These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Why are they nerfing TE's when TD's are so prevalent.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Zimmy Zeta
Perkone
Caldari State
#21 - 2013-05-01 16:25:18 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.


You mean, after removing the cap bonus for laser weapons on almost every Amarrian ship, the next logical step would be to increase the cap cost of other typical Amarrian modules, just to be in line with the new rebalancing concept ?
Sure, why not, didn't want that cap anyway...

I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it. Yes, I do feel bad about it.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#22 - 2013-05-01 16:27:56 UTC
Zimmy Zeta 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.


You mean, after removing the cap bonus for laser weapons on almost every Amarrian ship, the next logical step would be to increase the cap cost of other typical Amarrian modules, just to be in line with the new rebalancing concept ?
Sure, why not, didn't want that cap anyway...


The logic in making the most cap hungry ships drink even more cap is flawlessStraight
Berluth Luthian
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#23 - 2013-05-01 16:39:56 UTC
Isn't one counter to TDs TPs? The thing is, for half the CPU of TDs you can reduce the effectiveness of a TD by 50-60% on the TDs target, and then the rest of the gang can get bonuses.

TP is like the anti-disruption EWAR, right?
Zimmy Zeta
Perkone
Caldari State
#24 - 2013-05-01 16:53:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Zimmy Zeta
Berluth Luthian wrote:
Isn't one counter to TDs TPs? The thing is, for half the CPU of TDs you can reduce the effectiveness of a TD by 50-60% on the TDs target, and then the rest of the gang can get bonuses.

TP is like the anti-disruption EWAR, right?


TP doesn't help against optimal range disruption, if you TD the enemy enough to be outside of optimal +2x falloff, his guns become basically useless.

I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it. Yes, I do feel bad about it.
Andrea Griffin
#25 - 2013-05-01 16:55:05 UTC
Just wait until tracking disruption affects missiles, too. You won't find a PvP ship in Eve that doesn't carry a TD.

CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#26 - 2013-05-01 17:17:02 UTC
Andrea Griffin wrote:
Just wait until tracking disruption affects missiles, too. You won't find a PvP ship in Eve that doesn't carry a TD.


Much like how you cant find any without a falcon in tow...
Dub Step
Death To Everyone But Us
#27 - 2013-05-01 17:24:27 UTC
That is pure bullshit, there are plenty of engagements that dont involve a falcon. Kindly stay on topic.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#28 - 2013-05-01 17:27:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
Berluth Luthian wrote:
Isn't one counter to TDs TPs? The thing is, for half the CPU of TDs you can reduce the effectiveness of a TD by 50-60% on the TDs target, and then the rest of the gang can get bonuses.

TP is like the anti-disruption EWAR, right?


TP doesn't help against optimal range disruption, if you TD the enemy enough to be outside of optimal +2x falloff, his guns become basically useless.


Which touches on a related note, Target Painters.

When I think of someone "painting" a target it is to enable accurate weapons fire, usually from a position that would not normally be able to target the objective.

The current bonuses on Target Painters are fine, but perhaps they could stand a buff to also effectively increase the locking range (or perhaps weapons range) for all vessels attempting to lock (or instead fire weapons at) the target painted ship. This would give another (excellent) reason to mount target painters (they are a bit underused at the moment) and bring up their perceived value compared to other EW.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Spurty
#29 - 2013-05-01 17:29:18 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:

Which touches on a related note, Target Painters.

When I think of someone "painting" a target it is to enable accurate weapons fire, usually from a position that would not normally be able to target the objective.

The current bonuses on Target Painters are fine, but perhaps they could stand a buff to also effectively increase the locking range for all vessels attempting to lock the target painted ship. This would give another (excellent) reason to mount target painters (they are a bit underused at the moment) and bring up their perceived value compared to other EW.


Makes so much sense it'll never happen.

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#30 - 2013-05-01 17:30:31 UTC
Dub Step wrote:
That is pure bullshit, there are plenty of engagements that dont involve a falcon. Kindly stay on topic.


I see you do sacasm too well.
Dub Step
Death To Everyone But Us
#31 - 2013-05-01 17:32:33 UTC
I do sarcasm fine good sir, I simply find it detrimental to a conducive conversation. I.E. this is serious business ^_-
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#32 - 2013-05-01 17:37:50 UTC
Dub Step wrote:
I do sarcasm fine good sir, I simply find it detrimental to a conducive conversation. I.E. this is serious business ^_-


Very well.

I was pointing out via sarcasm that ECM (something some see as overpowered) rarely gets used. TD even more so.
Jonasan Mikio
Must Remove Snow Flakes
#33 - 2013-05-01 17:44:20 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.

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?



This is really a simple thing to explain.... and right now its very powerful for Caldari....


As it stands in most of the small ship fights we get, you can get more realistic DPS out of TEs, instead of using damage mods. Sure on paper it does not seem that way, but realistically it does happens that way, specifically like you said because of eveyones use of TDs.


It allows you to combat an opponents mid slot module (utility), with only a low slot module. If you are flying say gallente or amarr, most people would scream that this is a really bad idea.... however if you fly caldari or the shield ships for WINmatar. It allows you to include a very strong tank, and the ability to completely negate TDs using your low slots, and in frigs and dessies that = more DPS. It also allows bigger shield tanked ships, to be able to completely nuke little ships, that are designed by nature to have some what of a chance... assuming you dont count drones... AKA why fly an interceptor, to tackle a talos when the talos just nukes the inty in two vollies, thus making the interceptor completely useless...

EFT warriors will argue vrs this concept but people in the front lines loosing ships on a daily basis will completely agree. Go fit up something like a TE merlin and fight a kiting condor ;)

Most of the time these modules get ignored for damage mods like gyros or heatsinks or whatever... but the fact of the matter to the ones in the know and even more so in FW where the ships are small.. TEs are broken.
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#34 - 2013-05-01 17:55:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Muad 'dib
I know ccp would never go for it, but i would like all EW half as effective, but as effective as they are now on the EW's own races ships

making all race ships have a built in "script" modification?

anyone?

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
Zimmy Zeta
Perkone
Caldari State
#35 - 2013-05-01 18:01:54 UTC
Muad 'dib wrote:
I know ccp would never go for it, but i would like all EW half as effective, but as effective as they are now on their own races ships

making all race ships have a built in "script" modification?

anyone?

Didn't CCP do something like this with the last expansion?
I think they reduced the base efficiency of all e-war modules but increased the bonus on the dedicated racial e-war hulls to even it out again.

I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it. Yes, I do feel bad about it.
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#36 - 2013-05-01 18:04:50 UTC
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
Muad 'dib wrote:
I know ccp would never go for it, but i would like all EW half as effective, but as effective as they are now on their own races ships

making all race ships have a built in "script" modification?

anyone?

Didn't CCP do something like this with the last expansion?
I think they reduced the base efficiency of all e-war modules but increased the bonus on the dedicated racial e-war hulls to even it out again.



thats exactly what gave me the idea to do it more and to every ship.

"Amarr race bonus 100% to TDs"

just the primary EW though, not talking webs and nuets and such

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#37 - 2013-05-01 18:49:06 UTC
Muad 'dib wrote:




thats exactly what gave me the idea to do it more and to every ship.

"Amarr race bonus 100% to TDs"

just the primary EW though, not talking webs and nuets and such


That would make the ships that do have the EW bonuses hilariously overpowered.
Zimmy Zeta
Perkone
Caldari State
#38 - 2013-05-01 19:39:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Zimmy Zeta
baltec1 wrote:
Muad 'dib wrote:




thats exactly what gave me the idea to do it more and to every ship.

"Amarr race bonus 100% to TDs"

just the primary EW though, not talking webs and nuets and such


That would make the ships that do have the EW bonuses hilariously overpowered.


Nope. His plan was to reduce the base efficiency of every e-war module by half, then give the according racial hulls a 100% bonus so that on the racial hulls (including those with EW bonus) the results should be the same- on all other hulls the efficiency would be halved.

Not a bad idea, but in my opinion no top priority.
If you want to address racial imbalance, fixing racial drones would be more important imho.
Give Amarr a reason to use Amarrian drones again instead of stinking, filthy Minmatarr or Gallente drones- it makes not much sense that the drone bonus of a hull will give you a bonus to your enemy's weapons.

I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it. Yes, I do feel bad about it.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#39 - 2013-05-01 21:06:46 UTC
Zimmy Zeta wrote:


Nope. His plan was to reduce the base efficiency of every e-war module by half, then give the according racial hulls a 100% bonus so that on the racial hulls (including those with EW bonus) the results should be the same- on all other hulls the efficiency would be halved.

Not a bad idea, but in my opinion no top priority.
If you want to address racial imbalance, fixing racial drones would be more important imho.
Give Amarr a reason to use Amarrian drones again instead of stinking, filthy Minmatarr or Gallente drones- it makes not much sense that the drone bonus of a hull will give you a bonus to your enemy's weapons.


When was the last time you met a vexor packing ECM or TD?

Its an unneeded blanket nerf to fix a problem that isn't there and would remove a lot of fitting options for no reason.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#40 - 2013-05-01 21:36:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Sergeant Acht Scultz
baltec1 wrote:
Dub Step wrote:
I do sarcasm fine good sir, I simply find it detrimental to a conducive conversation. I.E. this is serious business ^_-


Very well.

I was pointing out via sarcasm that ECM (something some see as overpowered) rarely gets used. TD even more so.





Rarely used in fleets or interest in using it depends on the type and fight size I'd say.
ECM has proportionally less effect in large fleets than it has in small gangs where it uses 100% potential and IS a determinant force multiplier extremely hard to counter.

Everyone that can carry more than one set of drones always has one flight of ECM's, why not TD Damp or web drones?
Of course you know the answer, the impact of any other EWAR type at small scale is absolutely underwhelming and no where close to the effectiveness of a single successful ECM drone cycle or module.

Damp Arazu is awesome with a bomber friend against a solo target, in a small gang is harmless or brings any interest over a Falcon force multiplier ability, and the extra point range is not really a determinant factor to win or loose a fight a small scale.
For fleets it's a waste of a mid slot trying to damp logis extreme targeting range compared with TD or even a TP on focus targets or spread across the enemy fleet, while long range point (lachesis) is interesting for obvious reasons, for any other fleet ship with a free or utility mid a TD script tracking is a better option overall than a DAMP/TP/Racial ECM mod.

Just an opinion.

EDIT: the impact of TD in solo/small/big fights became interesting, that's the point I was trying to make, sry for the wall of text.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Previous page123Next page