These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Dev Blog: Balance Changes Coming In Scylla

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#21 - 2015-02-27 15:43:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
War Kitten wrote:
I'm also not convinced that total PVP damage, which is dominated by large fleet engagements, is a good metric for balancing ships that now suck at small-gang warfare due to lose mobility.

I'm entirely in agreement here. In addition to the request for what the individual colour bars mean, a breakdown between null-sec, low-sec, high-sec and wormhole space would paint a better picture.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Alty McAltypants
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2015-02-27 15:46:59 UTC
Overall, yes, good... but....

- The Ishtar changes still don't change that fact is incredibly diverse ship which is because of drone bandwidth and not drone bonuses imo.

- With respect to t3 changes, if you don't call this a "full pass rebalance" then I don't know what it is. Could we call it "a semi-full non hard bypass on the non 100% rebalance but possibly rebalance(?)" rebalance? P

- "Skynet". Meh it has has been "borked" since Red Moon Rising, ahhh, memories of the TheKiller8 RMR flash video. Good fix.

- Medium rails. Holy molly those missiles, who was responsible for that .... PPP

- Battleships and battle cruiser viability. Disagree with you on this point, when you say "Finally, we talked about warp speed changes and once again considered whether the tactical depth added is worth the inconvenience of roaming in battleships and agreed that it is." Just to highlight that Eve is the only game I have ever played where inconveniencing the end user/player is a valid balancing decision Twisted
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#23 - 2015-02-27 15:48:17 UTC
The ship class break down graph is segmented by weapon type, not ship type. The damage for bombers then is split between torps and bombs, not between different bomber types.

Sorry for leaving that color segmentation without explaining it. Didn't want to go into that much detail but I should have just removed the segmentation.

@ccp_rise
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#24 - 2015-02-27 15:48:24 UTC
Querns wrote:
Capqu wrote:

the real standout in the graph for me is stealth bomber internal class balance and attack battlecruisers being absolute trash - a class entirely about damage being so low on a damage chart is kind of worrying

Eh, the stealth bomber graph isn't that odd to me -- explosive and EM damage are the best types of damage to shoot. I am not sure that is so much a problem with stealth bombers as it is indicative of resist holes being the primary driver of which bomb choice to pick (and the fact that mixing bomb damage actively neuters your bombing damage output.)

If a significant percentage of that damage was torpedo damage, I'd be more inclined to agree with you, but I am pretty confident that the greater majority of bomber damage comes in the form of bombing runs.

This is especially so considering that the main fleet ships are caldari (harpy, tengu) and gallente (ishtar), whose T2/T3 resists favor kin/therm significantly.


yeah you're right, about the damage types being massively better but the problem imo is the ships are also massively better

lows are much more useful than mids for bombing [align, warp strength] and the fitting issue i just don't understand [purifier has massively better fitting than the other 3]

don't get me wrong i fuckin love the purifier https://zkillboard.com/character/1107018389/topalltime/
but i know it really isnt a choice within the class. if you're bombing you take a purifier, end of story

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#25 - 2015-02-27 15:49:53 UTC
Quote:
Just to highlight that Eve is the only game I have ever played where inconveniencing the end user/player is a valid balancing decision Twisted


It's pretty inconvenient for me to have to run back to lane in League, or wait for units to finish in Starcraft, or not see through walls in Counterstrike, yet for some reason the developers insist on not changing it.

@ccp_rise
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#26 - 2015-02-27 15:50:27 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
The ship class break down graph is segmented by weapon type, not ship type. The damage for bombers then is split between torps and bombs, not between different bomber types.

Sorry for leaving that color segmentation without explaining it. Didn't want to go into that much detail but I should have just removed the segmentation.


no please, more graphs - even without labels and explanations they're cool to look at and give a lot of insight imo so thanks for putting it together

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#27 - 2015-02-27 15:50:59 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
The ship class break down graph is segmented by weapon type, not ship type. The damage for bombers then is split between torps and bombs, not between different bomber types.

Sorry for leaving that color segmentation without explaining it. Didn't want to go into that much detail but I should have just removed the segmentation.

Could you please list the breakdown for weapon type for Battlecruisers and Battleships?

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Coelomate
Gilliomate Corp
#28 - 2015-02-27 15:54:16 UTC
That PVP damage across ship class graph is very distorted, because cruiser-sized hulls are the prevailing meta and used more or less interchangeably depending on the wealth and skillpoints of the group putting together the fleet - explicitly because battleships and battlecruisers are so unappealing.

If you lump cruiser sized hulls together, I believe the problem becomes clear and obvious, like so: http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png

Personally I feel the heart of the problem is bombers, though slow warp speed certainly doesn't help.

Love,

~Coelomate
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#29 - 2015-02-27 15:55:24 UTC
nerfing T3's resists/HP and removing rigs would certainly help bc's and battleships become more viable, but also some HAC's are a little strong and also some pirate cruisers (looking at gila and gurista ships in particular) need a nerf.

I would love an explanation why T3's in general should have T2 resists at all???

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
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
#30 - 2015-02-27 16:01:21 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
nerfing T3's resists/HP and removing rigs would certainly help bc's and battleships become more viable, but also some HAC's are a little strong and also some pirate cruisers (looking at gila and gurista ships in particular) need a nerf.

I would love an explanation why T3's in general should have T2 resists at all???


Because without they would be shyt.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#31 - 2015-02-27 16:04:41 UTC
also think some battleships are too weak in general,

Maelstrom
its bonuses suggest small scale PvP, but it only excels as a fleet shield arty boat, needs work

Abbadon
has multiple flaws, cap being a strong one but also could use a megathron slot layout, less turrets/higher damage bonus and utility high

Geddon/Domi
nerfing the geddon to 4 heavies would make more sense here, nerf the neut range aswell, would also like too see drone HP as a separate bonus from damage, particularly at higher drone HP levels (sentries, heavies), and some racial drone bonuses instead of omni being another droneboat speciality.

Tempest
also needs work too be a proper attack battleship
-more speed/ mobility
- stronger turret falloff application/damage/extra turret

raven/rokh
- could use some mobility and better cap
- would also like too see rokh having equal mids as raven

Attack bc's
-moved too T2 bc class
-would then allow more diversity in the CBC class by moving 4 into ABC's, mainly looking at brutix/drake/cane/harbinger
- would allow drake too lose resist bonus for some application bonus, would go well with missile rebalance, HAM range is mad atm.

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
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2015-02-27 16:06:12 UTC
Does the change to the T3 subsystem warfare processors make it possible for off grid boosters to be probed without the need for the probing implants?
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2015-02-27 16:10:45 UTC
I also want to point out that I am very happy with your conclusion not to mess with warp speed on the battleship and battlecruiser. Not every ship is meant to be a 'roaming' ship. And as per your data, both ship classes are doing very well.

Overall this looks to be a very good update.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#34 - 2015-02-27 16:19:48 UTC
Ab'del Abu wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
nerfing T3's resists/HP and removing rigs would certainly help bc's and battleships become more viable, but also some HAC's are a little strong and also some pirate cruisers (looking at gila and gurista ships in particular) need a nerf.

I would love an explanation why T3's in general should have T2 resists at all???


Because without they would be shyt.


Proof? Numbers? Something?

Querns wrote:
Regarding the image for PVP damage per class: http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66946/1/STEVE_7.png

Over what time period does this graph cover? I find the battleship damage quite hard to believe if it covers a period of time over a year or so.

e: also, if it isn't too much to ask, could you expand the battleship and combat battlecruiser graphs to show which colors represent which ships?


This. Can we get more details on the time scale and amounts? How were those numbers accumulated? What criteria were used to determine if a certain quantity of damage should be added to the total?

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Retarded Noob
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#35 - 2015-02-27 16:27:58 UTC
maybe the ships are not getting utilzed because there are not enough people playing EVE.
just saying.
LT Alter
Ryba.
White Squall.
#36 - 2015-02-27 16:28:35 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
Just to highlight that Eve is the only game I have ever played where inconveniencing the end user/player is a valid balancing decision Twisted


It's pretty inconvenient for me to have to run back to lane in League, or wait for units to finish in Starcraft, or not see through walls in Counterstrike, yet for some reason the developers insist on not changing it.


This response is oddly satisfying.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#37 - 2015-02-27 16:29:44 UTC
Does your PVP damage include shooting POS's?
ArmyOfMe
African Atomic.
#38 - 2015-02-27 16:30:18 UTC
Im guessing both the bc's and battleship damages comes mostly from high sec station games, wich explains why they can come that high on the list tbh.

We all know how station games now dictate how ships are balanced correctly.

GM Guard > I must ask you not to use the petition option like this again but i personally would finish the chicken sandwich first so it won´t go to waste. The spaghetti will keep and you can use it the next time you get hungry. Best regards.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#39 - 2015-02-27 16:31:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
******** Noob wrote:
maybe the ships are not getting utilzed because there are not enough people playing EVE.
just saying.


its more likely a few selection of ships make the majority not worth using (obsoletes them), a case of why fly a-f when x or y will do the job better.

also some weapon systems need some work, looks at lasers and missiles and ammo in general being far too reliant on big bonused ammo rather than the weapon system carrying most of the range.

would like too see ammo penalties/buffs capped at 30%

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
Narkashima
No Fixed Abode
Solyaris Chtonium
#40 - 2015-02-27 16:32:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Narkashima
Quote:
"Rather than a data based decision, this one is really about design philosophy. In general, we want there to be risk associated with power. We also want to promote active gameplay as much as possible."


Agreed! Good point!

..so when can we expect AFK cloaky camping to be dealt with?


(edit to add quote tags)