These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#301 - 2013-03-27 10:12:21 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
I don't really get the RSB nerf either. Guy guys we need a way to make burning back to gates easier. Because this game really needs to be more forgiving of pilot error.


You make a mistake, you die. The system is perfect.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Xyris Rixx
Perkone
Caldari State
#302 - 2013-03-27 10:15:24 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Xyris Rixx wrote:
, I was really just trying to get clarification on CCPs opinion of the shield/armor tanking choice atm - is it considered to be fair, is one over powered and is there an internal decision to pull one into line withthe other - especially since the uniquness between the two systems is starting to be blurred.


CCP have stated on several occasions that they believe that Shield tanking is a bit skewed and too strong at the moment and have been taking steps to bring armor tanking back in line.


Aww Grath - I was expecting an angry rant and now you have left me disapointed with your reasoned arguments :P

Cheers for clarifying though - I've missed any dev-things saying that.
Alexander vadowa
#303 - 2013-03-27 10:16:59 UTC
Lex Arson wrote:
Yes please nerf TE's, having **** DPS at acceptable ranges in all kiting ships is more of what we the userbase want

Why would goon developer like kiting ships?
Magic Crisp
Amarrian Micro Devices
#304 - 2013-03-27 10:18:29 UTC
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, especially considering they can get them while also simultaneously giving decent tracking boosts. The strength of TEs has been one of the reasons for Minmatar dominance in recent years, as well as contributing to the relative strength of shield tanking over armor tanking by inflating the value of non-tank low slots. What we're looking at is simply decreasing the falloff and optimal bonuses of all TEs by 1/3, and leaving their tracking bonus intact.


Well, this is decreasing minmatar DPS, straightly. The most who'll suffer from this are the ratters i think. Right now it's already hard from a matar marauder to hit orbitting sanshas around 40-50K, after this, that'll be even more of a PAIN.

Otherwise, the naglfar, which works from fallof, and has to be able to hit a large CT outside of the FF,will probably do,especially if the launchers are gone and we can compensate by replacing a BCU with another TE. Right now the effective range (opt+falloff/2,that is 90% applied damage) is around 41K on a nag, the ff radius is 30K, so right now it mostly works. After the change 38.75, so not that much of a change (this was calculated with a 3gyro+1TE nag fit), so probably it'll do.

I think this will hurt the ratters quite bad, but from a pvp point of view, we'll manage somehow.
Zilero
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#305 - 2013-03-27 10:19:10 UTC
I don't understand the need for this nerf, but what's really bugging me about it is that in most cases it seems to be a idiotic divide by 2 in terms of bonuses.

A proper rebalance would have looked at the (quite expensive) faction TE's and noticed that these have NO bonus to falloff as opposed to their T2 counterpart.... and increased this falloff bonus a bit so they would be better than the T2.

Right now faction TE's are not worth a dime (except if you have CPU problems) and a proper rebalance would have fixed this.

0/10 CCP for fixing **** that did not need a fix and as you insisted on fixing it, for not fixing it properly.
PAPULA
The Chodak
Void Alliance
#306 - 2013-03-27 10:25:27 UTC  |  Edited by: PAPULA
Zilero wrote:
I don't understand the need for this nerf, but what's really bugging me about it is that in most cases it seems to be a idiotic divide by 2 in terms of bonuses..

It's Mr. Fozzie being bored and his PL friends doing idiotic changes.
Fozzie nerfed missiles first, now everything else will be nerfed also.
Kaal Redrum
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#307 - 2013-03-27 10:25:28 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Kaal Redrum wrote:


Maybe you want me to now run the math with links included?


Who cares bout the links, your numbers are static against a sitting target at the edge of your fall off (actually past the edge of your fall off to the point that you're in your second tier of falloff). Realistically you'll be doing about 200 DPS with the post buff cane and 250 with your current cane.

Tell me more about how a collective change of 50 dps when fighting at the worst possible range kills the ship as a whole.

The collective change for those that are wondering on his fit for ranges?

Pre TE Nerf:

1.9+20

Post TE Nerf:

1.8+17


I'm going to tell you honestly that you'll likely never notice that difference. You're not as good at Eve as you think you are, the likely hood that you'll be consistantly able to hold at 22km is pretty damn slim, you will bounce in and out of that range with a fair degree of consistency.

So tell me more about your on paper DPS and how the collective change of 50 DPS at the extreme end of your range nerfs your ship.

The truth is the difference isn't really that big. Lets do another fit that you're claiming is "dead".


Ughhhh losing argument .... Must start to nitpick ... Must start hurling personal insults .. Else people might actually believe another set of facts than my own...

Lol, you're very passionate about this - do explain why exactly this change is needed. I'm a pirate, who flies pretty much all sub-Bs ships, I'll just enjoy my time in another hull/fit, but am very curious where this change comes from.

Finally, the 22km range used is an approximation - ofcourse you'll swing between 20-24km. Irrespective it's still a 15ish % nerf to applied dps. Why are you PL boys so bothered about the 22km number.

Use your 200 vs 250dps number, are you telling me that a 20% applied dps nerf isn't 'really that big a difference?' how much premium are people paying for 5-10% increases using faction/deadspace mods and implants?
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#308 - 2013-03-27 10:28:43 UTC
Zilero wrote:
I don't understand the need for this nerf, but what's really bugging me about it is that in most cases it seems to be a idiotic divide by 2 in terms of bonuses.

A proper rebalance would have looked at the (quite expensive) faction TE's and noticed that these have NO bonus to falloff as opposed to their T2 counterpart.... and increased this falloff bonus a bit so they would be better than the T2.

Right now faction TE's are not worth a dime (except if you have CPU problems) and a proper rebalance would have fixed this.

0/10 CCP for fixing **** that did not need a fix and as you insisted on fixing it, for not fixing it properly.

Agreed, as stated earlier: how is 3 levels of meta only worth 7 cpu, not to metion the implied benifits relevent to the cost in the LP store. I imagine there are some crafty marketers trying to unload their entire inventory of faction tracking enhancers this morning (I unloaded mine last night) within a week poeple should be reprocessing them for their value in ore.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Sean Sonnach
4S Corporation
The Initiative.
#309 - 2013-03-27 10:30:58 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Seriously anybody saying this is a blaster nerf should probably drink bleach, the change is negligible in range, and I'm seriously curious if any of you have a single clue about ship stats or if you just see the word nerf and lose the farm.





Change is change, even what might be a little one opinion. Best to prevent the small scale slip and slide when ever authorities make little changes in my opinion.

Essentially the argument for the nerf is a fallacy. The notion that it is intended solely to re-balance minnie ships is a nonsense. That would be better achieved by either effecting their individual stats or the weapon they use. This does nerf blaster ships that use TE, any idiot can see that.

and nerf is a word, get over it. Blink
Sean Sonnach
4S Corporation
The Initiative.
#310 - 2013-03-27 10:33:09 UTC
Caelum Dominus wrote:
I agree with your sentiments on Remote Sensor Boosters, but I don't think you need to nerf Tracking Enhancers. They may break some ships, yet on most they are fine. I think you should look at those ships instead.



^^^ Perfect sentiment
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#311 - 2013-03-27 10:43:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Grath Telkin
Kaal Redrum wrote:


Lol, you're very passionate about this - do explain why exactly this change is needed. I'm a pirate, who flies pretty much all sub-Bs ships, I'll just enjoy my time in another hull/fit, but am very curious where this change comes from.

Finally, the 22km range used is an approximation - ofcourse you'll swing between 20-24km. Irrespective it's still a 15ish % nerf to applied dps. Why are you PL boys so bothered about the 22km number.

Use your 200 vs 250dps number, are you telling me that a 20% applied dps nerf isn't 'really that big a difference?' how much premium are people paying for 5-10% increases using faction/deadspace mods and implants?


I'm passionate because your argument doesn't seem to be based on facts. You said you like to hang around 22-24km.

Whats the major difference if you can manage that kind of control to hanging between 17-19km?

No new module has any effect at that range.

As to the DPS change, your words, not mine, yours, were that this change makes the ship fits "dead". You're over exaggerating so much that according to you this change kills the fits of about 8 or 9 ships. Dead. Non viable in any way.

That's not even close to accurate, because as I've shown with real live numbers, the difference after this change is fairly minimal, and shouldn't have any bearing on your playstyle if you're into kiting. You simply need to make a very VERY minor adjustment.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#312 - 2013-03-27 10:46:47 UTC
Sean Sonnach wrote:


Essentially the argument for the nerf is a fallacy. The notion that it is intended solely to re-balance minnie ships is a nonsense. That would be better achieved by either effecting their individual stats or the weapon they use. This does nerf blaster ships that use TE, any idiot can see that.


Veiled government conspiracy theory nut post aside, you've absolutely missed what this change is about, it has nothing to do with re balancing minnie ships or nerfing blaster boats, and it even says exactly what its for in Fozzie's OP.

Anything else that you or anybody else has attached to it as the reason is flat out your own creation.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#313 - 2013-03-27 10:48:12 UTC
Chessur wrote:
Here are some EFT numbers for you for damage application at 28K.

All level 5 skills, no implants, no drugs, no heat.

Minni

Hurricane 2TE 2Gyro Barrage: 228 DPS
Cynabal 2TE 2Gyro Barrage: 270 DPS
Stabber 2TE 2Gyro Barrage: 166 DPS
Vaga 2TE 2Gyro Barrage: 277 DPS
Nado 2TE 2Gyro Barrage: 581 DPS

Amarr

Omen: 2TE 2Heat Sink Scorch: 330 DPS
Harb 2TE 2Heat Sink Scorch: 445 DPS
Zealot 2TE 2Heat Sink Scorch: 412 DPS
Omen Navy 2TE 2Heat Sink Scorch: 395 DPS
Oracle 2TE 2Heat Sink Scorch: 649 DPS

Gal (Only one ship reaches out this far with guns that are actually usable... ie blasters)
Talos 2TE 2Mag Stab Null: 678 DPS

Now for the lulzy part: Caldari

Caracal 2BCS with Fury rapid light missile: 236 DPS
Cerberus 2BCS with Scourge Fury rapid light missile: 296 DPS

I will not include any HML because on paper damage is not nearly close to applied damage.

If any one at ccp can understand simple tables, you will notice one thing- giving any of these ships a decrease in optimal or fall off will make everything turn into a brawl. 33% decrease on range for these numbers will make kiting nearly impossible unless you are flying an oracle or zealot. (missile ships excluded)

Why do you hate kiting? Unless you fly a pimped out nado or talos, your pick of cruisers is so limited already. With the proposed changes, you will make almost all turret based ships that are not large size obsoleate, and HMLs / RLMs will rule the sky. Hell even SB's using torps will be viable now. Nothing is going to be hitting them out at 24K anyway.

Please justify this CCP. You clearly have not looked at any of these numbers. Because if you have looked at the these numbers and did still come to the conclusion to nerf TE's asnwer me this-

Why are armor brawling ships becoming the only mode to play this game?

Shockingly not every one that goes out to pvp likes to hit F1 and brawl (or in the case of solo / small gang) get blobbed.


33% Nerf to TE is not the same as a 33% decrease in total range. Go back and do some more math yourself before leaping to ranting conclusions.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Nova Satar
Pator Tech School
#314 - 2013-03-27 10:48:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Nova Satar
I think what you're missing is that the falloff boost NEEDS to be large for it to be worth it. If you're still sitting in web/neut range then what is the point? tracking enhancers either need to give you the option to AVOID getting tackled.

You'd be betting off making them stack along side gyros. So If you use TE's, DPS is reduced as a balance. My optimal going from 2km to 7km makes no difference, im still getting tackled, so will need a tank anyway.

Stop looking at ******* spreadsheets CCP, look at how they are used IN GAME, and why they are used IN GAME.

basically it's BRAWL-Online and a also a nice little boost for the sodding falcons again who can continue sit at range to the slug fest
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#315 - 2013-03-27 10:53:15 UTC
Sean Sonnach wrote:
Essentially the argument for the nerf is a fallacy. The notion that it is intended solely to re-balance minnie ships is a nonsense. That would be better achieved by either effecting their individual stats or the weapon they use. This does nerf blaster ships that use TE, any idiot can see that.
I think it's more a nerf to kiting ships in general than just Minnie ships. Most kiting cruisers/BCs that operate at 20km will have their DPS cut by about 10-15%. If they want that DPS back, then they are going to have to risk closing to that more dangerous 17-18km zone.

Fortunately that won't be a problem for most kiters, for I have read on these forums that they are the most elite and accomplished of all PvPers, and "know how to fly their ship" rather than just hit Approach+F1.
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#316 - 2013-03-27 10:58:11 UTC
Nova Satar wrote:
I think what you're missing is that the falloff boost NEEDS to be large for it to be worth it. If you're still sitting in web/neut range then what is the point? tracking enhancers either need to give you the option to AVOID getting tackled.
Which is the issues they are addressing with kiters - that you can do significant damage without incurring any significant risk. Hence the damage is being lowered (by a mere 10-15% for most medium sized ships). If you want that damage back, then you need to incur more risk. Fortunately, you still retain enough speed to disengage at will and dictate the engagement. So what's the problem?
Sean Sonnach
4S Corporation
The Initiative.
#317 - 2013-03-27 10:58:26 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Sean Sonnach wrote:


Essentially the argument for the nerf is a fallacy. The notion that it is intended solely to re-balance minnie ships is a nonsense. That would be better achieved by either effecting their individual stats or the weapon they use. This does nerf blaster ships that use TE, any idiot can see that.


Veiled government conspiracy theory nut post aside, you've absolutely missed what this change is about, it has nothing to do with re balancing minnie ships or nerfing blaster boats, and it even says exactly what its for in Fozzie's OP.

Anything else that you or anybody else has attached to it as the reason is flat out your own creation.



ok, but....
[quote=CCP Fozzie] The strength of TEs has been one of the reasons for Minmatar dominance in recent years, as well as contributing to the relative strength of shield tanking over armor tanking by inflating the value of non-tank low slots. What we're looking at is simply decreasing the falloff and optimal bonuses of all TEs by 1/3, and leaving their tracking bonus intact.

So the range bonus is the target here. I would suggest that there be an alternative choice made available for pilots to use a low slot to increase range if the TE is to be mainly dedicated to tracking, and I can see the point of it being so as it's name alone suggests tracking is its primary function. A competing low slot module to increase range so that the ship set up can be more varied would be my idea of a balanced approach to this (while making the TE dedicated to tracking), because the TC provides the means to do both in the mids.


How do u react to that suggestion?
SubStandard Rin
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#318 - 2013-03-27 10:58:37 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Tracking Enhancer II 30 20 15 10
Domination Tracking Enhancer 30 20 15 10
Republic Fleet Tracking Enhancer 30 20 15 10


I wouldn't mind if the Faction version is slightly better then the Tec2 version.

other then that does this mean it takes 3x TE to be equal to a TC ?

Its going to mess up alot of fittings
especialy thoes ships that are shield tanked creativly
even thoes ships that are shieldtanked and should be it will suffer Alpha Maelstrom is one sutch iteration that will suffer from bad tracking.


PAPULA
The Chodak
Void Alliance
#319 - 2013-03-27 11:01:05 UTC
Kaal Redrum wrote:

Use your 200 vs 250dps number, are you telling me that a 20% applied dps nerf isn't 'really that big a difference?' how much premium are people paying for 5-10% increases using faction/deadspace mods and implants?

Welcome to Pandemic Legion OnLine
Schnapss
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#320 - 2013-03-27 11:04:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Schnapss
CCP, all your changes mean nothing, because whole conception of damage modifiers in game is wrong.
You have 4 different damage modules:
1. Low slot +damage
2. Low slot +tracking/optimal/falloff
3. Med Slot +optima/falloff/tracking
4. Med Slot +optimal/falloff/tracking

Both med slot module titles contain the word "Tracking", but in reality they dont provide tracking bonus, only optimal+fallof.
at the same time, we have low slot module which provides optimal+falloff+tracking, and it doesnt use capacitor.

Because of this we have all kinds of bonuses for guns with 2 used slots only. You should remove optimal and fallof from Tracking enhancers and move Tracking Link or Tracking Computer from med slot to low.
The main idea is that you can not get huge amount of damage+optimal+tracking at once just using only low slots. you should to choose damage+optimal or damage+tracking or tracking+optimal, and for all three damage bonuses you should use med slots