These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

Why are they nerfing TE's when TD's are so prevalent.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dub Step
Death To Everyone But Us
#1 - 2013-05-01 15:13:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Dub Step
I assume the devs are aware of the prevalence of TD condors and other ships. It's particularly evident in Factional Warfare.

With this in mind, it seems maddening that they are considering a nerf to TE's which are becoming somewhat mandatory for certain kinds of PVP. In particular, low sec soloing, or low sec frigate PVP in general.

EDIT: The key issue are kiting and range disrupting fits, rather than tracking disrupting. GENERALLY, the modules are still far too trivial to fit in general.

Suggestions I have heard since the general agreement is this is mostly an issue with frigates using these modules freely include increasing their cap requirement, or fitting requirements (obviously with some bonus applied to the smaller hulls that are supposed to fit them).

Does anyone else think this needs to be reconsidered?
Bad Messenger
Rehabilitation Clinic
#2 - 2013-05-01 15:16:29 UTC
it does not matter how CCP nerfs or boost things, players just use setups that will work.
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3 - 2013-05-01 15:17:50 UTC
i guess some guns still work too well with TDs on them that tend to fit TEs?

dunno, good point i guess.

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
Haulie Berry
#4 - 2013-05-01 15:20:30 UTC
Dub Step wrote:
I assume the devs are aware of the prevalence of TD condors and other ships. It's particularly evident in Factional Warfare.

With this in mind, it seems maddening that they are considering a nerf to TE's which are becoming somewhat mandatory for certain kinds of PVP. In particular, low sec soloing, or low sec frigate PVP in general.


Suggestions I have heard since the general agreement is this is mostly an issue with frigates using these modules freely include increasing their cap requirement, or fitting requirements (obviously with some bonus applied to the smaller hulls that are supposed to fit them).

Does anyone else think this needs to be reconsidered?


TEs aren't the inverse of TDs. Tracking computers are the inverse of TDs.
Dub Step
Death To Everyone But Us
#5 - 2013-05-01 15:22:56 UTC
That depends on which scripts are used, but TE's are more commonly fit and more commonly viable to fit. If TC's were mandatory that would be even worse!
Azurae
Doomheim
#6 - 2013-05-01 15:26:02 UTC
Dub Step wrote:
That depends on which scripts are used, but TE's are more commonly fit and more commonly viable to fit. If TC's were mandatory that would be even worse!


i heard for tracking disruptors it would depend on the script too ;-)
Dub Step
Death To Everyone But Us
#7 - 2013-05-01 15:28:04 UTC
OK. I'll update the OP for those that are not aware of the current metric.
Haulie Berry
#8 - 2013-05-01 15:33:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Haulie Berry
Dub Step wrote:
That depends on which scripts are used,



...uh, no it doesn't depend on which scripts at all. TDs and TCs are mid-slot, active, cap-consuming, high-cpu mods. Conceptually, they're the inversion of each other. Statistically, they are not.

Tracking enhancers, on the other hand, are a low-slot, passive, cap-free, low-cpu mod....

Quote:
but TE's are more commonly fit and more commonly viable to fit.


...and are more common because they are better than TCs in almost every conceivable way.

Less fitting? Check. No script? Check. No cap? Check.

An optimal scripted TC gives:

15% optimal
30% falloff
No tracking

A TE gives the same optimal and falloff bonus and, here, have 9.5% tracking on top of it because why the **** not.

Also, the argument that, "they are used more!" is not actually a valid argument against rebalancing something.

Quite the opposite, In fact: when a particular fitting becomes almost ubiquitous, it's typically a sign that it needs a nerf.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#9 - 2013-05-01 15:34:41 UTC
The solution I favour is to significantly increase the cap use of TDs. Make it the most cap expensive EW.

It's Amarr EW, after all, and they're the cap race.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Dub Step
Death To Everyone But Us
#10 - 2013-05-01 15:35:12 UTC
I.E. they are viable counters to TD's, thus becoming mandatory. You don't seem to be keyed in to the particular issue I am talking about so kindly refrain from posting further.
Dub Step
Death To Everyone But Us
#11 - 2013-05-01 15:37:02 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
The solution I favour is to significantly increase the cap use of TDs. Make it the most cap expensive EW.

It's Amarr EW, after all, and they're the cap race.


This has so far been the best resolution. If you want it, you have to fit accordingly, and it conveniently imposes on kiting fits from using it so easily.
Haulie Berry
#12 - 2013-05-01 15:38:50 UTC
Dub Step wrote:
I.E. they are viable counters to TD's, thus becoming mandatory.


That does not make them "mandatory" any more than the existence of ECM makes ECCM "mandatory", or the existence of scrams makes afterburners and WCS "mandatory".

Quote:
You don't seem to be keyed in to the particular issue I am talking about so kindly refrain from posting further.


I think I will instead take some delight in showcasing your complete impotence with respect to telling other people who is allowed to post what.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#13 - 2013-05-01 15:40:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Malcanis wrote:
The solution I favour is to significantly increase the cap use of TDs. Make it the most cap expensive EW.

It's Amarr EW, after all, and they're the cap race.


Not a bad option.

I think we also need to keep in mind that missiles have long been considered inferior for PVP work. I can see value in the advantages turret ships have being offset by the fact that there is a very common counter to turrets that does not affect missiles in the slightest. This also adds value to drone boats, as their "destructible" weapons systems are not affected by tracking disruption either.

What I'm saying is tweaking TD should be considered, but they should still be relatively common as their presence adds value to the other weapons systems that they do not effect and helps the balance (advantages/disadvantages) between the various weapons systems.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#14 - 2013-05-01 15:43:51 UTC
Dub Step wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
The solution I favour is to significantly increase the cap use of TDs. Make it the most cap expensive EW.

It's Amarr EW, after all, and they're the cap race.


This has so far been the best resolution. If you want it, you have to fit accordingly, and it conveniently imposes on kiting fits from using it so easily.


These posts make too much sense for this forum!

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#15 - 2013-05-01 15:44:24 UTC
TE are overpowered. It's a big problem with the nano faceroll shadowing everything else. This change helps armor tanking alot.

The Tears Must Flow
Dub Step
Death To Everyone But Us
#16 - 2013-05-01 15:49:43 UTC
TE's may well be overpowered but the point of this discussion is that while they are facing a nerf, they are currently inherently valuable in countering an even more prevalent issue, which is the over-abundance of TD fits; particularly frigates in low sec.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#17 - 2013-05-01 15:55:11 UTC
Dub Step wrote:
TE's may well be overpowered but the point of this discussion is that while they are facing a nerf, they are currently inherently valuable in countering an even more prevalent issue, which is the over-abundance of TD fits; particularly frigates in low sec.


I have met zero TD ships in the last 2 years. Seriously, when was the last time any of us saw a sentinel?
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#18 - 2013-05-01 16:15:32 UTC
I'm pretty certain the TE nerf is a halfhearted attempt to fix the state of unbalance in PvE between armour/shield tanks. The ancillary armour repper wasn't even a quarterhearted attempt PVP unbalance with local tank in my eyes ( so when is armour going to get a 3200mm Xlarge plate that BS can fit? ) so I guess its an improvement.
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#19 - 2013-05-01 16:17:07 UTC
Dub Step wrote:
TE's may well be overpowered but the point of this discussion is that while they are facing a nerf, they are currently inherently valuable in countering an even more prevalent issue, which is the over-abundance of TD fits; particularly frigates in low sec.


Double TD Condor ShockedWhat?OopsEvilRoll

We just have to be patient, i bet that the electronic warfare rebalance is just around the corner.

The Tears Must Flow
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#20 - 2013-05-01 16:18:41 UTC
Dub Step wrote:
TE's may well be overpowered but the point of this discussion is that while they are facing a nerf, they are currently inherently valuable in countering an even more prevalent issue, which is the over-abundance of TD fits; particularly frigates in low sec.

Get a budy to stay aligned to you in a fast lock sniper. Use drones and missiles or damps to force the condors in closer, or just avoid those fights. It sounds like you have a preferred fit that is vulnerable to TD kiters, that's actually not a game balance issue.
123Next page