Player Features and Ideas Discussion

ok, then make sure every ship can use Artys, because Vargur cant fit Artys.
and hey, more tracking for Artys would be nice also.

Big Alpha, veeeeery Long cycle time, and the tracking sucks....

You see those numbers drop on test server or what ? I dint notice any drop in number of players online ,I can say there is even more than usual.

If EVE die cause of TE changes than it will only show that even EVE community is on same way ******** like in other MMOs.Your posts are really same as WoW random paladin crying how his class is nerfed.

If you cant be constructive and you just rant then just stop ,quit or what ever .

Nope. The autocannosn are intended to have superior falloff than blasters. Significantly Superior. The problem is the module itself! A module that increases so massively any ship capability with almost no cost up to the point that it becomes a serius reason why not even think on armor tanking is something in need of a nerf!

Its is so clearly the TE problem that you see amarr ships shield tankign so they can use TE!

Great Job CCP!!!

First you nerf Heavy missiles because they where to OP at range, and made them equally with Guns.

Now you nerf range of guns and make Missiles OP again.....

Goodbey long range guns, welcome back Missile boats

Also this will ruin A LOT of solo kiting frigs except ofcourse for the condor that can still kite with his light missiles. (AND actually hit)

no more nice range on the kting slicer, no more nice range on the kiting retribution, in other words: let solo pvp die.

only way to pvp after this is close range brawl and this means you get blobbed to hell. No way to get out solo anymore.

ACs - 425 used as example. Lasor was Heavy Pulse Laser II.

I've been running with these numbers - on a 425 with a TE - it moves the DPS back by about 1km after 11KM which is at 62% damage due to falloff - this contines to ultimatly reduces max range of 2km. But at the final 2km you were only doing 2% and 6% respectivly. Previously at 23km you would be doing 10% - now you only do 10% at 22km - and previously at 22km you were doing 17%.

At 14km you lose 4%. At 11km it is 3%.

This affects proportionally all tracking based weapons I've looked at. Lasors suffer exactly the same in terms of proportions looking at a range/effectivness falloff. Before and after the Lasors do more percentage than the AC to 10km - at which point the AC is stronger - after the changes the AC actually gets stronger quicker.

With 1 TE the AC does percentage-wise double the Lasor at 14km.

With the old TE - this didn't happen till 15km. The differential between 14 and 15 km is still 4% - and the difference at those ranges between the old TE and the new is also 4%.

I need my excel sheet to show. But in all honesty. . .

It's a 4% hit to ACs - and also all the other systems. ACs lose 2km - lasors 1km. (but at these extreme ranges the ACs do nothing - it's like 1 to 5 % - because the range is squashed up the percentage loss to the bulk of the range is less diminished)

Also - proportinally - Lasors become less good than ACs slightly quicker by 1% per km initially with the gap then growing like it did before.

With two TEs - (with stacking penalty 0.87) - Things look a bit worse. From 19km the difference is 10% - with 25km giving 11% whereas we would have gotten 12% at 28km. This is a loss of 3km. At 24km you are doing 14% whereas you used to do 25%.

At 14km you are doing 6% less but proportionally still more than lasors used to at that range by 20% of the percentage reduction, (ACs do 52% and lasors do 37% - it used to be 58% and 49% respectivly).

With 1 TE - a 4%@14km hit and 2km reduction at extremities
With 2 TE - a 6%-8%@14km hit and a 3km reduction at extremities

Once target sig, traversal and tracking are taken into consideration - And I needed to model scenarios in EFT for this - using a 'Caine against frigates cruisers and other battlecruisers. I didn't notice much indicated difference. Where I used two TEs before I may actually still do this - it still gives a 19% increase at 14KM and a 5km range increase. It used to give 25% and 7km increase (at a 14km equiv). Although 19% is less than the DPS increase of a Gyro - factoring in tracking - it still works. (I'm not good enough to model this).

In my humble opinion - and I'm doing a U-Turn from my previous bitching - I will still consider TEs to be a great module esspecially for their fitting cost.

Now I know that I'm not very good at EvE - and that people will have specialised fits to take advantage of mechanics. But in the general case - all the proportions seem to be respected by the changes - this seems to affect all the tracking weapons I've looked at equally. Minnies don't seem to suffer more. And Minnies can still perform outside Scram range - but not so good outside long point range. For mediums.

All my efforts have focused on medium wepaonry as that's what I'm personnaly interested in.

I now give Fozzie a +1 for this and conceed it was imba b

You do realise you've just suggested that ACs should have the same falloff - less optimal - and significantly less DPS than blasters - and that would be balanced how?

Because blasters are UP and need moar dps, tracking, oh and null needs to give them more dps at long ranges, because beating 'winmatar' at that game has already happened.

Stupid OP Gallente.

TE changes are needed, there's a real problem atm of short range weapons being used at med-long ranges (blasters are really the worst offenders, auto's not so much).

With this nerf it will give back the advantage to lol medium rails (they really need a buff), arty and scorch, since that's a key advantaged to flying that fat slow slave trader race.

These changes will also help armour tanking a bit more. No one can possibly say that having a ship like the talos that can in 5s swap from a <15k 1200dps monster, to a 800ds 50km range kiter is balanced.

What they do need to do is give ships the fitting to fit their long range weapons, I'm thinking arty on a vaga, stabber, vargur, rails on thorax (though it's mainly a cap issue on those). Without the fitting changes, the vaga will be significantly nerfed, the stabber is getting the buff to counteract the TE changes (so it's just as **** as it is now) and the Vargur has always needed more grid.

Close range means 10km, not 30. Close range weapons should not hit effectively to 30km, unless it's a specialist (read t2) ship designed for that.

I've got a trouble with this specific module since the beginning because of "generalities" in those bonuses.

One option would be to completely get rid of this module and add different variants of dmg mods with different optimal or fall off bonus:

Minmatar does not need optimal bonus, change from 3km to 3,15km is kinda pathetic change, however 30% bonus on fall off is too much considering this on some already fall off bonused hulls.
This means the problem is not being solved at the source (hulls bonus) but somewhat tweak which leads me to the following point.

Optimal bonus on TEs has very little influence on Rails and Beams, small on Arty. Again, specific dmg modules could use of different "logical" variants instead of some sort of generic module being a strong plus in some circumstances (projectiles/hybrids) but little and still mandatory for lasers (tracking issues).

Making these bonus as options in specific dmg mods either by scripting them either by making different ones would force players to make rational choices instead of as per usual stack of TE's.
This would also open new options since having more room for tanking mods or just add drone upgrades.

Probably a terrible idea but I think this wouldn't hurt.

I like my falloff, and I hate that I can't switch projectile guns without having to change the !!WHOLE layout for the ship. Granted some modules would have to be changed, but the pg/cpu requirements of arties...

Except they don't, with some rare exceptions.