These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#641 - 2013-03-28 09:23:06 UTC
Swifty Blowback wrote:
. The future of solo PVP has never looked so grim.


So grim that I spent the entire night PVPing solo unboosted in faction warfare in ships fit with t1 TE's to get used to the difference.

I was shocked to find that there is no noticeable difference.


And by shocked I do mean I told you so.

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

Mr Bright
Wilderness
#642 - 2013-03-28 09:28:23 UTC
I cannot express how stupid the change to TE's is. Why should eve players be punished because some tard 3000 man alliance can't handle a fleet of shield tier 3 bc's?? I know this had been the trend of eve for a long time but it really needs to stop here. CCP, if you want to look at something to fix....FIX ECM. Don't sit here and preach to me how it isn't OP. Minmatar ships only advantage is SPEED and RANGE. Take away the range and what else is there for them? You can't just nerf the crap out of TE's and say "well now things are balanced". Minmatar ships cannot soak the damage the other races have. If people are stuggling with shield ships that have TE's fit.....bring tracking disruptors. Use the tools CCP has already provided. You've already destroyed the hurricane so I really hope you stop there. I understand CCP wants to cater to the larger alliances but I really do hope that the attempt to destroy solo/small gang pvp in eve is put to an end. Taking the advantage that minmatar has is a terrible plan to attempt to balance range and tracking. I would start by rethinking some of the ship bonuses as opposed to nerfing the modules.
Roime
Yamagata Syndicate
Shadow Cartel
#643 - 2013-03-28 09:30:58 UTC
Swifty Blowback wrote:
Michael Harari wrote:
I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes)
...
Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok"


Yep. The TE nerf is possibly the harshest for solo / small gang PVP in a long time. Viable kiting platforms are being slowly reduced. CCP wants players to be social and play in large corps / blobs because their data says they get more monies when players do that. See last CSM summit write-up for details + see trial account spike after massive blob brawls are publicized. The future of solo PVP has never looked so grim.


You don't have any kills, solo, small gang or blob

.

Roime
Yamagata Syndicate
Shadow Cartel
#644 - 2013-03-28 09:33:46 UTC
Mr Bright wrote:
You've already destroyed the hurricane so I really hope you stop there.


1# Oracle 56,256
2# Naga 52,642
3# Tornado 51,917
4# Hurricane 48,758
5# Loki 46,526

It's useless

.

Edward Olmops
Gunboat Commando
#645 - 2013-03-28 09:45:44 UTC
Hey Fozzie and Rise,

I support the idea of Tracking Enhancers being too strong in their current form compared to other modules.

However, if you would like to alter the balance of shield vs. armor as well...
Have you considered doing something with Tracking Computer vs. Tracking Enhancer like with Cap Recharger vs. Capacitor Power Relay?

More specific:
instead of -33% Optimal/Fall-Off to all TEs
something like just -16% Optimal/Fall-Off and -5% Shield HP
or even -16% Optimal/Fall-Off, -5% Ship Velocity (to balance skirmish vs. sitting duck)

I know you dislike "multi-purpose"-modules, but this is slightly different.
Compare Capacitor Power Relay/Cap Recharger.

An armor ship has 2 options:
a) pick the Cap Recharger in a not-so-important Mid Slot.
b) pick the Capacitor Power Relay, get a higher bonus to cap recharge, sacrifice tank, but laugh about the shield boost debuff.

A shield ship has also 2 options, but both do have a catch:
a) the Cap Recharger hurts the tank because Mid Slots are essential for shield tanks.
b) the Capacitor Power Relay in the Low Slot will also hurt the tank making the choice no no-brainer. Those ships that prefer cap recharge over Cap Boosters are based around sustainability and the shield boost debuff will hurt them significantly.

Net result:
It is a tad easier for armor ships to pick up cap recharge which does make sense because they tend to be more cap-hungry. And at the same time cap-stable active shield tanks are harder to build.

Maybe the same could be good for shield vs armor if armor ships (while less agile) could pick up weapon range more easily than shield ships.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#646 - 2013-03-28 09:55:40 UTC
Roime wrote:
Mr Bright wrote:
You've already destroyed the hurricane so I really hope you stop there.


1# Oracle 56,256
2# Naga 52,642
3# Tornado 51,917
4# Hurricane 48,758
5# Loki 46,526

It's useless



I really laugh whenever anyone bring up the number of ships used in killboard hits as if that was a demonstrator of wich one is superior. That plain stupid and blind.


Do you realize the cost of the ship and the fact that people had invested on last few years into the best flavor ships and will nto instantly change because their skills do not allow it, make WAY more impact on those number than the real effective capabilities of those ships?


If you could get numbers of usage of ships only from players with 100+ kills on last year, with a wallet over 10 bil isk and with 80M sp or more, then yes you could use those numbers for something.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#647 - 2013-03-28 09:59:28 UTC
nat longshot wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Got some more Odyssey updates for you all, this time in the form of some module rebalancing! We're going to have a number of module balance changes released with EVE Online: Odyssey on June 4th, and our first batch to announce are the Remote Sensor Boosters and Tracking Enhancers.

Let's start with Remote Sensor Boosters. They give pretty extreme bonuses to scan res at the moment, similar to officer sensor boosters. This has contributed to the growth of instalock camps that are in our opinion are a bit too easy nowadays.
So we're gonna decrease the scan res bonuses so that they give a solid but more reasonable benefit over local boosters. We're leaving the lock range bonus of the T1 and T2 remote boosters the same since we don't see them as overpowered for that role, and actually buffing the lock range bonus from the meta remote boosters since they are currently all giving T1 meta 0 level bonuses for that stat right now.

Key stat for this change is that the best Remote Sensor Boosters will have their Scan Resolution bonus reduced from 40.5% to 33%.

Apologies for the terrible formatting (you can copypaste into a spreadsheet and it looks good)

typeName Old ScanRes Bonus New ScanRes Bonus Old LockRange Bonus New LockRange Bonus
Remote Sensor Booster I 33.8 28 33.8 33.8
Coadjunct Linked Sensor Array I 35.4 29 33.8 35
Linked Sensor Network 40.5 30 33.8 36
Connected Scanning CPU Uplink 37.1 31 33.8 37
F-23 Reciprocal Sensor Cluster Link 38.8 32 33.8 38
Remote Sensor Booster II 40.5 33 40.5 40.5
'Boss' Remote Sensor Booster I 40.5 33 33.8 39
'Entrepreneur' Remote Sensor Booster I 40.5 33 40.5 40.5


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.

Key stat for this change is a reduction in the Optimal/Falloff bonus on a T2 Tracking Enhancer from 15%/30% to 10%/20%.

Name OldFalloff NewFalloff OldOptimal NewOptimal
Azimuth Descalloping Tracking Enhancer 11 7.4 5.5 3.7
Basic Tracking Enhancer 10 6.6 5 3.3
Beam Parallax Tracking Program 12 8 6 4
Beta-Nought Tracking Mode 10.5 7 5.25 3.5
F-AQ Delay-Line Scan Tracking Subroutines 11.5 7.6 5.75 3.8
Tracking Enhancer I 20 13.4 10 6.7
Sigma-Nought Tracking Mode I 21 14 10.5 7
Auto-Gain Control Tracking Enhancer I 22 14.6 11 7.3
F-aQ Phase Code Tracking Subroutines 23 15.4 11.5 7.7
Fourier Transform Tracking Program 24 16 12 8
Tracking Enhancer II 30 20 15 10
Domination Tracking Enhancer 30 20 15 10
Republic Fleet Tracking Enhancer 30 20 15 10
Mizuro's Modified Tracking Enhancer 31.5 21 15.75 10.5
Hakim's Modified Tracking Enhancer 33 22 16.5 11
Gotan's Modified Tracking Enhancer 34.5 23 17.25 11.5
Tobias' Modified Tracking Enhancer 36 24 18 12

This change will be somewhat painful for many ships that rely on TEs for range in their current fits, but we are confident that the change is necessary to establish balance between the different weapon upgrade modules.

Let me know what you think!



So you just killed the Mach. with changeing the TE's are you fing kidding me. I just got a Vaugar and i own a Mach and you are going to kill my gun range on both of my mission ships are you fing kidding me.

Btw CCP Fozzie min. auto cannons are a med. range weapons you #@$%$%^%$^&$ they dont come close to blasters and dont have range of rails if we want to hit something far out we fit Atry with take way to much powergrid and cpu and they have **** POOR TRACKING so why do you just put a gun to my fing head and pull the damn trigger.

I dislike CCP Falcon and now iam really not like you on the whole nerf TE and killing the one + side flying min had. ccp thinking = goon meat shield MORONS!!!




Game balance must catter first for PVP. PVE is and should be relegated to second place because you are not competign with anyone so there is no real unbalance.

Whining because of the mission ships is the most useless whine you can do. Want a "fix"for that? Propose them and uspport that they make the faction modules a bit stronger, sicne faction modules are mostly used on PVE ships that would not hurt so much PVP balance.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Roime
Yamagata Syndicate
Shadow Cartel
#648 - 2013-03-28 10:03:21 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Roime wrote:
Mr Bright wrote:
You've already destroyed the hurricane so I really hope you stop there.


1# Oracle 56,256
2# Naga 52,642
3# Tornado 51,917
4# Hurricane 48,758
5# Loki 46,526

It's useless



I really laugh whenever anyone bring up the number of ships used in killboard hits as if that was a demonstrator of wich one is superior. That plain stupid and blind.


Do you realize the cost of the ship and the fact that people had invested on last few years into the best flavor ships and will nto instantly change because their skills do not allow it, make WAY more impact on those number than the real effective capabilities of those ships?


If you could get numbers of usage of ships only from players with 100+ kills on last year, with a wallet over 10 bil isk and with 80M sp or more, then yes you could use those numbers for something.


I really laugh when someone claims that a ship is USELESS!!!1111 and OBSOLOTE!!!111 and NERFED TO GROUND!!111 when it clearly is not

.

Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#649 - 2013-03-28 10:18:03 UTC
Roime wrote:
I really laugh when someone claims that a ship is USELESS!!!1111 and OBSOLOTE!!!111 and NERFED TO GROUND!!111 when it clearly is not
You are wrong. Clearly it is useless because it's NOT #1. In fact no Minmatar ship is in the TOP 2. Which clearly indicates that they have NO DECENT SHIPS at all. I would try to explain it to you, but words don't exist that are small enough for you to understand, for you are obviously a mongrel idiot if you do not agree with my EFT-based point of view. This TE nerf is the DEATHKNELL for minmatar ships which are already useless.

And you smell like poo.
Imigo Montoya
BreadFleet
Interstellar Triglavian Collective
#650 - 2013-03-28 10:32:35 UTC
Wow, missed this one so coming in late to the party.

Fortunately I fly Sabres more than Vagabonds these days, but the ability of a Vagabond (or Cynabal in the same role) to maintain range and kite is vital to their survival as skirmishing ships. The mantra goes like this: "A scrammed vaga is a dead vaga".

Seeing as this isn't affecting the speed of the ship, that's one thing which is not so bad, but it will certainly be taking a notch out of the applied DPS of a kiting AC/Blaster ship. What I'm not sure on at this point is just how much.

Can we get a graph of DPS over range for the selection of all medium range turreted weapons (Pulse Lasers with Scorch, Blasters with Null, and Autocannons with Barrage) of all sizes (S, M, and L), with one TE fitted, before and after the changes? Perhaps on comparable ships for bonuses (eg Harby/Brutix/Cane, or Zealot/Deimos/Vagabond).

Data like that would really help me decide whether I like the change or not.
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#651 - 2013-03-28 10:37:02 UTC
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
In fact no Minmatar ship is in the TOP 2.



Vagas are the best hac (although not that much better than zealot), and sleips are the best CS. Very arguably, sabres are the best dictor. Thats the extent of that crazy "winmatar dominance" you hear about
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#652 - 2013-03-28 10:40:02 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Game balance must catter first for PVP. PVE is and should be relegated to second place because you are not competign with anyone so there is no real unbalance.

Whining because of the mission ships is the most useless whine you can do. Want a "fix"for that? Propose them and uspport that they make the faction modules a bit stronger, sicne faction modules are mostly used on PVE ships that would not hurt so much PVP balance.

Without going into the fact that your supposition and your conclusion are both horribly misguided I would ask that you try to realise that PVP is the destruction portion of the sandbox and PVE is the building portion of the sandbox, one cannot exist without the other.

PVP is not, and should not, be the primary focus of rebalancing, as I am confident if the only ship available in EVE was a noobship there would still be people lining up to kill each other in it, and then spurge in local of how badass they are.

As for the Opinion that PVE is not competing against anyone. PVE is all about competition, for instance when contesting for the Loot drop in spawned sites, you are absolutely competing against everyone, PVE’ers and PVP’ers alike, with the added competition against time itself. Missions are competition as well but for both ISK generation and standings generation, so reduction in the ability to complete these effectively translates into moved goalposts, competition for these goals are indirectly PVP.

Not all PVP is decided in a Killmail, as not all Killmails are PVP (Or do you think a mining barge kill is PVP?).

Doing both PVP and PVE I can see how this will directly affect my current game play, the difference is I know all the PVP’ers I go up against will be similarly handicapped, whereas the NPC’s I have to contend with are not going to be handicapped at all, since the code for NPC’s seems to be written in cuneiform.

This game is Not about PVP, it’s about building empire, and using PVP’ers as pawns, this is something most people don’t seem to get, everyone in EVE is a pawn, probably even the kings.

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.

Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#653 - 2013-03-28 10:47:17 UTC
A better way to balance shields vs armor would be to reduce the base sig on all hulls and increase the sig bloom of shield modules. Add sig bloom to invulns and shield hardeners.

Add base armor to local armor reps. Give shield boosters a smaller sig penalty than buffer.

Stacking penalize both field extenders and trimarks.

Increase the bonus to speed from heating a mwd, and decrease the sig penalty of mwd. One problem with armor is that after mwd sig bloat, its bascally the same size sig as shields (enormous).
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#654 - 2013-03-28 10:48:23 UTC
Roime wrote:
Swifty Blowback wrote:
Michael Harari wrote:
I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes)
...
Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok"


Yep. The TE nerf is possibly the harshest for solo / small gang PVP in a long time. Viable kiting platforms are being slowly reduced. CCP wants players to be social and play in large corps / blobs because their data says they get more monies when players do that. See last CSM summit write-up for details + see trial account spike after massive blob brawls are publicized. The future of solo PVP has never looked so grim.


You don't have any kills, solo, small gang or blob



Well, that explains why his future looks so grim. Big smile
Lina Halid
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#655 - 2013-03-28 10:52:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Lina Halid
Michael Harari wrote:
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
In fact no Minmatar ship is in the TOP 2.



Vagas are the best hac (although not that much better than zealot), and sleips are the best CS. Very arguably, sabres are the best dictor. Thats the extent of that crazy "winmatar dominance" you hear about


Being the best out of a generally gimped class doesn't say a lot. Moreover, when they will rebalance HACs, i bet they will say something like "vaga is very strong so we've decided to make her on par with others and take away that high slot and make her a few million tonns heavier"... And why do you compare CSs not titans? I mean you can't call command ships something everybody flyes nowdays.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#656 - 2013-03-28 10:52:54 UTC
Roime wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Roime wrote:
Mr Bright wrote:
You've already destroyed the hurricane so I really hope you stop there.


1# Oracle 56,256
2# Naga 52,642
3# Tornado 51,917
4# Hurricane 48,758
5# Loki 46,526

It's useless



I really laugh whenever anyone bring up the number of ships used in killboard hits as if that was a demonstrator of wich one is superior. That plain stupid and blind.


Do you realize the cost of the ship and the fact that people had invested on last few years into the best flavor ships and will nto instantly change because their skills do not allow it, make WAY more impact on those number than the real effective capabilities of those ships?


If you could get numbers of usage of ships only from players with 100+ kills on last year, with a wallet over 10 bil isk and with 80M sp or more, then yes you could use those numbers for something.


I really laugh when someone claims that a ship is USELESS!!!1111 and OBSOLOTE!!!111 and NERFED TO GROUND!!111 when it clearly is not



And I dare you to show where I said that the hurricane is useless. I am just arguing that you are using STUPID and USELESS DATA to make your point, even if your point is not wrong.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#657 - 2013-03-28 10:59:12 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Game balance must catter first for PVP. PVE is and should be relegated to second place because you are not competign with anyone so there is no real unbalance.

Whining because of the mission ships is the most useless whine you can do. Want a "fix"for that? Propose them and uspport that they make the faction modules a bit stronger, sicne faction modules are mostly used on PVE ships that would not hurt so much PVP balance.

Without going into the fact that your supposition and your conclusion are both horribly misguided I would ask that you try to realise that PVP is the destruction portion of the sandbox and PVE is the building portion of the sandbox, one cannot exist without the other.

PVP is not, and should not, be the primary focus of rebalancing, as I am confident if the only ship available in EVE was a noobship there would still be people lining up to kill each other in it, and then spurge in local of how badass they are.

As for the Opinion that PVE is not competing against anyone. PVE is all about competition, for instance when contesting for the Loot drop in spawned sites, you are absolutely competing against everyone, PVE’ers and PVP’ers alike, with the added competition against time itself. Missions are competition as well but for both ISK generation and standings generation, so reduction in the ability to complete these effectively translates into moved goalposts, competition for these goals are indirectly PVP.

Not all PVP is decided in a Killmail, as not all Killmails are PVP (Or do you think a mining barge kill is PVP?).

Doing both PVP and PVE I can see how this will directly affect my current game play, the difference is I know all the PVP’ers I go up against will be similarly handicapped, whereas the NPC’s I have to contend with are not going to be handicapped at all, since the code for NPC’s seems to be written in cuneiform.

This game is Not about PVP, it’s about building empire, and using PVP’ers as pawns, this is something most people don’t seem to get, everyone in EVE is a pawn, probably even the kings.



You are trying to be shortminded? PVE does not need to be focus of rebalance of primarely PVP ships! PVE is a secondary activity that you can use PVE ships. And PVP can happen very well without any rat killing. PVP only need effectively mining.

PVE is nto a competition, you are not going to earn less ISK because the other guy is faster running missions. If all missioning is speed down 2% (that is the most imapact these changes would have) then that would create a very very slight trend of deflation that would nulify those losses and at tned the impact woudl be insignificant.

On PVP if one ship gets stronger, others get weaker, that does not happen in PVE because its not a DIRECT COMPETITION (except when you run incursions on a non optimized way without agreeing on systems sharing).

And youa re wrong. this game IS about PVP.! The empire building is the background so we can have PVP.


People ran missiosn for years before the trackign enhancers had ANY FALLOFF bonus. I made BILLIONS in my vargur BEFORE the minmatar buff. With shorter falloff, no falloff bonus modules and LESS damage on the guns.


THERE is NO NEED for inter ship balance on PVE! Missioning is for isk making not for competition or fun.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Swifty Blowback
Doomheim
#658 - 2013-03-28 11:08:35 UTC
Roime wrote:
Swifty Blowback wrote:
Michael Harari wrote:
I like how this nerf does next to nothing to blob nagas and such, but is yet another change that makes small gang pvp more difficult. (Sort of like most of the tiericide changes)
...
Pretty much every new thread from fozzie has him saying "I know this makes solo pvp harder but I think its ok"


Yep. The TE nerf is possibly the harshest for solo / small gang PVP in a long time. Viable kiting platforms are being slowly reduced. CCP wants players to be social and play in large corps / blobs because their data says they get more monies when players do that. See last CSM summit write-up for details + see trial account spike after massive blob brawls are publicized. The future of solo PVP has never looked so grim.


You don't have any kills, solo, small gang or blob



I have many. This alt has none. EvE eh! Damn tricky for some to grasp simple concepts...
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#659 - 2013-03-28 11:12:16 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
You are trying to be shortminded?.

No I dont think I am.

Kagura Nikon wrote:
Missioning is for isk making not for competition or fun.

But this is.

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.

Swifty Blowback
Doomheim
#660 - 2013-03-28 11:18:10 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Swifty Blowback wrote:
. The future of solo PVP has never looked so grim.


So grim that I spent the entire night PVPing solo unboosted in faction warfare in ships fit with t1 TE's to get used to the difference.

I was shocked to find that there is no noticeable difference.


And by shocked I do mean I told you so.


It's a good job CCP haven't made a vast quantity of other changes that also hurt soloers... Oh wait...

P.S. "no noticeable difference". Wow. Looks like everyone using T2 TEs should have used t1s and used the CPU elsewhere huh! Strange as I'm sure I get at least 10% more DPS with T2 TEs over T1s at kiting range in a 'cane.