These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Rubicon 1.1] Tracking Disruptor and Sensor Damp Strength Changes in Conjunction with Heat Iteration

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
I am disposable
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#81 - 2014-01-17 02:29:03 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Jack Miton wrote:
Really dont like this. In particular, TPs are used heavily in PVE when youre never going to heat them so this is a flat nerf to them.



I do PVE (mostly to rebuild sec status) and I most certainly put overheating to use there. It's not uncommon for me to finish a mission with my local repair module 25% heat damaged, my MWD damaged, and my webs damaged or (rarely) burnt out.

Only takes 5 seconds to interact with the station repair interface to repair the damage, so if overheating aggressively can save me more than five seconds (and double-webbing a frigate rat at 12km rather than 10 makes a very big difference to medium blaster damage application) then I will definitely do so.

Really the only reason not to overheat in PVE content is if you want to keep your heat racks at 0 in case of unexpected PVP.


Overheating your tank makes sense. Overheating your prop mod makes sense. Overheating webs makes sense. Overheating a target painter is pants on head stupid.


QFT
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#82 - 2014-01-17 02:37:50 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Jack Miton wrote:
Really dont like this. In particular, TPs are used heavily in PVE when youre never going to heat them so this is a flat nerf to them.



I do PVE (mostly to rebuild sec status) and I most certainly put overheating to use there. It's not uncommon for me to finish a mission with my local repair module 25% heat damaged, my MWD damaged, and my webs damaged or (rarely) burnt out.

Only takes 5 seconds to interact with the station repair interface to repair the damage, so if overheating aggressively can save me more than five seconds (and double-webbing a frigate rat at 12km rather than 10 makes a very big difference to medium blaster damage application) then I will definitely do so.

Really the only reason not to overheat in PVE content is if you want to keep your heat racks at 0 in case of unexpected PVP.


Overheating your tank makes sense. Overheating your prop mod makes sense. Overheating webs makes sense. Overheating a target painter is pants on head stupid.


If I have a ten second window to apply damage effectively to a target before it's under my guns and I have to use unbonused drones on it, you can bet your bottom dollar I'd overheat the EWAR mod that makes the target (indirectly) take more damage.

That's not pants on head stupid, it's common sense. Just because most PVEers have hardwired into their brains "Overheat only in an emergency" does not mean that is optimal play. For example I overheat armor active hardeners to take pressure of my capacitor when I'm not even close to danger.

Of course you won't OH TPs all the time, but if you have an elite cruiser burning toward you, and you know it will be hard to hit once it gets close, of course you'd OH it for that short window.



Unless CCP go with my suggestion and change the statistic modified by heat on a TP from %sigrad increase to range, then all of this strategy discussion is a moot point.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
I am disposable
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#83 - 2014-01-17 03:38:10 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Jack Miton wrote:
Really dont like this. In particular, TPs are used heavily in PVE when youre never going to heat them so this is a flat nerf to them.



I do PVE (mostly to rebuild sec status) and I most certainly put overheating to use there. It's not uncommon for me to finish a mission with my local repair module 25% heat damaged, my MWD damaged, and my webs damaged or (rarely) burnt out.

Only takes 5 seconds to interact with the station repair interface to repair the damage, so if overheating aggressively can save me more than five seconds (and double-webbing a frigate rat at 12km rather than 10 makes a very big difference to medium blaster damage application) then I will definitely do so.

Really the only reason not to overheat in PVE content is if you want to keep your heat racks at 0 in case of unexpected PVP.


Overheating your tank makes sense. Overheating your prop mod makes sense. Overheating webs makes sense. Overheating a target painter is pants on head stupid.


If I have a ten second window to apply damage effectively to a target before it's under my guns and I have to use unbonused drones on it, you can bet your bottom dollar I'd overheat the EWAR mod that makes the target (indirectly) take more damage.

That's not pants on head stupid, it's common sense. Just because most PVEers have hardwired into their brains "Overheat only in an emergency" does not mean that is optimal play. For example I overheat armor active hardeners to take pressure of my capacitor when I'm not even close to danger.

Of course you won't OH TPs all the time, but if you have an elite cruiser burning toward you, and you know it will be hard to hit once it gets close, of course you'd OH it for that short window.



Unless CCP go with my suggestion and change the statistic modified by heat on a TP from %sigrad increase to range, then all of this strategy discussion is a moot point.


You use a TP on a turret ship for PVE? Okay...
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#84 - 2014-01-17 03:51:49 UTC
I keep hearing about how missiles are already massively disadvantaged by how weak the target painter is compared to the webifier (and how the webifier completely nullifies most of the advantages missiles have if one chooses to use it).

Why was this necessary? By default, they're now 10% worse than they currently are on TQ? You need to risk breaking them, for a mere 8% improvement over their TQ performance?

Why don't we just turn the Caldari missile lineup into railgun-bonused hybrid turret ships and clip all missile turrets, ammunition and upgrades from the item database.
Kesthely
Mestana
#85 - 2014-01-17 05:06:40 UTC
In eve, there are a lot of people, each, unique and with opinions and ideas of there own. Often i've read ideas and opinions on the fora that litterly wanted me to pull my hair out.

In this forumtopic, i actually get to smile, that we Eve Online Players for once all have the same opinion, and idea.

So CCP please, confirm that what you claim is still true, that this indeed is a game where the players have input, that you truelly are a games designer that still listens to its backbone of players, wich in unison say:

The base reduction of TP stats is not something thats wanted
Meyr
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
OnlyFleets.
#86 - 2014-01-17 05:09:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Meyr
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
TD and SD nerf is fine, TP nerf doesn't really make any sense. If you really think overheated TP would be overpowered with this change then just reduce the overheat gain. People will still use it from time to time even if it's only a 10% gain.


Fozzie, when I'm in complete agreement with James, you have got to admit that you got this one wrong from the start. Reducing the effectiveness of a module that is RARELY used in PVP, which, by itself, should have told you that this was a bad idea, was simply you being too lazy to differentiate Target Painters from other forms of E-War, and painting all of them with the same brush.

Go back and examine loss mails for Minmatar Recons.

How many do you see fitted with a Target Painter, as a percentage? How about the humble Bellicose?

ECM, ECCM, RSD's, SB's, TD's, TC's, yes, the changes to these can be lived with. There's an obvious correlation to all of these. However, if you look at Target Painters, the only E-War module WITHOUT A COUNTER, and see that it's STILL not being used, that right there should tell you that you need to re-examine the strength and effects of this specific type of module.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#87 - 2014-01-17 05:20:36 UTC
If target painters stayed at the current effectiveness, but overheating increased the range, that could be at least useful some of the time.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

CW Itovuo
The Executioners
#88 - 2014-01-17 05:23:11 UTC
Kesthely wrote:


So CCP please, confirm that what you claim is still true, that this indeed is a game where the players have input, that you truelly are a games designer that still listens to its backbone of players, wich in unison say:



Check back later... everyone's on vacation (again).
Natassia Krasnoo
R3D SHIFT
#89 - 2014-01-17 05:59:25 UTC
So you want us to try and micro manage more BS than we already have to if we want to get the same result or marginally better than we used to with a TP? I'm not sure what you all are smoking there at CCP but your game already requires oodles of micromanagement, now you want to add more? Not smart...not smart at all.
Caljiav Ocanon
The Holy Rollers
#90 - 2014-01-17 06:03:33 UTC
I'd really love to be able to overheat my target painter - said no one, ever

Can we just not nerf TPs and say we did?...

The only thing that I would like to see is the cap use between the Meta 4 and Tech II reversed. Then the M4 will be just as effective as the T2 but will use more cap while the advantage for training T2 will be the reduced cap usage. Otherwise they are fine or could even use a slight buff...
Captain Kaelu
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#91 - 2014-01-17 06:53:41 UTC
No. Please no.
Mr Hyde113
#92 - 2014-01-17 08:00:02 UTC
Nope. This isn't really needed. Plus, it combines horribly with your terribad dread tracking nerf. Evil
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#93 - 2014-01-17 08:33:40 UTC
Now CCP, a great chance for you to show you listen to people. REthink the TP changes.

Absolute majority agree that is an uneeded nerf on an alreday weak module that btw is the Ewar module that when used runs more time non stop, therefore the one that suffer most from overheating.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Inspiration
#94 - 2014-01-17 08:38:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Inspiration
Vinyl 41 wrote:
rly were nerfing TPs now ? is that some sort of a hidden war against pve missle users ?


They had way to long cycles to begin with, they should be getting a 50% cycle time reduction without overheating! And scripts to tailor their function toward range/falloff or strength.

I am serious!

Kane Fenris
NWP
#95 - 2014-01-17 08:54:29 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Now CCP, a great chance for you to show you listen to people. REthink the TP changes.

Absolute majority agree that is an uneeded nerf on an alreday weak module that btw is the Ewar module that when used runs more time non stop, therefore the one that suffer most from overheating.


introduction into ccp's math:

4 pages of complaints are about 20*4 = 80 people who complain

so thats 500.000 - 80 = 499.920 subscribers who like the change Cool
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#96 - 2014-01-17 08:55:00 UTC
Inspiration wrote:
Vinyl 41 wrote:
rly were nerfing TPs now ? is that some sort of a hidden war against pve missle users ?


They had way to long cycles to begin with, they should be getting a 50% cycle time reduction without overheating! And scripts to tailor their function toward range/falloff or strength.



Why would anyone want exremely extended painters range? Strenght will be superior 99.99999999999999999% of time

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
ChromeStriker
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#97 - 2014-01-17 09:31:31 UTC
CCP Vesna Prishla wrote:
Two step wrote:
I assume you made double sure you can't get tracking disrupters over 100% effectiveness, right? Word on the street is that strange stuff happens when you do that...


I am scared to test this now


Id like to know what became of this Shocked

No Worries
Tasiv Deka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#98 - 2014-01-17 09:37:37 UTC
Well CCP I think its clear what our viewpoints are any response on your end?

Oh, Do go on... no seriously ive got nothing better to do then listen to all the petty arguments and feeble trolling attempts... 

The sad thing is i'm not sure if i'm telling the truth.
Capt Retard
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#99 - 2014-01-17 10:12:54 UTC
As others have noted - PVE missile users will suffer?

PVP - target painters are just not used! Let make them worse!

Akin to Omnis, couldnt we script for strength/range on TPs, alongside these changes?
Irya Boone
The Scope
#100 - 2014-01-17 10:22:16 UTC
No one asked you !!

put my ewar back and nerf ECM ! how can a griffin perma jam a BS !!

CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails .... Open that damn door !!

you shall all bow and pray BoB