Ships & Modules

Why?

I'm not being facetious, but what is everyone's fascination with making everything balanced?

I'm not disagreeing that they 'might' be overpowered, but if they are, so what? All in all, across all the races and all the ships, I think things work out pretty well.

There are many things that can take down the two ships........ including a better piloted one with more skill points.

This fascination with young pilots getting into strong ships is crazy........ let them! If they are stupid enough to do it then they are going to lose it. All it takes is a little bit of checking on your part to check establish if they might be a weak pilot in said ships, and if you believe they are then take them down.

I am sure there are some Harbi and Myrm pilots that would be amused by your comments.

Sorry if this appears to be an attack on you, which is not really supposed to be, but it's not as though we have not heard this before.

Regards

Barrak

Going to post a few changes that I feel will get the BC lineup in reasonable working order.

Prophecy - Change in laser cap usage bonus to a laser rof bonus. +1 mid slot and an increase in armor hp so that it is about on par with the binger.

Harbinger - Mild increase to power grid output.

Brutix - +1 Low slot as well as a small increase in grid as well as a small reduction in cpu. EHP increased to be more on par with tier 2 bcs. -20 sig rad +5 m/s speed

Myrmidon - +25m3 Drone Bandwidth. -20 sig rad

Ferox - +1 high slot, and +1 turret. EHP increased to be competitive with the Drake.

Drake - No Changes

Cyclone - +1 turret hard point. EHP increased to be competitive with the Hurricane.

Hurricane - Slight reduction in power grid output OR an increase to the fitting requirements of medium auto cannons. Drone bay and bandwidth reduce to 25m3

Lots of good points but i'm going to disagree with you on the drake being "OMG BBQ OPED". The drake being used has allot more to do with fleet doctrine and less to do with ridiculous potential. I would agree that shield regen needs to be reduced on BCs by a small margin as well as a range reduction on heavy missiles however the idea of TD working on missiles is one of my most loathed proposals... We have defenders, lets buff those instead of making TD the universal fit to every ship module that it will become if it has an effect on missiles. Let me state this again, TD effecting missiles is a deplorable attempt at "balance".


The cane however I think is the most broken ship in the BC lineup. It's far too good at far too many things with it's best in class relative fitting, speed, dbl dmg bonus, 2 utility highs, and 18 slots puts this ship in a class of it's own. As stated it's suicide to tackle such a ship in a frig (unlike the drake) and it's easily the best of the BCs in a shield kiting setup. These are the reasons I have proposed nerfs for this ship. I 100% do agree with you that TE need to be nerfed back to a 15/15, too many kiting AC ships have become far too good with these foolishly buffed modules.

Yet you propose to do nothing, how will that change the situation? Drake usage needs to be addressed somehow. It is utterly ridiculous that one ship is used 3 times more than the second place on eve-kill stats. Also, the regen reduction is only for pve. It does very little for pvp usage. Taking away the resist bonus and some hp from the Drake would knock it out of fleet usage. People should be training large guns - tier 3 BC or HAC or BS for 0.0 fleet backbones. Support ships for newer players could come from improved ewar tech I cruisers, or the old fashioned way which was incterceptors or cov ops scouting / bombers. It would be nice to see a multilayers battlefield with skirmishers and main ranks, not what we have now which is two monoculture main ranks. At least the old sniper BS fleets were never monoculture.

And, cruise missiles need some buff. Additionally, there needs to be some other ships with more launcher slots, even if unbonused. I was happy to see the formerly Maelstrom only fleets become mixed with Rokhs when the hybrid buff took hold. If cruises were buffed to make them worth using on Ravens as a fleet ship, then there would need to be another ship with sufficient launcher slots and sufficient shield tank and something redeeming so that we would not just see monoculture Raven fleets. Likewise for the phoon. It would be interesting to see phoons and some other ship firing cruises and armor tanking. This may be pie in the sky, but I really not thrilled with monoculture fleets of any variety. People should not be told by alliance miltary commanders- train this ship (period), better to told here are at least two choices to train for whatever fleet doctrine.


First, the devs have stated a long time ago (so I hear) that defenders were too difficult to make work. Additionally, if they were somehow to make them work like TD do currently on guns it would mean that all you would have to do is activate a defender launcher and it would stay active focused on a particular ship. This would result in the destruction of some portion of that ships missiles. How would that be better than a TD only forcing the missile ship to come closer or to need a painter to counteract the hit parameters? Far better if TD acted on missile like they do on guns, so that you need to either fit mod to increase flight time (new mod) or fit a painter or have dedicated painting ships in fleet. A TD does not take away whole shots from guns, instead it requires adjustments to fittings and tactics. The same mechanism is better for missiles than any trully successful defender missile mechanic would be.


Your concerns about Canes sound more to me like concerns about medium neuts and falloff. Both can be addressed with adjustments to mods. The Drake's overuse is attributable directly to tank and range. Range can be addressed by adjustments to mods, but tank only by ship changes. A tank bonused Ferox rail sniper is less of a worry considering the lesser hp and medium rail damage stats. Afterall we are not presently overrun with them. But adding a slot to the ship is tricky. Regardless, it is preferable to the current Drake.

Which brings up another concern I have had watching the current frig rebalancing. Why CCP is still giving 10% per level range bonuses on top of the longest range weapon system is worrisome. It seems they have not shaken the exclusivity mindset with bonuses. It's ok to have some races tilted toward certain combat roles and less able at others. But to lock each race into a role and make that role the sole domain of that race, and further to lock each race out of the other roles than their one preferred role, is very bad design and will not make for many happy customers/players.

Nice idea, but I think Prophecy would need a little base speed boost to be a brawler as well, wouldn't it? Would love to fly my golden chicken around and be a bit more useful. ;)


I agree that Beam lasers need love (hoping they make a general pass at laser systems and the amarr ship cap% bonus in general).
I also think defender missiles need love to make them a viable option for pple that want to counter missiles. Two options I have seen as suggestions I liked, but am not sure of the ramifications, if any.

1) Make defender only missile launchers a mid slot item.
2) Make a turret anti-missile system that takes a mid slot.

If they could come out with something like that, it would make a decent counter to missile boats, but at the cost of another item (like TD, ECM, etc). Thoughts?

I keep hearing "Nerfgoodships" cry as always instead of fix the ones that are broken. You guys want to level all things a step lower instea of raising the bar...

I see what you did there .

No I'm quite aware of your spewing of general complaints that while worthy of mention are not the sole cause of the drake usage problem (no reason to block your posts as you are not too insulting and you do think about things unlike some other posters). As for my "crusade" maybe you should plead with Ytterbium because tier 2 BC rush and especially the Drake are already stated to be on the target list. I'm simply showing why CCP will be nerfing (or I suppose altering might be a better word) the Drake.


If the root of the drake usage problem were as you say due to the general use of medium rigs, mineral costs, and insurance for all BCs, then would we not be seeing all of the tier 2s equally at the top on eve-kill? Sadly that is not the case. It is Drake number one by a long shot. There are unique properties to the ship and how it can be fit that do not depend on the factors you mentioned. You keep avoiding those.


Certainly there is a possibility that if nothing is done about the range v damage benefits of heavy missiles the Caracal could become the new thing . . in roaming small gang. But then there are other factors such as different bonuses, ease of fitting, lock range, lack of dronage, basically the ships are not equivalent within their respective classes. So, no, it's too soon for you to paint me with a Caracal "crusade." Try thinking up something more absurd.

As for the BSs you mentioned, the day any one of them dominates the eve-kill stats the way the Drake has I'll start complaining. Until then it is weak argumentation for the sake of arguing on your part to ascribe a position to me that I have not taken. In general I see nothing wrong with hating persistent and prevalent monoculture fleets or gang doctrines that confine what players can "play" in. Those doctrines develop when people begin to notice the advantages of particular ships heavily outweighing the merits or lack of them with other ships. Eve players on the whole are intelligent and can spot a ship that is vastly better than others in its class. That is how certain ships become "popular." It has a lot less to do with aesthetics or roleplay or whatever you seem to think makes people choose to fly Drakes.


What? You want others to suggest content for you? It is a worthy subject, but you really should start your own thread about it and in the op to that thread put some suggestions of your own and then say "discuss."

There is nothing to avoid.

You are not just putting together both pieces of the puzzle:
Scaling (Projection) + Cost (BC) = Blob (Popularity)

The "root of the problem" is cost, scaling and nothing but cost and scaling. There are no unique properties to the ship.

Let's connect the dots again:

1. All large fleets are projection and buffer
Those tactical options apply regardless of ship.
Projection and buffer is only "imbalanced" compared to other tactical options at large coalition-wide fleets.

1. The problem manifest itself first when the volley damage of your fleet obscure the buffer of an individual target.
2. Until you reach that manifestation the value of utility on ships is also much higher (individual points, webs, EW etc.)
3. Most Drakes at smaller scales tend to fit points, webs and other utility - giving up portions of their tank.
4. Most Drakes at smaller scales find issues of mediocre speed, damage, reach and utility. That's it's drawbacks.

5. Within this capacity all BC are capable of 80k tanks, pushing the breakpoint of "blob" upward 100-man gangs.
6. Within this capacity it's possible to out-range, out-tank, out-burst, out-control and beat Drakes with all other BC.
7. Within this capacity it's possible to beat Drakes on the same principles with an array other classes (frigate to capital).
8. This problem does not exist at solo, pair, small or medium. It only exist at large - hence it's a scaling issue.

Your dislike for the properties of the Drake to other BC, as well as to other classes is based entirely on the above.


2. All BC are cost-effective
More assets on grid would logically assume more assets at risk. That logic falls when assets are risk free.
Cost-efficiency is an overall problem in EVE, but it ramp-affect ship popularity at large scale wars of attrition.
(Because of attrition: Where you come back into a fight with a new ship, as opposed to the same ship; or a new fight).

1. The Drake is worse than all the BS at "projection and buffer", even at comparatively lower skillpoints (BS4 etc).
2. The Drake is worse than all Capital and Supercapital ships at "projection and buffer".
3. Training time is mostly a moot point, as the vast majority of players in Drakes have enough SP to fly BS.
4. Another way to adress training time is looking at the amount of month-old players to the statistics.

5. If Drakes cost almost as much as other (better) "projection and buffer" options large fleets will gravitate over to that.
6. If all BC cost more (per any definition) they will be more appealing targets to kill.
7. If all BC cost more they will be better balanced inbetween Cruisers and BS.
8. If all Tech I cost more they will be better balanced to Tech II and Tech III.
9. If all Tech I cost more even BS and Capitals will see reduction in cost-efficiency.

10. Top 20 popularity is all about what the large fleets fly.

One glaring problem at smaller scale skirmish engagements is that it's not very appealing engaging a larger gang of cheaper ships - because they can be so much cheaper. The risk is not worth it, the drops are not worth it and the impact on the losing player is next to nothing. At large scale engagements all of that apply, on top of the additional issue of reshipping and looking at the war from a campaign perspective of attrition that do not exist in skirmish. Almost no wars in EVE online today are dictated by asset loss in PvP (RA's demise in Delve is an exception to prove the rule, and it occured before the thunderdome turned into a full coalition war of Drakes).


3. The summary, larger perspective and extended discussion:
1. A continued discussion here is that corporations and alliances in EVE rarely meet large scale themselves.
2. Coalitions do, and while i have nothing against political meta, it means the problem first manifiest in political meta.
3. As such, mechanical changes that affect political meta in some indirect way have better potential to affect the "blob".
4. For example, introducing small gang targets in alliance infrastructure have the potential to affect the "blob".
5. I rather see Myrms and Harbies adressed that way than some direct buff that will do nothing to the political meta.
6. Almost all CCP attempts to fix the "Drake" and political meta have so far had the opposite effect (Tier 3 BC affected other ships more).

This is why a perspective of "unique properties" is completely wrong and pointless. CCP, have had the same perspective and have so far only made the matters worse for Myrms and Harbies. If they would give the Drake more DPS, better selectability and less tank, they would once again just make matters worse for Myrms and Harbies. No direct boost, short of something pants-on insane and imbalanced will make Myrms and Harbies more popular to blob in.

If all ships in EVE are meant to be popular in political meta, and all ships in political meta are projection-buffer - then all ships in EVE need to be projection-buffer. I don't want that. I like other tactics.

- You are a proponent of adapting all ships to one existing scale of political meta.
- I am a proponent of adapting the political meta to all existing scales and ships.

As the entirety of EVE streamline toward projection and buffer, the game lose it's depth. Every ship that has been changed toward that streamline have obscured more ships in it's wake. Giving rise to new nerf/buff calls.

I'm going to group your related qoutes together, so there will be a bit of cut-paste.



You should keep in mind that the "CFC and A-block" have existed for more years than 3. There may be new forms and names but the blocks have existed for a good while, and prior to them other blocks that did the same. It's not like the old NC did not fly BC.

I think the recent history of BC popularity is pretty well documented from probing change, to rig-change to nano-change and how smaller groups discovered how BC could adapt to the post-Aprocrypha landscape and assume certain profiling tactics. It's also quite well known how larger groups picked up on that, counters were formed and how numbers past that just spiraled out of control. I have posted about it myself on several occasions.

The fact remain that since 2008 medium reach, buffer and Logi have been profiling and since 2010 it's been a well known fact that numbers just re-counter the devised counters (more Drakes). I have posted about that as well.

It's a bit of a stretch, but you can essentially say that 2010 was the breaking point when mechanics finally gave in to attrition. The rise of the Hellcat mark that turn. For PL the Hellcats were budget subcaps. Good vs. BC and AHAC. It's when the best counter to projectable numbers become greater projected affordable volume again, and the game began trending back toward sniping BS. Only now, nano is out of the equation. The initial years after the nano-nerf was teeming with a variety of tactics facing off. 2010 marked the stabilization, when everything the nano-crowd had warned about in 2008 came to pass. Namely that numbers needed to be kept in check with nano and AoE DD gone.

Those changes (along with the rig change and such) were good when they came out, but CCP just never got around to the counter-balance. They left imbalance festering and the number and cost-efficiency hegemony of Drakes is the result. It takes a couple of years for things to topple over.

My gripe is that after 2010 the attempts of adressing it have been incredibly misguided. It's all bad ideas, so of course i am sceptical .




My response to this is essentially the same as above. They are related.

No one is saying Drakes are not used in 20-40, similarily it's not like big alliances never engage in the 20-40 scale. The point is that other BC as well as other classes also represent here with both good potential and documented results against Drakes at this scale. They don't stop profiling until you push above 100. There is no gross overrepresentation here.

Drakes are good, other ships are good.

That doesn't mean mid-projection tactics is bad, but they are not void of counters. I've flown in gangs, with theme, upward 20 different mainline ship constellations and they have all worked against Drakes or other BC. I have both personally flown and met others flying BS, HAC, BC, Frigates, Recons and Capitals to deal with BC upward 100. The actual balance is quite good, aside from the fact that it's always annoying shooting someone when you know his ship loss doesn't matter to him.

If i fight Drakes that's my only gripe. I don't dislike their power when i fight them myself, i dislike their lack of asset risk.



When you get into the finer points like this you are forgetting that things like the ones you bring up already exist. They are not popular now and nothing says they will be popular then. Stacking various options on top of each other is also the very thing that risk toppling the ships at lower scales or among groups who run counters.

We're back to things like the age-old tracking discussion. Turret tracking is much more volatile. It can either be better or worse than turrets. What that is, is chiefly determined by your actions. An inexperienced player will as such see appeal in the missiles while an experienced player will see potential in the turrets. It works both ways.

The best analogy i can give you is to look at the EW discussion. It's the reversed. Turrets are like ECM, they have a higher element of chance. Missiles are like Damps, they apply reliably - reliability can be exploited in both ways. Turrets can hit things they are not "supposed to" (=blap) while you can make missiles miss things they are "supposed to" hit with less variation and re-counter. Mobility always work against the missile equation, while it either do or not against turrets.

With this knowledge, why doesn't people fit AB to counter Drakes? A TD is not going to be better. Making them trendy will hurt more tracking-dependent ships though. Much more than Drakes. It's more likely Drakes will use them against you. It's the paradox of Tier 3 BC all over again.