These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#141 - 2013-03-27 01:42:08 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
One more thing; I find the coincidence of NPC tracking disruption being OP, combined with even less effective TE modules, to be the death knell to turreted mission runners that have been struggling to cope with Sansha rats.

The buckets of tears in the forums have been overwhelming since the NPC change, after this, the tears will become a tidal wave.

if you fly against sanshas, you are most likely armor tanked or in a nightmare i.e. you either have 0 or 1 tracking enhancer. so basically, the TE change hardly affects you. also, didn't i read somewhere that NPC TD is getting nerfed again?

I should buy an Ishtar.
IrJosy
Club 1621
#142 - 2013-03-27 01:51:40 UTC
Cowwarrior is not impressed.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#143 - 2013-03-27 01:55:57 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
[
We're not changing the relative strength of faction TEs vs T2 at all. Faction retains its tracking and fittings advantage, and if the faction TEs were worth the price premium over T2 for your purposes before they will continue to be worth the price premium.

Are you concerned about how this might drive the already high faction variations up even higher? Or do you have a plan for faction LP stores in store for Odyssey.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#144 - 2013-03-27 01:57:44 UTC
Lee Vanden wrote:
I think this is going to hurt Gallente blaster boats more than it is Minmatar and it's not so long since they were finally made useable, please consider increasing the range of blasters if you're going to go ahead with this CCP.


I've got a few blaster based setups this is gonna hit pretty hard :S much more so than other setups, hence my response when I first heard about this is pretty much un-reproduceable here. Not a fan of these "closing the gap by nerfing towards the middle" type tweaks that seem to be being introduced alongside otherwise great changes of late.
Hellakhanasos
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#145 - 2013-03-27 02:00:03 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.


After sifting through the turd of many prior posts over the last couple of pages. This is more of less spot on.
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#146 - 2013-03-27 02:01:33 UTC
My Gallente cruiser fits are not looking forward to this patch. Shield / blaster setups were already really borderline, they'll now be depressingly ineffective.

Why do we want to skew the game towards "TOTAL COMMITMENT" type fits? Whats wrong with skirmishing?
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#147 - 2013-03-27 02:03:06 UTC
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.
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#148 - 2013-03-27 02:06:43 UTC
If the best post you can pick from a whole thread is a pile of words that noone is able to comprehend... May be you should consider your sanity?

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
IrJosy
Club 1621
#149 - 2013-03-27 02:08:21 UTC  |  Edited by: IrJosy
The problem with nerfing RSB's is that it is too hard to get fights without them in many situations. Many players simply want to run away or cloak and warp. An interceptor crashing the gate simply can't be caught without an instalocking 90% web ship on the gate. Often that instalocking 90% web ship is assisted to instalocking status by RSB's. Even with an instalocking 90% web ship the chances to kill a good pilot in a fast ship are NOT 100%. Again, it is too easy to run away or avoid pvp in this game. The introduction of cloaky nulified t3 cruisers has exacerbated this problem. We need to stop nerfing pvp and start giving players more tools to force players into pvp. If players are going into low/hi-sec there need to be risks like that little pop up message suggests. It is far too easy to run around completely safe from any form of uncosensual pvp in null/low sec and it is seemingly getting easier with every change. At what point is enough, enough? We are already fairly far down the slippery slope of turning this game into carebear freindly themepark and less of a sandbox. Changes like cloaky haulers, buffing mining barges, adding cloaking delay to HIC bubbles, nullified t3 cruisers, and most recently reducing the scan res from RSBs are steps in the wrong direction. I suggest you step back for a moment and give some equally impressive tools to those of us looking for pvp as you have provided those seeking to avoid it.
Dominick Owusu
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#150 - 2013-03-27 02:11:59 UTC
You know things are silly when you have arty thrashers with 4791mm Scan res on grid. I'll miss that, but local sebos will still get me to 4461mm. No big deal. :)
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#151 - 2013-03-27 02:13:09 UTC
TE changes are ********.

Optimal is the issue not tracking - tracking is bad as it is nerfing TE bonus by half is just..... well stupid

if long range is a problem NERF LONG RANGE GUNS, not a stupid blanket TE nerf.

as many have said, blasters are hard enough to use as it is.

Remote sebos and stuff, didnt think there was a problem before but hey, a bit of a nerf isnt going to mean a whole lot since everyone stacks the shite out of them any way.

Canes will be in pain to use after this change, brutix and talos (lol).......

Go ferox?

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
2manno Asp
Death By Design
#152 - 2013-03-27 02:14:10 UTC  |  Edited by: 2manno Asp
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Karl Hobb wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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.

I'm curious as to why the low-slot, non-cap-using TEs are still better in this iteration than the mid-slot, cap-using TCs, especially considering this statement?


TCs give far superior tracking bonuses, this narrows the gap for range bonuses.


But TC's are mid slots Fozzie and there are a half dozen more reasons this is a terrible idea. If anything, ships need increased ranges, from blasters on up.

Decreasing ranges is like shrinking the size of a basketball court. It's already crowded under the hoop, making it more so is bad for the game.

I hate this idea. I think it's sophmoric as I listen to the rhetoric about minmatar dominance, TC's, and amor vs shield. Makes me think you guys don't understand the current issues at all. Even worse, I'm concerned about your future vision of combat.

I hope you scrap this terrible idea.
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#153 - 2013-03-27 02:17:19 UTC
IrJosy wrote:
The problem with nerfing RSB's is that it is too hard to get fights without them in many situations. Many players simply want to run away or cloak and warp. An interceptor crashing the gate simply can't be caught without an instalocking 90% web ship on the gate.

Accept the fact that there's ships that you won't be able to kill. Life is harsh, you have to live with it.

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#154 - 2013-03-27 02:20:53 UTC
I agree, I think the nerf to TEs is far too harsh, especially considering the ships that generally use them are very deficient in optimal range and require boosts to falloff in order to have decent damage projection.

You're nerfing the skirmish playstyle essentially. I don't like it.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
2manno Asp
Death By Design
#155 - 2013-03-27 02:23:18 UTC
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
Roderick Grey wrote:
With Blasters hurting for range as it is are CCP sure it's a good idea to further damage Gallente ships, which already suffer drawbacks just to nerf Minmatar superiority?

Perhaps with weapon damage upgrades being Race specific, we could have race-specific Tracking Enhancers each with their own varying buffs aswell?


Lol wat?
Stop trying to kite in a Thorax hull then.

As someone who predominately flies Gallente, I can only think of Talos & terrible kiting Thorax hulls as the ships that routinely fit TEs. Gallente is the best it's been in a long time, and this nerf to TEs just means people are going to be closer to blaster range Blink


and your obvious bias is why your opinion should be disregarded.
Maggeridon Thoraz
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#156 - 2013-03-27 02:28:20 UTC
seem like the title of the next expansion was choosen right.

Odyssey: cpp is on an Odyssey and dont know where the really going with the nerfs
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#157 - 2013-03-27 02:28:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Mina Sebiestar
I don't like it,affect minmatar the most and both weapon systems for that matter.

But real massacre will be in autocanons so i have q for CCP Fozzie

Hail ammo to my knowledge it remained nerfed while others ammo got buffed for the same reasons you are nerfing TE now....

Will you change Hail ammo stats?

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#158 - 2013-03-27 02:31:40 UTC
Tonto Auri wrote:
If the best post you can pick from a whole thread is a pile of words that noone is able to comprehend... May be you should consider your sanity?


I you can't be bothered to read, we'd all prefer if you couldn't be bothered to post either.
Ak'athra J'ador
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#159 - 2013-03-27 02:35:35 UTC
Soo.... TE nerf. Yea just what the game needs. Let's cram EVERYONE into a 10km bubble.

Totally going in the wrong direction. The game needs to be opened up, not closed down.
Ap01110n
Vendetta Collective
#160 - 2013-03-27 02:35:40 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Dabigredboat wrote:
If you would be so kind ccp fozzie. Explain to me why you would change the range of the TE and not the TC. This dirctly nerfs a fleet ship such as nagas and rokhs who rely on a TE due to shield tank being the dominate form of tank.

Why not change both equally as to adjust the change needed to effect Navy apocs as much as changing the Rokhs role. A Navy Apoc will use two tracking computers the same as a rokh uses two tracking enhances to balance the range ratio.

Any plans to fix the balance this will change in armor to shield fleets?


This change is specifically designed to change the balance between TEs and TCs. TEs still give very good range bonuses, decent tracking bonuses, and do it with less than half the fittings cost of a TC.

I know that this will affect 0.0 fleet doctrines, but shaking up doctrines a bit isn't something we consider a negative.



It wont shake up doctrines, only serve to solidify them.

TC fit pulse NaPocs are currently solidly dominant in nullsec, only (ocassionally) challenged by Rokhs (which for the past 4 years havent been used at all until recently).

If you want to shake up doctrines make torp Ravens useable and leave rokhs alone. T3 BCs probably need a range nerf, but not at the expense of every other skirmish style ship.

Shields have never been dominant in anything but small scale hit and run tactics (except for Tengus which is a separate issue altogether). For the past 2+ years its been all amarr armor (or maels just to counter abaddons incredible buffer).

Shield caps and supers are regarded as "unuseable" in major conflicts because there are no solid shield subcap doctrines. God forbid you buy a Hel, theyre pathetic compared to anything else.