These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[December] Module Tiericide - Neutralizers and Nosferatu

First post
Author
Alexis Ford
Good Names All Gone
#161 - 2015-11-22 11:51:13 UTC
Realy ?

i am not commenting on the Values or Fall off or Optimal.

Doesn't anybody realise that this Tiricide is again MASSIVLY reducing Isk from Loot again AND removing several 100b Isk out of the game ?.

again we crumbled the Meta 4 moduls with a nerfbat .
Armorplates ... Meta 4 changed into ISK worth crap
Inertia Stabs .... Meta 4 changed into ISK worth crap
some Launchers .. Meta 4 changed into worthless crap
Bulkheads ... etc.

and cause we removed 2 Meta levels we doubled the droprate .

lets get it on .. we have plenty more meta 4 which needs to be smashed to crap.
Moduls worth 3-4 million ISK went down to its minerals value over night.
Thats the new way to "silently" remove several 100b of isk in worth out of the game, and no one seems to react to it.


Beside these "Isk deleting":
Its taking so much of the game when loosing these "special Meta 4" Items.
You were able to get neraly T2 moduls power without training for weeks to it.
And of course these had a pricetag, and they didn't drop like candy.

Now we have:
T1, Compact , Scoped, T2, "The rare ****"
... so we are getting more and more so you can explain a no brainer on his first day: ... go for T2 or buy *bling bling*

Eve was so special with these "special hidden items" and not:
1-C-S-2-Expensive

We loose more than we get each tiericide goes "online".

It feels like the only use for "below T2" will be "for the minerals" in the future.
Last time this happend was for the drone regions which then got a "small" loot-nerf.
Zen Dad
Solitary Sad Bastard In Space
#162 - 2015-11-22 12:08:44 UTC
Current PG and skills let me fit 3-4 unstable meta 4's and a small nos on my Curse - whats going to be in my hangar after the patch ?
Xavior Harkonnen
The Third Foundation
Commonwealth Vanguard
#163 - 2015-11-22 22:57:44 UTC
Alexis Ford wrote:
Realy ?

i am not commenting on the Values or Fall off or Optimal.

Doesn't anybody realise that this Tiricide is again MASSIVLY reducing Isk from Loot again AND removing several 100b Isk out of the game ?.

...

lets get it on .. we have plenty more meta 4 which needs to be smashed to crap.
Moduls worth 3-4 million ISK went down to its minerals value over night.
Thats the new way to "silently" remove several 100b of isk in worth out of the game, and no one seems to react to it.


Beside these "Isk deleting":
Its taking so much of the game when loosing these "special Meta 4" Items.
You were able to get neraly T2 moduls power without training for weeks to it.
And of course these had a pricetag, and they didn't drop like candy.

...

We loose more than we get each tiericide goes "online".

It feels like the only use for "below T2" will be "for the minerals" in the future.
Last time this happend was for the drone regions which then got a "small" loot-nerf.

I don't see how this is ISK deleting, unless I haven't noticed, you can't sell stuff to EVE someone has to buy it from you with their ISK. All that is being done is potential ISK making is being reduced to where it should be. T1 should be the cheapest, named T1 should be slightly more expensive because they can't be manufactured (this could take a while to achieve because day one we will see a lot of the same named modules saturating the market), and T2 should cost a lot more then T1 stuff due to invention, time, and materials needed to manufacture. The rest follows risk reward. As to the reason people are not reacting to this is probably because it was not a secret to begin with. CCP wrote a dev blog back in September 2014 about the new meta structure of modules.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#164 - 2015-11-22 23:55:58 UTC
Zen Dad wrote:
Current PG and skills let me fit 3-4 unstable meta 4's and a small nos on my Curse - whats going to be in my hangar after the patch ?


Have you seen the powergrid requirement for deadspace ones? Those are even worse Sad

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#165 - 2015-11-23 04:41:41 UTC
Alexis Ford wrote:
AND removing several 100b Isk out of the game ?.

its not going anywhere other than some lucky man's wallet.
Torei Dutalis
IceBox Inc.
Rogue Caldari Union
#166 - 2015-11-23 10:16:54 UTC
As the op doesn't state what the actual goal of this change is it's hard to have a basis on the efficacy of this change in regards to a buff or nerf. However, from a superficial look I feel like this is somewhat of a nerf. As already stated by multiple persons, ships with a range bonus to these systems are hit the hardest as they suffer a relatively significant optimal range reduction. I also feel that due to the scaling of falloff, the use of small energy neutralizers on non-range bonuses ships may be less desirable, but this is only my gut feeling. Essentially, I am personally not in favor of trading absolute neuting range for variable neuting range. However, I may be in the minority on this one.

My other slight issue with these changes is that I am unsure of whether the new versions of the meta modules will be much desired. I would recommend one of the meta modules have the same neuting ability as t2 but less range, and vice versa for the other meta module. I wouldn't say these changes are heavy handed towards the meta modules, but I feel that previous module "tieracides" have been more generous to the stats on rebalanced meta items.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#167 - 2015-11-23 17:59:47 UTC
And while we are at it, can we put a fitting restriction on neuts so that only go on ships they are supposed to go on? That would be awesome.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

aldhura
Blackjack and Exotic Dancers
Top Tier
#168 - 2015-11-23 20:05:24 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
And while we are at it, can we put a fitting restriction on neuts so that only go on ships they are supposed to go on? That would be awesome.


Everything is working as intended, otherwise.. well errr it wouldn't work
Captain Cean
Male Mans of Mans
#169 - 2015-11-26 13:20:35 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
And while we are at it, can we put a fitting restriction on neuts so that only go on ships they are supposed to go on? That would be awesome.


yeah better remove more fitting freedom.

How about that is only possible to fit shield extender on caldari ships or Armor repairer on gallente ships. cause thats for what they desinged for ....
Samaz Ralan
Doomheim
#170 - 2015-11-27 19:12:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Samaz Ralan
how about removing the reduction in energy turret activation cost on amarr laser boats to "role bonus' territory and replace it with a neutralizer and energy leech reflect amount per level -a built in cap battery resistance. this would keep laser boats viable and fit into the amarr fight against blood raiders fiction a bit.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#171 - 2015-11-27 21:42:08 UTC
can you please update the OP and add the goals section. so that we know what those changes are supposed to solve.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#172 - 2015-12-02 16:35:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
still no response too feedback then Shocked , please tell me you are considering making the meta 4 a restrained version instead of just deleting it please
that and scoped should have better range then the T2 version

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#173 - 2015-12-02 17:02:57 UTC
the figures on the page are wrong for present neutralisers.

present
Dark Blood Heavy Energy Neutralizer is 29.4km
the sheet says its having 3.4km removed down to 24km
but 29.4 - 3.4 is 26

which figure is correct?
Vailen Sere
State War Academy
Caldari State
#174 - 2015-12-02 23:55:22 UTC
Niriel Greez wrote:
Masao Kurata wrote:
Niriel Greez wrote:
While I think 1050GJ alpha from a geddon at 96km is good, it's just not quite enough and could really use a little buff.


As OP as the deadspace mods are, I think you might've screwed up your maths just a little there. X-types on a geddon are 48km+20km (and tons of people will have this). Effectiveness at 96km is not 25%, it's 1.84%. You have 1050 GJ neut alpha at 76km.


You're right; falloff bonus is 'only' 50%. Either way it makes no difference, 76km 1050GJ alpha is still utterly ******* stupid.

Another clear case of CCP having long lost touch with their own game to please those who fail to catch the evil nano ship because approach spam simply isn't working.

We already have 95k webs, amazing ECM mechanics and this abomination, 40K scrams and neuts that alpha almost any cruiser's cap beyond its locking range will create one of the most enjoyable PVP experiences seen in any game to-date.

The fact that the alliance tournament is still used to advertise PVP in EVE is one of the biggest deceits in marketing I have ever seen.

Have you actually tried to ECM at the battlehsip level? Unless your in a widow, it's a lot less than 33%. And in order to make it about 50%, your sacrificing all your tank.

The nuet problem should be looked at, but fly ECM and count your failures and sucessful jams before you throw it in here.ECM isn't in a good place unless its in a T2.
Anthar Thebess
#175 - 2015-12-03 07:57:17 UTC
I think neut range could be a bit longer.
This provide interesting options , especially for new players that are fighting kiting ships.
We are talking about battleships , this is mostly for big fleets and HD.
Faren Shalni
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#176 - 2015-12-03 11:23:58 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
I think neut range could be a bit longer.
This provide interesting options , especially for new players that are fighting kiting ships.
We are talking about battleships , this is mostly for big fleets and HD.


Battleships are used in all scales of combat, from micro nano stuff through to 500+ fleets which alpha everything

With the logi nerfs and new DS neuts I expect to see super blinged armageddons roaming wspace....

So Much Space

Vailen Sere
State War Academy
Caldari State
#177 - 2015-12-03 17:29:59 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
removing the unstable meta 4 neut which is the most used is a bad idea when you could make it a restrained version so uses less cap too activate is a good role for a neut how have you missed this?


And powergrid is a big problem on full nueting ships. But none of that got touched across the board. The deep cut to the T2's with the hefty price of PGD means alot of fitting decisions will have to be made especially with the cut to optimal.
Vailen Sere
State War Academy
Caldari State
#178 - 2015-12-03 17:32:18 UTC
Faren Shalni wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote:
I think neut range could be a bit longer.
This provide interesting options , especially for new players that are fighting kiting ships.
We are talking about battleships , this is mostly for big fleets and HD.


Battleships are used in all scales of combat, from micro nano stuff through to 500+ fleets which alpha everything

With the logi nerfs and new DS neuts I expect to see super blinged armageddons roaming wspace....


Yeah, but if your going in knowing a gheddon will be there, a celestis can shut down the range and than you can pew at the drones. When drone bay in empty explosion will occur.
Vailen Sere
State War Academy
Caldari State
#179 - 2015-12-03 17:34:11 UTC
Torei Dutalis wrote:
As the op doesn't state what the actual goal of this change is it's hard to have a basis on the efficacy of this change in regards to a buff or nerf. However, from a superficial look I feel like this is somewhat of a nerf. As already stated by multiple persons, ships with a range bonus to these systems are hit the hardest as they suffer a relatively significant optimal range reduction. I also feel that due to the scaling of falloff, the use of small energy neutralizers on non-range bonuses ships may be less desirable, but this is only my gut feeling. Essentially, I am personally not in favor of trading absolute neuting range for variable neuting range. However, I may be in the minority on this one.

My other slight issue with these changes is that I am unsure of whether the new versions of the meta modules will be much desired. I would recommend one of the meta modules have the same neuting ability as t2 but less range, and vice versa for the other meta module. I wouldn't say these changes are heavy handed towards the meta modules, but I feel that previous module "tieracides" have been more generous to the stats on rebalanced meta items.


I think it is more of it somehow ties into energy transfer arrays, and remote repairer's which also are getting a falloff.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#180 - 2015-12-03 20:14:18 UTC
Capacitor Emission Systems V should be mandatory for T2 neuts/nos's of all sizes not just the large sized version

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using