These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[March] Warp Disruptor and Scrambler Tiericide

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Paul Ares
Vaporware Inc
#141 - 2016-03-10 04:09:32 UTC
RIP scram kiting.
Thanks again CCP for the useless changes which further destroy frigs and faction warfare in general.

Anyone who thinks being a "good loser" is a virtue is probably a f***ing loser.
Mar5hy
BLOPSEC
#142 - 2016-03-10 15:02:35 UTC
Black ops ships were hard enough to fit before this" What are you going to do with black ops? Now its just silly...
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#143 - 2016-03-10 15:10:18 UTC
Jack Roulette wrote:
Point range is so vital to any pvp ship, why would anyone fit the meta 1 modules? There's no significant cost or skill hurdle to the T2 modules here, so what's the point of having a bunch of meta 1s that have their most important stat nerfed?


Speaking for myself fitting the civilian warp disruptor will allow me to fit either t2 torps or a bomb launcher on my ship now.
IndygoSoul
Constant Progress League
#144 - 2016-03-12 02:01:37 UTC
fozzie stop killing wh space please
Dantelion Shinoni
Empirical Inventions
#145 - 2016-03-17 10:17:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Dantelion Shinoni
Paul Ares wrote:
RIP scram kiting.
Thanks again CCP for the useless changes which further destroy frigs and faction warfare in general.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ikQlB0hapA

The clear and apparent effects of this change, on one of the textbook fits in FW, the Scram-kiting Kestrel.

To put it simply, this specific tiercide is a gigantic failure.

- If Accessibility was the goal, players need more SP and more ISKs to be able to have a T2 Scram on their fit. J5b Enduring is **** now, if you are using it on your fit, you are an idiot or tackle-fodder. Scoped is barely better, and now you have to pay for a 1mil a piece T2 module for each ship.
- If Choice was the goal, T2 Scram is the clear default now, fitting anything else is foolish and will result in you being exploded a lot more, or seeing your prey warp out a lot more.
- If Balance was the goal, several Ships got nerfed for no reason for PvP. Kestrel, Tormentor, Firetail, Comets, all performing Scram-kiters, got indirectly nerfed while the real culprits, Slicers, Tristans, and co are left unaffected, even buffed by the Disruptor changes.

Failure on Accessibility, on Choice, and on Balance.

It's weird because the last batch of balance changes somewhat made me think feedback was actually valued here, but that tiericide makes my cynical side see that whole 'we value your feedback' as yet another marketing ploy.

I was seriously considering a pause from the game out of that shitshow, but I had already paid for the month and I figured I would just stop flying anything that can't fit a T2 Scram and let others deal with it.
Little Bad Wolf
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#146 - 2016-03-17 14:00:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Little Bad Wolf
Tiericide has been going remarkably smoothly so far, with feedback being responded to and acted upon in most cases.

In this case however, it just feels like negligence. A rushed and ill-considered set of figures and no attention paid afterwards.

Unfoetunately it couldn't of really happened to a more vital module in the gameplay and balance.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#147 - 2016-03-17 16:17:26 UTC
I had to redo a lot of fits, but on the whole I think it works well. I've had to make new fitting decisions on several ships - notably Sabres, Svipuls, and Interceptors. In many cases I had to compromise EHP in order to maintain the same functionality with electronic warfare, but I don't mind now that I am on the other side of refitting dozens of ships.

Good changes, CCP.

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

elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#148 - 2016-03-18 18:30:48 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
I had to redo a lot of fits, but on the whole I think it works well. I've had to make new fitting decisions on several ships - notably Sabres, Svipuls, and Interceptors. In many cases I had to compromise EHP in order to maintain the same functionality with electronic warfare, but I don't mind now that I am on the other side of refitting dozens of ships.

Good changes, CCP.


Smile same here. But since I have so many fits I would wait until they are done. They might change cap boosters next and most active tanks rely on them.

I am curious what they do to meta guns and hp regeneration mods.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#149 - 2016-03-20 19:07:13 UTC
We're keeping a close eye on how the scram meta develops after this change, and we have the potential step of reducing the range gap between T1/Scoped/T2 a bit more if needed.

At the end of the day, our goal with the meta scrams is to create a real choice between the advantages of named scrams (lower fitting, cap use, price) and the advantages of T2 (better range, able to be mass produced). This means that we can't have one module be the best of all worlds and although I can completely understand how it can feel painful when we've all gotten used to named modules being the easy choice, we think this is a balance that can be reached.

Keep optimizing and tweaking your fits, try out flying with different scrams and figure out the best uses for each of them. We'll be tweaking based on what we see on TQ and hear from your experiences.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
kelmiler delbone
Warcrows
THE OLD SCHOOL
#150 - 2016-03-21 10:53:50 UTC
Should of given them falloffs :P
Circumstantial Evidence
#151 - 2016-03-21 16:33:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Circumstantial Evidence
Is anyone using "enduring" parts that consume less than 5 cap per cycle?
Do they need to exist?

Scoped warp scrambler: 5 /cycle
Compact warp scrambler: 5 /cycle
Enduring warp scrambler: 3 /cycle
Difference: 2

  • The benefits of using either of the non-enduring parts seem huge in comparison.

Compact stasis webifier: 5
Enduring stasis webifier: 2
Difference: 3

  • This module didn't get a Scoped variation.

Scoped stasis grappler: 4
Compact stasis grappler: 4
Enduring stasis grappler: 2
Difference: 2

  • Why Enduring? These are intended for battleships!
Soltys
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#152 - 2016-03-28 18:50:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Soltys
Dont forget to properly rebalance all istab bonused ships (+2 -> +3), considering vast availabilty of cheap faction modules (CN warp scrambler for once).

Also consider looking at WCS line, which I think still remembers 2003, when scrams were at most 2 and they didn't inhibit mwd modules if my memory is right. They really need equivalent of scram and faction modules to keep things fair and properly counterable.

Another idea regarding WCS - what if they were able to protect mwd drives (meaning, you warp drive is off, but mwd remains operational) ? Though with long range webs dunno if it changes much in practice.

Jita Flipping Inc.: Kovl & Kuvl
Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
#153 - 2016-03-29 19:11:33 UTC
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
Is anyone using "enduring" parts that consume less than 5 cap per cycle?
Do they need to exist?

Scoped warp scrambler: 5 /cycle
Compact warp scrambler: 5 /cycle
Enduring warp scrambler: 3 /cycle
Difference: 2

  • The benefits of using either of the non-enduring parts seem huge in comparison.

Compact stasis webifier: 5
Enduring stasis webifier: 2
Difference: 3

  • This module didn't get a Scoped variation.

Scoped stasis grappler: 4
Compact stasis grappler: 4
Enduring stasis grappler: 2
Difference: 2

  • Why Enduring? These are intended for battleships!

Enduring webs are quite ok I guess on hulls with 80% Propulsion Jamming systems cost reduction, but enduring scram is weird the CPU cost and range are too much of a drawback for it to be competitive vs scoped /t2 variants.