These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: Ship balancing summer update

First post First post
Author
Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#441 - 2012-06-15 00:09:53 UTC
Why is it that we can have so much preliminary discussion about ship balancing (a very good thing, mind you) and we are left to deal with a beta feature on Tranquility in the form of the new Inventory UI?

+++++++ I have never shed a tear for a fellow EVE player until now. Mark “Seleene” Heard's Blog Honoring Sean "Vile Rat" Smith.

Mirei Jun
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#442 - 2012-06-15 00:14:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Mirei Jun
Looks good!

I would really like to stress how important it is that mining ships get more EHP and enough slots, PG, and CPU to fit a reasonable tank. They are un-defendable in their current form.

I'll be one of the many on the test server when this begins deployment.

EDIT: I put my full opinion on this here.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#443 - 2012-06-15 00:18:22 UTC
Mirei Jun wrote:
I would really like to stress how important it is that mining ships get more EHP and enough slots, PG, and CPU to fit a reasonable tank. They are un-defendable in their current form.
It's entirely possible to make them defendable right now, but it requires the same kind of trade-offs as you'll see between the new barge design.
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#444 - 2012-06-15 00:22:40 UTC
Maul555 wrote:

Looking again, it might be 3 turret points, with physical representations for both sides of the ship, hence seeing 6... In that case I hope it has very good bonuses and 4 high slots ^^


You're right. The other side is probably recriprocal. I'm not sure how I expected a frigate to power six turrets anyway. It would be pretty awesome if they did have that kind of dps potential, but they wouldn't be frigs anymore. They'd need to be made slower and less nimble just so pvp'ers wouldn't attack miners with their own six-turreted frigates.

YK
Fearless M0F0
Incursion PWNAGE Asc
#445 - 2012-06-15 01:07:46 UTC
Thanks for looking at barges. I had this idea of writing a lengthy post on why they needed a rebalance, with sexy graphics and all but I guess it's no longer needed.

The idea of shifting barges cargo capacity into ore bays is brilliant. I assume their cargo bays will be reduced to a point is not worth fitting cargo expanders to them anymore?

Hulkageddon infinity has its days counted Twisted
Dalilus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#446 - 2012-06-15 01:08:22 UTC
Hakaru Ishiwara wrote:
Why is it that we can have so much preliminary discussion about ship balancing (a very good thing, mind you) and we are left to deal with a beta feature on Tranquility in the form of the new Inventory UI?


Misdirection? Smoke and mirrors? Lol, take your pick. But the changes sound interesting....I just hope they revamp mission running as well as they seem to be doing with mining.
Synthmilk
The United Peoples of Synth
#447 - 2012-06-15 01:12:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Synthmilk
Maul555 wrote:
CCP has not mentioned what is happening with the current Exhumer roles (Mercoxit - Skiff, Ice - Mackinaw, Ore - Hulk)... This is a fact.

Would it be possible to get some clarification?


I too would like clarification about this, as well as a bit more clarity regarding how close the mining yields of the barges and exhumers will be. If the Hulk only does 10% more ore yield than a Retriever, then even for group ops why use a Hulk which is far more than 10% easier, and expensive, to lose?

Right now the difference in yield between each size of mining barge/exhumer is predominantly down to the number of strip miners, which is logical. To bring the yield of a Procurer closer to that of a Hulk, you would have to either apply a massive increase to it's yield bonus, or greatly cut the yield of a strip miner. The former would just look silly and give pause to why one would want a Hulk, while the latter would be a huge nerf to mining as a whole.

I'm all for making a ship for high-risk areas, a ship for ease of the task, and a ship for maximum yield, with T2 versions that have additional bonuses that build on those roles, but leave the relative yields more or less as they are. Right now I pull in 17% more ore in a Hulk than a Covetor, a satisfactory increase for the cost and time spent training Exhumers V and the cost of a Hulk. Less than that, and why bother getting a Hulk beyond a compulsion to max out? The question is different for the Skiff and Mackinaw, as their bonuses give them equal or greater than Hulk performance for Mercoxit and Ice mining respectively, and their roles fit nicely with their changes to EHP and cargo capacity, respectively.


So what I see as good would be the Procurer having big tank, a moderate hold, and about a half of the mining potential (assuming a full T2 fit and max skills) of a Covetor. The Retriever having a moderate tank, a big hold, and about three quarters the mining capacity of the Covetor (again assuming a T2 fit and max skills), and the Covetor having a small tank and a small hold.

The T2 hulls are copies of the T1 hulls with typical T2 stat increases plus:
The Skiff has roll bonuses to warp strength and agility, and a bonus to Mercoxit yield, making it about equal to that of a Hulk at max skill. Ore bay 20% larger.

The Mackinaw has a 100% bonus to Ice Harvester Duration at max skill, and a role bonus of a 100% decrease to Ice Harvester yield. Ore bay 20% larger.

The Hulk has a 25% increase to miner yield at max skill, a role bonus of 5% decrease in ore miner duration, and the ability to launch 1 additional mining drone per Drone skill level. It has the same ore capacity. (I did this to emphasize the Hulks role as an ore vacuum, relying on industrials to make it's significant mining rate worthwhile.)

This leaves all of the ships as being useful, where the T1 ships are primarily inexpensive with distinctive roles, ideal for newbies and people who mine on the side, and the T2 ships have specialities that add value to their roles in line with their increased cost.
Delhaven
Manufactorum.
#448 - 2012-06-15 01:48:01 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Mining output: first and most visible balancing factor, plan is to increase all barge mining output to be within an acceptable margin of the Hulk, not miles behind as it is currently.
I like it. CCP is making the mining ships to fit play styles: if you want to mine in relative safety, you fly a Procurer/Skiff. If you like to solo mine, you fly a Retriever/Mackinaw. If you want maximum output, you fly in a group with a Covetor/Hulk. So, pure yield becomes less of a factor than how you like to play. If they end up being close enough in how much ore they pull in, I'll happily take a reduced-worry mining ship with a battleship tank.

I'm really curious to see the actual specs when they come out.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#449 - 2012-06-15 01:49:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Just some observations, in no particular order:

1: It seems the Hulk will remain largely as it is now, possibly buffed on yield. Keep in mind that if you now have an ore bay you won't be as temped to use cargo expanders etc. You can still fit some defense, or fit to increase agility, just as easily if not more so.

However it's role as a Null sec ship is now more clearly defined, as Null sec is really the only area where you can effectively protect a relatively fragile and slow type of mining vessel (by sealing off the system with bubbles). The bigger tank alternatives are clearly intended for High Sec to provide an edge against gankers, since you can't secure the system and need to survive pre Concord death Alpha strikes.

2: Many miners will still likely try to use a Hulk in high sec, motivated entirely by greed, instead of using the slightly lower yield but much more gank survivable alternatives. Ridicule directed at Hulk pilots ganked in high sec will now need no further justification.

3: New destroyer hulls were sorely needed, especially drone and missile variants. Thank you.

4: Planetary bombardment bonuses are pure win. Thank you.

5: A Tristan launching a salvo of rockets thrills the part of me that was a Robotech / Macross fan.

6: The Burst as a long range, hard hitting, fast moving frigate sniper has merit. New model yes please. If you instead choose to make it a drone boat, please consider the creation of small (and medium as well) sentry drones.

7: If not already planned, the current color schemes of Ore vessels needs to follow the one for the new mining frigate, which absolutely should be named Chribba.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#450 - 2012-06-15 01:49:51 UTC
Delhaven wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Mining output: first and most visible balancing factor, plan is to increase all barge mining output to be within an acceptable margin of the Hulk, not miles behind as it is currently.
I like it. CCP is making the mining ships to fit play styles: if you want to mine in relative safety, you fly a Procurer/Skiff. If you like to solo mine, you fly a Retriever/Mackinaw. If you want maximum output, you fly in a group with a Covetor/Hulk. So, pure yield becomes less of a factor than how you like to play. If they end up being close enough in how much ore they pull in, I'll happily take a reduced-worry mining ship with a battleship tank.

I'm really curious to see the actual specs when they come out.


Then why aren't you mining in a Rokh right now? It offers yield in between that of a Covetor and a Hulk.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#451 - 2012-06-15 01:50:59 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:

7: If not already planned, the current color schemes of Ore vessels needs to follow the one for the new mining frigate, which absolutely should be named Chribba.


+1 for the Chribba class mining Frig.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#452 - 2012-06-15 01:57:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
RubyPorto wrote:
Delhaven wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Mining output: first and most visible balancing factor, plan is to increase all barge mining output to be within an acceptable margin of the Hulk, not miles behind as it is currently.
I like it. CCP is making the mining ships to fit play styles: if you want to mine in relative safety, you fly a Procurer/Skiff. If you like to solo mine, you fly a Retriever/Mackinaw. If you want maximum output, you fly in a group with a Covetor/Hulk. So, pure yield becomes less of a factor than how you like to play. If they end up being close enough in how much ore they pull in, I'll happily take a reduced-worry mining ship with a battleship tank.

I'm really curious to see the actual specs when they come out.


Then why aren't you mining in a Rokh right now? It offers yield in between that of a Covetor and a Hulk.

But the bay size is terrible. For the rare amount of mining I do, occasional grav site mining, the new Retriever/Mackinaw seems a much better prospect for the hold size alone.
Delhaven
Manufactorum.
#453 - 2012-06-15 02:07:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Delhaven
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Then why aren't you mining in a Rokh right now? It offers yield in between that of a Covetor and a Hulk.

But the bay size is terrible. For the rare amount of mining I do, occasional grav site mining, the new Retriever/Mackinaw seems a much better prospect for the hold size alone.
This.

Right now, it makes the most sense to either mine in a Covetor, which is cheap and pays for itself in a couple of hours, or mine in a Hulk that isn't a fail fit (i.e. something with cargo expanders or rigs). You can get enough tank on a Hulk to survive a solo ganker now; most people just don't because it doesn't fit their play styles. The options CCP is putting forward gives people more of choice in that way.

Fixing mining to make it less mind-numbing and repetitive seems like a better idea to me than fixing ships, but this'll do.

EDIT: looking forward to the Chribba Class mining frigate. The art department at CCP is right on track with that one.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#454 - 2012-06-15 02:10:37 UTC
Delhaven wrote:
This.

Right now, it makes the most sense to either mine in a Covetor, which is cheap and pays for itself in a couple of hours, or mine in a Hulk that isn't a fail fit (i.e. something with cargo expanders or rigs). You can get enough tank on a Hulk to survive a solo ganker now; most people just don't because it doesn't fit their play styles. The options CCP is putting forward gives people more of choice in that way.

Fixing mining to make it less mind-numbing and repetitive seems like a better idea to me than fixing ships, but this'll do.


Since when is "I WANT MAX YIELD WITH NO RISK NOR EFFORT" a play style? Or "I WANT TO PLAY A GAME AFK?"

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Syris Khaeraan
Undefined Probabilities
#455 - 2012-06-15 02:13:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Syris Khaeraan
Felix Macey wrote:
Very nice changes. And good fixes to the rather broken mining barge class.

Any chance of getting a specialised barge for gas harvesting? 5 high slots and a jet can sized gas only cargo bay.



That man said what i wanted to say :)

Would be an awesome new (ORE) ship, especially with the last tier 3 BC (picked up from the EVE design a ship contest) and this new ORE frig design.


Dino Boff wrote:
I love the coming changing, but something's missing ...

Can we have a dedicated ship to harvest Gas, maybe a t2 ORE frigate with bonus t2 harvester cpu requirement and to gas harvested amount, and with a gas bay?


And an idea how to implement it?
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#456 - 2012-06-15 02:15:03 UTC
I can't help but admire that art work on the new mining frigate. I know people have said it a thousand times by now, but I really want to stress how amazing it looks.

Great job!
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#457 - 2012-06-15 02:15:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Tarryn Nightstorm
All-in-one combat-capable exploration ship--especially losec/some nullsec plex-runner--we can has, pls?

I'm thinking cruiser/BC sized (maybe the latter as this will make speed/sig-tanking harder, so less "OP-potential" but with similar/slightly less speed than an AB T3), cov-ops cloak capable missile or drone-boat with high agility that gets a bonus for the scan strength of Core probes (these only, none of the others).

Slot layout something like

(for shield-tanking, Caldari/Minmatar) maybe 7 hi (5 weapon/2 utility)//6-7 mid//3-4 low//2 rig.
(for armour-tanking, Gallente/Amarr) 7 hi (same as above)//4 mid//6 or 7 low//2 rig.

At least 4 mids so one can fit dual-prop and both "profession" modules in the mids.

5 Weapons, probe-launcher (either a role-bonus, or enough CPU to fit an expanded probe-launcher so deep-space probes can be used. See above.), and CovOps cloak.

Basically, a lot of the speed of the ti-3s, with a real, but not too-heavy tank, and DPS between HAC and T3 average, with great range, or at least potential great range. No drone-bay for the non-Gallente and/or non-Amarr (the latter could be a drone-boat, there is precedent.)

No, it won't be OP.

Keep power-grid so oversized tanking modules have a damned tough time fitting, if they can fit at all, but not so much that it becomes impossible to fit for its role. (IE for Caldari/Minmatar, medium SB is fine, you can make large fit, but XL is a practical impossibility, especially if you want dual-props. T II resists go without saying.) And yes, this will also probably limit oversized afterburner fits--despite the fact that those are NOT O/P, but it's what the whinging little babies have latched onto this week, so...vOv

The same way the Tengu is not OP, despite what whingers and bads like everyone to believe.

Call it...I don't know..."Armed Reconnaissance Cruiser/Battlecruiser."

Requires considerable skill training to get into--Race-cruiser 5, BC 5, and CovOps to at least 4, plus good-to-top fitting, weapon/secondary weapon (if so equipped, though this probably shouldn't happen in the interests of balance--can you imagine essentially a Tengu with its current abilities plus a drone-bay? Right!), tanking, and probing skills.

Also, should cost quite a bit to build--not as expensive as a T3, but at least similar to a command-ship, plus the fit to get the most out of it. (Idea there being to not have them proliferate to the point that no-one flies anything else.)

Fake-edit:

Or bar that, will you please bloody well un-nerf the Ishtar's comically crap-tastic CPU, already????!!!

('Tar is the only ship at present that can even remotely fulfill this role, and downright farcical fitting-issues aside, it is arguably less-than-optimal for this. Come on, mates, throw us dangerous-space explorer/plex runners a bone which doesn't require alts!)

Star Wars: the Old Republic may not be EVE. But I'll take the sound of dual blaster-pistols over "NURVV CLAOKING NAOW!!!11oneone!!" any day of the week.

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#458 - 2012-06-15 02:16:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
RubyPorto wrote:
Delhaven wrote:
This.

Right now, it makes the most sense to either mine in a Covetor, which is cheap and pays for itself in a couple of hours, or mine in a Hulk that isn't a fail fit (i.e. something with cargo expanders or rigs). You can get enough tank on a Hulk to survive a solo ganker now; most people just don't because it doesn't fit their play styles. The options CCP is putting forward gives people more of choice in that way.

Fixing mining to make it less mind-numbing and repetitive seems like a better idea to me than fixing ships, but this'll do.


Since when is "I WANT MAX YIELD WITH NO RISK NOR EFFORT" a play style? Or "I WANT TO PLAY A GAME AFK?"

If it wasn't a "playstyle" I'd imagine the goons responsible for counting exhumer/barge deaths for payouts wouldn't have much to do.

Edit: And the near 2 trillion in losses makes it appear that it indeed is a prominent play style
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#459 - 2012-06-15 02:17:43 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
I can't help but admire that art work on the new mining frigate. I know people have said it a thousand times by now, but I really want to stress how amazing it looks.

Great job!


^^That.^^

I'd so totally mine in that! (And I can count on one hand the number of times I've mined in over 3.5+ years playing.)

Going by "guesstimated scaling," though, I would say it's closer size-wise to at least a destroyer, though? Or is that drawing totally un-scaled?

Star Wars: the Old Republic may not be EVE. But I'll take the sound of dual blaster-pistols over "NURVV CLAOKING NAOW!!!11oneone!!" any day of the week.

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#460 - 2012-06-15 02:19:05 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
I can't help but admire that art work on the new mining frigate. I know people have said it a thousand times by now, but I really want to stress how amazing it looks.

Great job!

+1