitted ships.


I think this is neither interesting nor cool.
Atomeon
Unbound Reborn
WE FORM BL0B University
#119 - 2016-02-18 21:33:33 UTC
Warak Soal wrote:
Stealth nerf to Deep Space Transports or will you bump their warp core strength to +3?


Yes, when you going to fix this? Also DON'T forget Venture the mining frigate!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#120 - 2016-02-19 20:38:28 UTC
Atomeon wrote:
Warak Soal wrote:
Stealth nerf to Deep Space Transports or will you bump their warp core strength to +3?


Yes, when you going to fix this? Also DON'T forget Venture the mining frigate!


As DST owner I don't see the issue. Fit a stab or out tank till help arrives.