These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Odyssey] Module Rebalancing Part One: RSBs and TEs

First post First post First post
Author
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#201 - 2013-03-27 05:39:55 UTC
NORTEL wrote:
solo fleets


Straight
NORTEL
Death by Design.
#202 - 2013-03-27 05:45:27 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
NORTEL wrote:
solo fleets


Straight

Semantics much?

NORTEL

Casha Andven
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#203 - 2013-03-27 05:49:12 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
Hellakhanasos wrote:
Venustas Blue wrote:
If your fighting at 0, say in scram & Webb range to be doing affective damage, theres no way to disengage say if your off gate. Unless your ****** fit with stabs or possibly AB fit and able to burn out. The more powerful ship or better counter fit ship will always win. You will not have the ability granted to kiting ships to disengagde by either burning away, or causing the hostile to lose point by pulsing MWD on cross axis so they burn out of range & lose point, allowing you to warp out. There's little skill in fighting at 0 (scram/Webb) range, nerfing TEs kiting ability, wich is an art and skill its self would be yet another mistake by CCP, and a great loss as far as skill goes for the game.
There is counters to kiting ships, & as far as minnie ships go, they have already been nerfed enough, dont ruin it by overstepping a reasonable current mark & success. This proposed change to TEs needs to be scrapped. All it would do is subject eve to yet a other nerf of making the game ever easier, this does not inspire anybody to become better within tactics and situational awareness, it only acts to dumb it down, even giving more reason to blob, and there should be no further reason given to blobbing WHAT SO EVER. Should be promoting skill and fun gfs instead.
Sometimes it becomes very apparent CCP are out of touch with the game and its tactics, this is as good as any example.
A resounding NO to TE nerf from me.


After sifting through the turd of many prior posts over the last couple of pages. This is more of less spot on.


Yeah basically this.


This.
CCP you are dumbing down the game. May I ask why?
Sigras
Conglomo
#204 - 2013-03-27 06:12:02 UTC
Casha Andven wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:
Hellakhanasos wrote:
Venustas Blue wrote:
If your fighting at 0, say in scram & Webb range to be doing affective damage, theres no way to disengage say if your off gate. Unless your ****** fit with stabs or possibly AB fit and able to burn out. The more powerful ship or better counter fit ship will always win. You will not have the ability granted to kiting ships to disengagde by either burning away, or causing the hostile to lose point by pulsing MWD on cross axis so they burn out of range & lose point, allowing you to warp out. There's little skill in fighting at 0 (scram/Webb) range, nerfing TEs kiting ability, wich is an art and skill its self would be yet another mistake by CCP, and a great loss as far as skill goes for the game.
There is counters to kiting ships, & as far as minnie ships go, they have already been nerfed enough, dont ruin it by overstepping a reasonable current mark & success. This proposed change to TEs needs to be scrapped. All it would do is subject eve to yet a other nerf of making the game ever easier, this does not inspire anybody to become better within tactics and situational awareness, it only acts to dumb it down, even giving more reason to blob, and there should be no further reason given to blobbing WHAT SO EVER. Should be promoting skill and fun gfs instead.
Sometimes it becomes very apparent CCP are out of touch with the game and its tactics, this is as good as any example.
A resounding NO to TE nerf from me.


After sifting through the turd of many prior posts over the last couple of pages. This is more of less spot on.


Yeah basically this.


This.
CCP you are dumbing down the game. May I ask why?

Just a question . . . if kiting is "uber 1337 PvP for the skilled players" then doesnt making kiting harder raise the skill required to pull it off?

Doesnt that mean there is a clearer line between the "good PvPers who can kite" and the "bad PvPers who cant"?

That being said, in small gangs, life is a function of speed + damage projection thats what makes the shield tanking required in small gangs, because they get speed from not having armor plates and damage projection because they have a TON of free low slots.

This is now being brought into balance, so that armor tankers are now only down on one front not two.
SmarncaV2
Doomheim
#205 - 2013-03-27 06:14:41 UTC
Remote sebos are used for countering Sensor damping wich is OP at the moment and with the remote sebo neft you are making them even more powerfull.



James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#206 - 2013-03-27 06:17:50 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Just a question . . . if kiting is "uber 1337 PvP for the skilled players" then doesnt making kiting harder raise the skill required to pull it off?

Doesnt that mean there is a clearer line between the "good PvPers who can kite" and the "bad PvPers who cant"?

That being said, in small gangs, life is a function of speed + damage projection thats what makes the shield tanking required in small gangs, because they get speed from not having armor plates and damage projection because they have a TON of free low slots.

This is now being brought into balance, so that armor tankers are now only down on one front not two.

Or it means that kiting is reduced to a very very select group of setups that most people would never use. It's not even that common to begin with.

So it doesn't become "only the really good PVPers kite", it becomes "nobody kites because kiting has become worthless".

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Cal Stantson
17eme Chasseurs a Cheval
#207 - 2013-03-27 06:18:26 UTC
It would have made a lot more sense to rebalance the modules before rebalancing the ships , rather than the other way around.
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#208 - 2013-03-27 06:30:14 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Casha Andven wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:
Hellakhanasos wrote:
Venustas Blue wrote:
If your fighting at 0, say in scram & Webb range to be doing affective damage, theres no way to disengage say if your off gate. Unless your ****** fit with stabs or possibly AB fit and able to burn out. The more powerful ship or better counter fit ship will always win. You will not have the ability granted to kiting ships to disengagde by either burning away, or causing the hostile to lose point by pulsing MWD on cross axis so they burn out of range & lose point, allowing you to warp out. There's little skill in fighting at 0 (scram/Webb) range, nerfing TEs kiting ability, wich is an art and skill its self would be yet another mistake by CCP, and a great loss as far as skill goes for the game.
There is counters to kiting ships, & as far as minnie ships go, they have already been nerfed enough, dont ruin it by overstepping a reasonable current mark & success. This proposed change to TEs needs to be scrapped. All it would do is subject eve to yet a other nerf of making the game ever easier, this does not inspire anybody to become better within tactics and situational awareness, it only acts to dumb it down, even giving more reason to blob, and there should be no further reason given to blobbing WHAT SO EVER. Should be promoting skill and fun gfs instead.
Sometimes it becomes very apparent CCP are out of touch with the game and its tactics, this is as good as any example.
A resounding NO to TE nerf from me.


After sifting through the turd of many prior posts over the last couple of pages. This is more of less spot on.


Yeah basically this.


This.
CCP you are dumbing down the game. May I ask why?

Just a question . . . if kiting is "uber 1337 PvP for the skilled players" then doesnt making kiting harder raise the skill required to pull it off?


You can't kite if you can't project damage at all. Then it's just called "running away."
Volstruis
Kybernauts
Kybernauts Clade
#209 - 2013-03-27 06:40:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Volstruis
I seriously f'n hated reading this post.

It's not TE's that are the problem it's the kiting meta. And I'm sorry, but everytime you whack Minnie pilots in the face like this in the name of balance it actually hurts that I spent 30 days training falloff 5 because there is now no significant reason without TE's to even try fly like that.

In a fair and equal engagement pretty much every Minnie boat dies horrible deaths to Caldari boats. Every single one of em. If you keep going at this rate there will be no reason whatsoever to fly anything but Caldari in pvp.

Or is that the plan? All hail the DraekTengu OVerlords?

Hallowed be thy payload?

I mean how quickly can I sell my Wolves, Ruppies etc etc now.

Fozzie the idea is surely balance, not periodic promotion of one race significantly above others.
Taoist Dragon
Okata Syndicate
#210 - 2013-03-27 06:45:26 UTC
LOL only kiting take brains! MY ARSE!

it is often just as difficult to fight as a brawler than it is to kite.

I fly both setups and they both are easy mode if you engage the opposite setup at your combat range.!

This won't stop kiting as a valid tactic, it was a valid tactic before the TE got overbonused so it'll still be a valid tactic. Get over yourselves!

Adapt or die!

That is the Way, the Tao.

Balance is everything.

Sigras
Conglomo
#211 - 2013-03-27 06:45:45 UTC
I was just thinking of writing a treatise on why low slots are more valuable than mid slots in a PvP ship.

Many people get this backwards because there are two modules that are basically required in PvP that are mid slot items(prop mod and point), while there are basically no "required" low slot items, but I say that low slots are more valuable because every other mid slot module provides only slight bonuses in combat while you can add 6-8 low slot modules which all really effect how well the ship performs.

This is evidenced in most popular fits, and is probably most clear in the battlecruiser lineup. The hurricane is most commonly a shield tanking ship, despite its 7/4/6 slot configuration, This is because it uses all of its low slots for non tank applications and still gets to fit the 2 "required" mid slots. Nobody in their right mind would armor tank a ship with a 7/6/4 slot configuration unless they had bonused mid slots or a special role like the falcon, and even if you could fit a good tank with four slots, what would you put in the 4 free mids? a cap booster is probably the third most useful mid, and then what? two random jammers? maybe a web if you need to/can get that close?

even the Brutix and the Hyperion, both of which have armor tanking bonuses, commonly field a shield tank + damage mods.
I even have a dominix shield fit because it does insanity damage, but nobody would ever think of armor tanking a Maelstrom.

This is a problem for small gang PvPers, but scales up even worse. In large fleets, you have dedicated tackle and dedicated e-war reducing the need for tackle mods in your general fleet.

TL;DR
lows are more valuable than mids because there are more combat effecting low slot modules; the TE nerf changes that.
Roman Sichko
Grandfather's in armchair
#212 - 2013-03-27 06:47:07 UTC
I think CCP simply want deleted Gallente from game. Especially close range blasters. What happened with gallente it's incredible...(((
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#213 - 2013-03-27 06:47:32 UTC
How about you stop fitting short range weapons if you don't want to fight at short range.
Sigras
Conglomo
#214 - 2013-03-27 06:50:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Sigras
Ganthrithor wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Casha Andven wrote:

This.
CCP you are dumbing down the game. May I ask why?

Just a question . . . if kiting is "uber 1337 PvP for the skilled players" then doesnt making kiting harder raise the skill required to pull it off?


You can't kite if you can't project damage at all. Then it's just called "running away."

with just some quick math, my cynabal will drop from 3.9 + 44 to 3.6 + 38

Oh no, now my guns will never do any damage :(

EDIT:
more quick math

The above numbers mean that I drop from 379 at max long point range to 357

its a 5.81% decrease in DPS
Roman Sichko
Grandfather's in armchair
#215 - 2013-03-27 06:51:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Roman Sichko
TrouserDeagle wrote:
How about you stop fitting short range weapons if you don't want to fight at short range.


Are you kidding me? 2-4 km on small ships and 4-8 on bigger - you said is this long range? After this path it will more deplorably...
Volstruis
Kybernauts
Kybernauts Clade
#216 - 2013-03-27 06:52:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Volstruis
Don't stress dudes. This is obviously clearly needed for the significant Firetail buff.

2xTE, mse firetail would've been owning all over New Eden without this. Hail Fozzie and the new DreakTenngu OVerloards!

Fozzie, please, for my sanity's sake and before I go sell my Loki and 1/2 my hangar, what is ur plan to keep AC's balanced? Or are you going to keep turning Minnie ships into weak missile boats so that us sobs eventually give in, train em up, and bow down to DreakTengu Kings and Queens by flying condors?

Is the plan actually to make AC's low-damage blasters with damage selection?
Sigras
Conglomo
#217 - 2013-03-27 06:55:45 UTC
Roman Sichko wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
How about you stop fitting short range weapons if you don't want to fight at short range.


Are you kidding me? 2-4 km on small ships and 4-8 on bigger - you said is this long range? After this path it will more deplorably...

if you dont want to get that close, why fit blasters?
Roman Sichko
Grandfather's in armchair
#218 - 2013-03-27 07:00:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Roman Sichko
Sigras wrote:
Roman Sichko wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
How about you stop fitting short range weapons if you don't want to fight at short range.


Are you kidding me? 2-4 km on small ships and 4-8 on bigger - you said is this long range? After this path it will more deplorably...

if you dont want to get that close, why fit blasters?


I think all weapons in EVE may be usable, you don't think as? Simply lovers of gallente is so small numbers, and CCP decided - damn, kill them all now!!!
Dez Affinity
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#219 - 2013-03-27 07:05:15 UTC
I don't really care about the RSB change, doesn't really impact anything at all. Just means the ***** ships pirates use are now fitted with a couple extra RSBs. So whatevs

CCP Fozzie wrote:


Now for TEs. It's a fairly well accepted fact that the great optimal and falloff bonuses on TEs are over the top,


By who? I've never heard this?

CCP Fozzie wrote:

The strength of TEs has been one of the reasons for Minmatar dominance in recent years,


Not really man. Minmatar has dominance for a couple of reasons, in battleship fleet warfare it's because of the Artillery buff. In Cruiser BC it's because they're kitey in nature and are fast - aka they run away the easiest which is the preferred tactic of choice for much of EVE. (The cynabal and vaga get dumpstered pretty hard these days so you can expect them to run away)

Really there's only a few Minmatar ships that are 'dominant' in recent years. Tornado, Cane, Fleet Stabber, Tempest, Mach and Vargur if we count tournies.

Tornado is because of the Alpha. Cane is because it was the fastest BC and you could shield or armor tank it and the neuts helped. Fleet stabber is because it is quite versatile, tanky or range, sig or buffer or rep fit. Tempest is just a big pre nerf hurricane, always been decent. Mach is most expensive non ~unique~ sub cap there is and it's whole bonus is to give ridiculous falloffs. Kinda seems fair to me.

CCP Fozzie wrote:

inflating the value of non-tank low slots.


Low slots are always valuable because they affect your damage output and potential tank, always. Mid slots don't always affect your damage output because they are normally reserved for a shield tank or ewar/tackle. In gangs less tackle per ship is needed which gives more weight to low slots because if you have the enemy tackled well, next step is deeps.

but low slots are competitive real estate, you have to decide whether you want to add a 3rd or heck even a 4th damage mod or double up or triple up on TEs. but if you do fit that many damage mods and TEs, you might leave less room for fitting mods or speed mods or cap mods, or tank mods. All these things affect your ability to live.

.

Anyway you say you want to redress the minmatar 'dominance' but I don't really see that, I just see it making the more kitey ones (most of these are pretty sucky a la vaga cynabal) do a bit less dps.

To me this seems more like a nerf to the tier 3 bcs, but going about it in a way that it affects every ship rather than the ones that need it. (and they do need it because **** they do EVERYTHING)

Also I wrote this at 6am so whatevs yo
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#220 - 2013-03-27 07:05:20 UTC
Grarr Dexx wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Grarr Dexx wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Grarr Dexx wrote:
While I agree with the remote sensor booster nerf, are there any plans for nerfing the cloak warp trick so often abused in lowsec? I'm getting kinda tired of missing out on all those solo navy battleships that are practically invincible, even without any support.

Learn to decloak.


Your solution involves bringing a unique person to a camp who can't do anything but mill about hoping for one of these idiots to jump in. Why not fix the issue at the core here? You want to move your (expensive) ship, get an escort or a courier, or face death. There's no reason a lumbering battleship should escape certain death in the face of overwhelming odds.

Seeing as it's a successful tactic, they're not idiots for using it. You're the idiot for being unprepared and instead choosing to complain about it.


Silly me, trying to argue with ex-northern coalition members.


No, silly you for demanding that another player do something (escort, courrier or die) while in the same breath refusing to simply have a ship around to de cloak people.

Not sure when you turned into a ninny Grarr but it actually happened.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.