These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Battleship rebalence what happened - CCP care to comment?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Benedictus de Suede
Norsewing Naval Command
#1 - 2015-03-28 18:56:20 UTC
Much effort is currently put into balance this game. A dont question the fact that a balanced game is important but rather the way CCP does it.

Some stuff get buffed while some get nerfed. In general I think nerfing stuff is a bad approach which also tends to **** people off. If a weapon system or a ship is inferior to another you basically have two options.
1) Throw the **** a side and invent something new and better or..
2) Improve it to be competitive
This is the way hardware & weapon systems evolves in real life, why shouldn't this simple logic work in EVE?

Tweaking every asset in the game consumes time. Time that could be spent on delivering even more depth and content to the game.
My suggestion is straight forward - buff the stuff that are "out of balance" and let the rest be.

Today I looked at the zKillboard and did a little comparison regarding how efficient the different Battleships and Cruisers are in the game. Eff. based on reported kills and losses.

Battleships Standard
90 % - Rokh
90% - Tempest
89% - Abaddon
88% - Hyperion
88% - Apocalypse
88% - Armageddon
88% - Typhoon
87% - Megathron
84% - Maelstrom
84% - Scorpion
79% - Dominix
73% - Raven
85% - Mean efficiency

Faction Battleships
95% - Armageddon Navy Issue
94% - Typhoon Fleet Issue
94% - Tempest Fleet Issue
92% - Apocalypse Navy Issue
91% - Megathron Navy Issue
83% - Dominix Navy Issue
76% - Scorpion Navy Issue
66% - Raven Navy Issue
89% - Mean efficiency

Most ships are balanced pretty well but some (the bottom 3) still need SERIUOS buffing right?
Btw the Ishtar, according to zKillboard, have the lowest efficency (89%) and it got nerfed???
HAC ships look very well balanced so I can´t see a need to rebalance them at all.
In general if you also look at the other cruisers; Gallente could use some buffing and Caldari even more to bring them up to the Minmatars and Amarrs very even scores.

CCP - care to comment?
Mizhir
Devara Biotech
#2 - 2015-03-28 18:58:57 UTC
Efficiency on killboard is a feally bad metric for how good someone / something is.

❤️️💛💚💙💜
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2015-03-28 19:26:12 UTC
Two things
First what you are proposing is called power creep and that is bad.
Second a ship can have a poor ratio if it is popular and gets used a lot.

Added quip, if a ship has a 100% efficiency it is probably OP and needs needed not the other ships buffed.

One more thing try posting how many ships were destroyed vs survived to get your percentage for each ship.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Benedictus de Suede
Norsewing Naval Command
#4 - 2015-03-28 19:28:20 UTC
Mizhir wrote:
Efficiency on killboard is a feally bad metric for how good someone / something is.


Agree to some part of that statement. But balancing ship must be based on something right? So what do you have in mind?
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#5 - 2015-03-28 19:31:11 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Benedictus de Suede wrote:
Some stuff get buffed while some get nerfed. In general I think nerfing stuff is a bad approach which also tends to **** people off. If a weapon system or a ship is inferior to another you basically have two options.
1) Throw the **** a side and invent something new and better or..
2) Improve it to be competitive
This is the way hardware & weapon systems evolves in real life, why shouldn't this simple logic work in EVE?

Because...

- "power creep" causes more balancing problems than it solves because the rest of the game (including structures, missions, and gameplay content) has to be changed accordingly as well.
Better to polish and improve things so everything "has a place" than just waste effort creating something that will be "obsolete" in a few development cycles (which is what many other games do, and results in a plethora of content and tools that clutters up the database).

- when one thing (or general class of things) is out of balance compared to everything else, it is easier to nerf/buff that one thing (or general class of things) than going over EVERYTHING else and nerfing/buffing them to the same level.

- it's a game... not real life. Things have to make sense from a game perspective first because real-life comparisons often don't translate well into a virtual setting where people are playing for "fun."


Also...
Benedictus de Suede wrote:
Battleship rebalence what happened - CCP care to comment?

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/balance-changes-coming-in-scylla/

Basically...
CCP Rise wrote:
Problem: Strong community sentiment that battleships and battlecruisers are not viable currently and that the biggest reason is warp speed changes.

...

We took a fresh look at this issue to make sure we were on the same page as a game design department and this is how we approached it: we started by going over usage metrics and once again saw that clearly that both classes are getting heavy use and are being effective by any measure we have available.

...

Proposed change: None. We are pretty happy with the state of class variation right now and see no reason to make changes.

How did you Veterans start?
Jack Hayson
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2015-03-28 19:31:36 UTC
Benedictus de Suede wrote:
Btw the Ishtar, according to zKillboard, have the lowest efficency (89%) and it got nerfed???

This should have been your first clue that the metric you are using is completely useless.
Benedictus de Suede
Norsewing Naval Command
#7 - 2015-03-28 21:37:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Benedictus de Suede
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Two things
First what you are proposing is called power creep and that is bad.
Second a ship can have a poor ratio if it is popular and gets used a lot.


Had to look up the term "Power Creep" never herd of it.

"Power creep is the gradual unbalancing of a game due to successive releases of new content." (Wikipedia)

No, that´s not what I´m proposing.

Second statement. So if a ship is "unpopular" and it´s seldom get used it´s more likely to have a good ratio? I can´t see the logic in that. However the Raven´s popularity as a PVE mission boat could explain some but not all.

If you don´t think that the kill/Death ratio is a good measure. Let´s have a look at ISK dmg given versus taken (t ISK). Let´s focus only on the offensive damage. The same 3 ship are at the bottom.

The extreme "Isk damage taken" for the Raven Navy Issue may be explained in some part due to it´s popularity as a PVE mission ship. Still the lack of ISK Damage given suggest that these 3 ship at the bottom arn´t the natural choice for offensive PVP . Then you must ask yourself why arn´t they more often considered a good choice for PVP.

Dmg
Given / Taken
17 / 5...... Megathron Navy Issue
16 / 2...... Armageddon Navy Issue
13 / 2...... Tempest Fleet Issue
13 / 4.......Apocalypse Navy Issue
10 / 2...... Typhoon Fleet Issue
4 / 14.......Raven Navy Issue
4 / 3.......Dominix Navy Issue
4 / 4.......Scorpion Navy Issue
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#8 - 2015-03-29 01:04:13 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Benedictus de Suede wrote:
Had to look up the term "Power Creep" never herd of it.

"Power creep is the gradual unbalancing of a game due to successive releases of new content." (Wikipedia)

No, that´s not what I´m proposing.

Oh really?

Benedictus de Suede wrote:
If a weapon system or a ship is inferior to another you basically have two options.

2) Improve it to be competitive

This is also called "power creep."


I will also chime in to say that killboard and general numerical metrics should not be solely used to rate or judge a ship.
A ship being "viable" or "useful" has more to do then the numbers they pump out.

For example: Tech 2 Logistics ships have no real "metric" to rate their usefulness. They don't kill anything (no weapons)... they don't die in large numbers (which is rather the point of them)... and yet they are considered SUPREMELY useful. So useful in fact, that every so often a few people grumble that they need to be nerfed a bit.

Probing ships are another one. How do you rate how "useful" they are? By how fast they can probe things down? How about how much damage they can take? How quickly they can align out from danger?




Battleships are the same way. The metric that make them "unpopular" to many (sentiment-wise) has nothing to do with their output stats. Their problems are...

- they are slow. Painfully slow (which was intentional).
- they are perhaps too vulnerable to a swarm of small ships (which was also intended, but perhaps could use a bit of tweaking)
- many smaller (and cheaper) ships have capabilities similar to battleships (also intended: bigger =/= better...... linear increases in power = exponentially higher cost).

This makes them unattractive options for most day to day operations.
But then again... that might be the point. One does not bring out their capital ship every day unless there is a "special reason" to.



In my opinion... battleships need an extra "edge" or something to make up for their terrible mobility and/or limited use in smaller groups.
Nothing drastic, mind you. They are already plenty powerful when used in conjunction with support ships (like logi).

Maybe an extra fitting slot? Maybe more rigging calibration (so you can fit it up with three Tech 2 weapon rigs)?
Or maybe reduce the MicroJumpdrive cooldown timer? Let them use it once a minute like Marauders do and let Marauders be able to use it every 30 seconds?

All battleships need is a good, USEFUL, tweak... a "lateral buff" if you will. Something to make people WANT to use them that doesn't involve "MOAR POWER!"

How did you Veterans start?
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#9 - 2015-03-29 01:27:06 UTC
Benedictus de Suede wrote:
Today I looked at the zKillboard and did a little comparison regarding how efficient the different Battleships and Cruisers are in the game. Eff. based on reported kills and losses.

I can almost guarantee these are largely fleet statistics. Outside of a fleet environment and PvE, battlecruisers and battleships are sorely lacking. Of interest to note is that most missile battleships are completely absent from that list, and those that do appear are more or less dead last.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Benedictus de Suede
Norsewing Naval Command
#10 - 2015-03-29 02:38:03 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Benedictus de Suede wrote:
Had to look up the term "Power Creep" never herd of it.

"Power creep is the gradual unbalancing of a game due to successive releases of new content." (Wikipedia)

No, that´s not what I´m proposing.

Oh really?

Benedictus de Suede wrote:
If a weapon system or a ship is inferior to another you basically have two options.

2) Improve it to be competitive

This is also called "power creep."
Quote:


NO IT`S NOT. I´m NOT talking about introducing new stuff. Every balancing effort involves either buff or a nerf of an attribute - right? Call it a tweak if you like.
Also I´m not comparing the usefulness of Battleships in general and in relation against other ships types. I do think that the ship within the same class in this case Battleships should be balanced. Sorry but I don´t feel that all battleship has the same opportunities.

Actually I think we are talking about the same thing....

Quote:
In my opinion... battleships need an extra "edge" or something to make up for their terrible mobility and/or limited use in smaller groups.
Nothing drastic, mind you. They are already plenty powerful when used in conjunction with support ships (like logi).

Maybe an extra fitting slot? Maybe more rigging calibration (so you can fit it up with three Tech 2 weapon rigs)?
Or maybe reduce the MicroJumpdrive cooldown timer? Let them use it once a minute like Marauders do and let Marauders be able to use it every 30 seconds?

All battleships need is a good, USEFUL, tweak... a "lateral buff" if you will. Something to make people WANT to use them that doesn't involve "MOAR POWER!"


Even if your last quote is a discussion concerning the usefulness of Battleship in general I would agree with you 100%.
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#11 - 2015-03-29 05:00:59 UTC
I took a look at my zkillboard stats and they are pretty decent, and all I've really done in the last few years was disco some small ships/pods in jita. all I really did was graze another ship that was about to do the same, and a slightly shiny pod.

I mean I have no idea how efficient an ishtar is, but for every fleet ishtar there are a few dozen stupid semi-afk ratting ishtars, so I have trouble concluding how good ishtars are by their simple efficiency stats on some killboard.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
Brea Lafail
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2015-03-29 05:08:00 UTC
You have a very poor understanding of this game and should stop posting.

[img]lion biting guy's face[/img]
Samwise Everquest
Plus 10 NV
#13 - 2015-03-29 05:34:52 UTC
bottom 3 are mission running morons who get raped in pvp.

Pras Phil.
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2015-03-29 09:17:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiddle Jr
you are not the first and the last person who don't like current BS (not sure why pirat BS got missed in stats)

anyway what is your proposal in regard of buff stats? Shah has already linked CCP comments about it, so time to seriously think about what you want and put all together vs finger pointing

waiting...

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#15 - 2015-03-29 12:24:59 UTC
Samwise Everquest wrote:
bottom 3 are mission running morons who get raped in pvp.

Ouch, that's a tad harsh...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Justin Zaine
#16 - 2015-03-30 23:28:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Justin Zaine
Quote:
Some stuff get buffed while some get nerfed. In general I think nerfing stuff is a bad approach which also tends to **** people off. If a weapon system or a ship is inferior to another you basically have two options.
1) Throw the **** a side and invent something new and better or..
2) Improve it to be competitive
This is the way hardware & weapon systems evolves in real life, why shouldn't this simple logic work in EVE?

Tweaking every asset in the game consumes time. Time that could be spent on delivering even more depth and content to the game.


So...you're proposing that once something becomes outdated, CCP trash it entirely and create something brand new in it's place?

Yeah, that won't take more resources and a ship/weapon/module being taken out of the game entirely wouldn't **** people off AT ALL...

He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.

He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.
Orlacc
#17 - 2015-03-30 23:40:26 UTC
You used a bad metric, you didn't know what "power creep" was and yet I am to assume this is a valid thread? Nice try.

You also must know some ships have more kills because they are more "popular." Nothing to do with empirical data.

Not everyone that plays is into theorycraft (ever hear of that?).

"Measure Twice, Cut Once."
Phig Neutron
Starbreaker and Sons
#18 - 2015-03-31 05:59:11 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
All battleships need is a good, USEFUL, tweak... a "lateral buff" if you will. Something to make people WANT to use them that doesn't involve "MOAR POWER!"

They probably just need a bit more tank, or a bit lower price tag.
ChromeStriker
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#19 - 2015-03-31 07:50:13 UTC
Worse Ship Balanace tread ive seen in a long time -_-

You cant base anything off of a single (very narrow minded) metric. You have to look at a much larger picture... what is each ship used for? theyre balance against other ships?

As an example the Bhaal is somewhere around the second least used ship in the game... that doesnt mean its unbalanced... its increadibly powerful but the meta relegates it to this position.

CCP hinted at fanfest theyre going to take another look at BS's and balance generally with a bit more open minded'ness. (whatch the ship balance vid)

No Worries
Justin Zaine
#20 - 2015-04-01 02:49:51 UTC
Quote:
CCP - care to comment?


The only CCP-related comment that this thread might be worth is a lock.

He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.

He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.
123Next pageLast page