These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#761 - 2013-03-29 12:49:50 UTC
I've got to wonder how many of those complaining here (about a change that is the same as T2 --> T1) were on the other side of the fence when Blaster boats got hit with a crippling 400% increase in target speeds under webbing (effectively the same as cutting tracking to 25%) back in 2008...

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#762 - 2013-03-29 13:34:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Goldiiee
I was also upset at first with these proposed changes, but unlike apparently the majority of forum readers here, I also read the other forum threads identifying the changes proposed for cruisers and frigs. As it is apparent in those threads the loss of falloff is being addressed in new bonuses to the hulls most in need of it.

It would follow that Fozzie is on the job and tweaking where needed to provide the necessary buff and nerf as appropriate, placing the apparent OP bonuses where they belong, in the Hull, not the modules. Eve is not the real world and progress in eve should not compare, if everything gets better and quicker it would lead to the eventual reduction of options to one ship one gun and no fun at all. (Imagine everyone with Nukes)

Sit back and enjoy the time you have left with the falloff you have now, all the while thinking up a new way to make your advantage work for you and against the other guy, you did it once before, or you copied the guy that did it once before, so be original and come up with a new plan.

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.
CthulhusSpaceTrip
Adventure Time Inc.
#763 - 2013-03-29 13:40:25 UTC
NOOOOOOOES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cry
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#764 - 2013-03-29 14:16:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Goldiiee wrote:
I was also upset at first with these proposed changes, but unlike apparently the majority of forum readers here, I also read the other forum threads identifying the changes proposed for cruisers and frigs. As it is apparent in those threads the loss of falloff is being addressed in new bonuses to the hulls most in need of it.

It would follow that Fozzie is on the job and tweaking where needed to provide the necessary buff and nerf as appropriate, placing the apparent OP bonuses where they belong, in the Hull, not the modules. Eve is not the real world and progress in eve should not compare, if everything gets better and quicker it would lead to the eventual reduction of options to one ship one gun and no fun at all. (Imagine everyone with Nukes)

Sit back and enjoy the time you have left with the falloff you have now, all the while thinking up a new way to make your advantage work for you and against the other guy, you did it once before, or you copied the guy that did it once before, so be original and come up with a new plan.


Except theres a lot more ships where its applicable than those being changed and also people who actually play eve somewhat like the sandbox its advertised as being get shafted (again) and with all these "closing the gap" type changes and possibly irrational fear of power creep (even tho concerns for power creep should always be kept in mind) eventually the game is going to become just as meh as if everyone was running about in the overpowered setup you describe but instead its from being so insipidly uniform.
amurder Hakomairos
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#765 - 2013-03-29 14:18:59 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
It would follow that Fozzie is on the job and tweaking where needed to provide the necessary buff and nerf as appropriate, placing the apparent OP bonuses where they belong, in the Hull, not the modules.


Looking forward to the Mach receiving a buff to its falloff bonus then.

Or maybe if you are dead set on nerfing TEs then maybe you could also remove the 25% reduction in falloff that you get using Hail ammo?
Leoviscus
Portage.
#766 - 2013-03-29 14:54:05 UTC
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.


Agreed +1 for this
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#767 - 2013-03-29 15:25:50 UTC
amurder Hakomairos wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:
It would follow that Fozzie is on the job and tweaking where needed to provide the necessary buff and nerf as appropriate, placing the apparent OP bonuses where they belong, in the Hull, not the modules.


Looking forward to the Mach receiving a buff to its falloff bonus then.

Or maybe if you are dead set on nerfing TEs then maybe you could also remove the 25% reduction in falloff that you get using Hail ammo?

That would be awesome Big smile I agree I have thrown away 5 ships as useless since the beginning of the Great Balancing Act of 2013, but I have picked a few gems along the way as well.

And I sit on the edge of my seat hopping my Mach doesn't become 180mil in ore and nothing else. Like my Cain has become 60mil worth of ore. But I feel Fozzie has a really rotten job (It can’t be easy to field this much hate) and I am sure he wouldn't want to kill any portion of this game just for forum tears.

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.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#768 - 2013-03-29 15:27:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Leoviscus 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.


Agreed +1 for this

You really need to make up your mind as to whether toning down TE's is going to kill the game by making it too difficult or by making the game too easy. Blink

This is a situation that will only really be intelligently argued once the changes hit the test server. Of course, some will only trying them out using the exact same tactical choices they always have and will they claim "It's broken"... a few will actually try modifying thier approach to account for the new parameters.

The latter will be the ones that need to be listened too.

A great deal of this controversy would go away if Fozzie has time to look at the long range weapons systems in this pass as well, especially when using their close range ammunition. It's overdue for a rework, and since range and tracking are the central issues (and nobody even bothers making comparisons using long range weapons instead of short range weapons) it would seem to be a good time to make a pass at it.

If long range weapons using short range ammo types were comparable to short range weapons using their long range ammo this wouldn't be such an issue.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#769 - 2013-03-29 15:41:26 UTC
Claire Raynor wrote:
Connall Tara wrote:
Claire Raynor wrote:
chris elliot wrote:
Fozzie, do you have any plans to tweak tracking disruptors now that you have tweaked the tracking enhancers?

We know that the TD's were quite powerful before but with this change to TE's do you feel the TD's have been allowed to become a bit too strong?


Yeah - I was gravitating towards Missiles - almost exclusivly after the TDs. Now that this has happened - I'll want to move more towards missiles. I wish Minmatar had faction missiles in their LP stores. Also will the Stabber be revisited now - as this will bury the Stabber.


you mean in that other thread a few stickies down where the stabber is receiving a 25M3 dronebay and an improved fall off bonus from 7.5% to 10% per level?

why yes... yes it has :>


Awesome! Thanks for the update - this has cheered me up! - [edit having read all these threads - I came here from another part of the forum] the drone bay won't do squat as they are now useless for missions but the 10% is epic for the fall off.

try putting a disruptor or some other form of ewar on your ship to cause the rats to have even more hate for you, makes them much less likely to go after your drones.
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#770 - 2013-03-29 15:47:46 UTC
amurder Hakomairos wrote:
Looking forward to the Mach receiving a buff to its falloff bonus then.


Get the **** out.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#771 - 2013-03-29 15:50:04 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
I was also upset at first with these proposed changes, but unlike apparently the majority of forum readers here, I also read the other forum threads identifying the changes proposed for cruisers and frigs. As it is apparent in those threads the loss of falloff is being addressed in new bonuses to the hulls most in need of it.

It would follow that Fozzie is on the job and tweaking where needed to provide the necessary buff and nerf as appropriate, placing the apparent OP bonuses where they belong, in the Hull, not the modules. Eve is not the real world and progress in eve should not compare, if everything gets better and quicker it would lead to the eventual reduction of options to one ship one gun and no fun at all. (Imagine everyone with Nukes)

Sit back and enjoy the time you have left with the falloff you have now, all the while thinking up a new way to make your advantage work for you and against the other guy, you did it once before, or you copied the guy that did it once before, so be original and come up with a new plan.

Thank you , for being one of those RARE few to actually do some research before bitching (also, if any of those threads are from the last month, could you send me a mail with the links?)
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#772 - 2013-03-29 16:27:52 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
Thank you , for being one of those RARE few to actually do some research before bitching (also, if any of those threads are from the last month, could you send me a mail with the links?)

Sadly I have lots of time on my hands to read, but never thought to save any of the things I read. But for the rest of the guys perusing this thread here are just a few examples the can be found in a few seconds within the sticky’s right here.

RIFTER:
Frigate skill bonuses: +5% to small projectile turret damage and +7.5% to small projectile turret tracking per level

TRISTAN:
Gallente Frigate bonuses: +7.5% to small hybrid turret tracking and +10% to drone tracking and hitpoints per level

IMPERIAL NAVY SLICER:
Frigate skill bonuses: +25% to small energy turret damage and +10% to small energy turret optimal range per level

FEDERATION NAVY COMET:
Gallente Frigate bonuses: +7.5% to small hybrid turret tracking and +20% to small hybrid turret damage per level

REPUBLIC FLEET FIRETAIL:
Frigate skill bonuses: +25% (+5%) to small projectile turret damage and +7.5% to small projectile turret tracking per level

Stabber:
Minmatar Cruiser bonuses: -5% medium projectile turret rate of fire and +10% (+2.5) medium projectile turret falloff per level

Omen Navy Issue:
10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage
10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret optimal range

Stabber Fleet Issue:
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret firing speed
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed

And sure Pela Ming, I will spend a little time later today and see if I can find some of the old posts and forward them to you.


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.
Sorana Bonzari
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#773 - 2013-03-29 16:31:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Sorana Bonzari
All this "re-balance" is doing it making it easier for blob PVP. Don't over complicate this topic. Put simply CCP is siding with the masses and rationalizing that it should be even harder for a smaller fleet using tactics and paying attention to the game, to beat a larger fleet using the "approach MWD fire" key while eating a cookie. Tailoring games to the retards is why MMO's start to fall of the deep end.


BTW to the above post ^^^^ I dont want tracking I want damage projection L2 read what we are bitching about?

SFI needs range
Vaga needs range
exc......

A nerf to these ships rage puts me nearly at web range. So whats the point of flying them unless i have numbers + long rage ammo to do the same thing. again tailored to more blob warfare yay because that's what eve needs. -_-
Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#774 - 2013-03-29 17:00:34 UTC
Won't the tracking enhancer changes pretty much screw over the navy slicer? Haven't done the math on it, so maybe the change is minor for it. But just thought I'd mention it.
Minimax Zed
Full Broadside
Deepwater Hooligans
#775 - 2013-03-29 17:07:31 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Serenety Steel wrote:
If it aint broke, DON'T fix it!


Way to nerf some more stuff, well done ccp..


These are broke, so we're fixing them.


In other words:

Deal with it.

On one hand, this seems like a final nail in the coffin of the dual-neut shield autocannon welpcane I knew and loved.

On the other hand, this [along with the other tier3 changes] is a nice nerf to the totally-OP nature of the shield Talos.

Go Fozzie!
Sorana Bonzari
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#776 - 2013-03-29 17:13:32 UTC
Minimax Zed wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Serenety Steel wrote:
If it aint broke, DON'T fix it!


Way to nerf some more stuff, well done ccp..


These are broke, so we're fixing them.


In other words:

Deal with it.

On one hand, this seems like a final nail in the coffin of the dual-neut shield autocannon welpcane I knew and loved.

On the other hand, this [along with the other tier3 changes] is a nice nerf to the totally-OP nature of the shield Talos.

Go Fozzie!



Since the problem is T3's then nerf them don't blanket nerf all of the other ships. But that makes to much common sense so its not going to happen.
Turgon Barash
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#777 - 2013-03-29 17:17:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Turgon Barash
Goldiiee wrote:
Pelea Ming wrote:
Thank you , for being one of those RARE few to actually do some research before bitching (also, if any of those threads are from the last month, could you send me a mail with the links?)

Sadly I have lots of time on my hands to read, but never thought to save any of the things I read. But for the rest of the guys perusing this thread here are just a few examples the can be found in a few seconds within the sticky’s right here.

RIFTER:
Frigate skill bonuses: +5% to small projectile turret damage and +7.5% to small projectile turret tracking per level

TRISTAN:
Gallente Frigate bonuses: +7.5% to small hybrid turret tracking and +10% to drone tracking and hitpoints per level

IMPERIAL NAVY SLICER:
Frigate skill bonuses: +25% to small energy turret damage and +10% to small energy turret optimal range per level

FEDERATION NAVY COMET:
Gallente Frigate bonuses: +7.5% to small hybrid turret tracking and +20% to small hybrid turret damage per level

REPUBLIC FLEET FIRETAIL:
Frigate skill bonuses: +25% (+5%) to small projectile turret damage and +7.5% to small projectile turret tracking per level

Stabber:
Minmatar Cruiser bonuses: -5% medium projectile turret rate of fire and +10% (+2.5) medium projectile turret falloff per level

Omen Navy Issue:
10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage
10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret optimal range

Stabber Fleet Issue:
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret firing speed
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed

And sure Pela Ming, I will spend a little time later today and see if I can find some of the old posts and forward them to you.




Did you even read OP its not about tracking that stays the same its about optimal and falloff that we are talking about....great research lol

Sorana Bonzari is right if this change hits there will be bunch of ships in need of major redoing of their bonuses or they will be utter crap...worth it???
Sorana Bonzari
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#778 - 2013-03-29 17:40:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Sorana Bonzari
I make a point not to make personal attacks so i will make a few general statements.

1) if you notice the only people who agree with this change are those that have gank kills or 10+ on all of their kills.

2) Those of us that play with 2-5 people in vagas - SFI- cynables are the ones who are effected the most by this change. Using speed and range it doesn't matter how many are on the field we take advantage of opportunity killing.

Why is CCP killing this?

3) Well like I said before the devs are tailoring the game to (approach -mwd -fire) instead of using tactics. This tailors the game towards the masses. Just like every other MMO the devs will tailor to the masses to simplify the game for the tards up until the point where the good players start to give up because its boring. Then the devs will bring it back, its the life cycle of mmo's. Its only when devs don't fix it for the good players is why mmo's fail.

EDIT:
I am sorry for using the terminologically "Good Players" getting 50+ on a single rifter IMO takes a considerable amount of skill too ;)
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#779 - 2013-03-29 18:05:08 UTC
Turgon Barash wrote:
Did you even read OP its not about tracking that stays the same its about optimal and falloff that we are talking about....great research lol

Sorana Bonzari is right if this change hits there will be bunch of ships in need of major redoing of their bonuses or they will be utter crap...worth it???

Yes I read the OP, I read it two days ago when the whining started and I am reading it now as the whining continues Ad Nauseum , My point was not about your particular problem and rant, it was about the obvious changes being made to pretty much every ship in EVE.

Therefore with just a little foresight it is conceivable that there is a plan to take into consideration these small but loud complaints about a ruined game. And that there are people that actually get paid to figure this stuff out, real professionals, with experience and everything, who knows they might even have a focus group and an entire team of other professionals that they can bounce ideas off of, and receive decent, not confrontational, feedback.

And who knows they might even have a plan that will work without having to consult with the plethora of professional well thought out advice being forwarded here.

Quotes ’ NOOOOOO’/ what a shame CCP Fonzie / CCP is broken time for a fix / I completely disagree with the TE nerf./..... ‘’

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.
Hakan MacTrew
Konrakas Forged
Solyaris Chtonium
#780 - 2013-03-29 18:23:22 UTC
Sean Parisi wrote:
Won't the tracking enhancer changes pretty much screw over the navy slicer? Haven't done the math on it, so maybe the change is minor for it. But just thought I'd mention it.

COMPARISON: T2 and T1 TE's
(After rebalance, a T2 TE will be the same as current T1)

Quote:
All V's Slicer with 1 x T2 TE / Small Focused Pulse Laser II's / Scorch S
19.4km Optimal + 3.3km Falloff

All V's Slicer with 1 x T1 TE / Small Focused Pulse Laser II's / Scorch S
18.6km Optimal + 3.0km Falloff


Overall lose: 0.8km Optiamal + 0.3km Falloff
Not what I would call a drastic change.


Quote:
All V's Dramiel with 1 x T2 TE / 200mm AC II's / Barrage S
1.7km Optimal + 17.6km Falloff

All V's Dramiel with 1 x T1 TE / 200mm AC II's / Barrage S
1.7km Optimal + 16.2km Falloff


Overall lose: 0.0km Optiamal + 1.4km Falloff
Again, not the end of the world.

Friends