These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
CCP Soundwave
C C P
C C P Alliance
#201 - 2012-06-14 15:20:26 UTC
Rrama Ratamnim wrote:
Callic Veratar wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Target for release is autumn/winter, with these changes going into 2-3 different releases.


Excellent, that's exactly what I was hoping for. The first set after ATX in August, the second set in September, and the rest of the balances October-ish. Following that with new destroyers and mining frigate in November.



Phantam / Soundwave is the above kinda what CCP is looking to do? just to clarify though not specify exact dates/months but like the above.


I'd prefer not to give exact dates on stuff that's potentially months in the future, but that's fairly close to what we're hoping to do. The alliance tournament is next month which will see the first ships go out (the prize ships) which will be followed by the rest of the package, with changes going out somewhere around august and december.
Rrama Ratamnim
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#202 - 2012-06-14 15:22:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Rrama Ratamnim
Zorok wrote:
Hi,
I'm happy to hear that you are willing to give *some* of the mining barges a bit of a buff against attackers. The ore hold bonus to the retriever/mackinaw is nice but I don't think that 1 jettison can worth of ore + a bit tougher defense is going to get people to switch to using these ships. The best setup for a lone miner is to use a hulk to mine and then use an Orca to pick up the jet cans.
I believe that if you want to make the ore hold really worth while on the mackinaw/retriever, you should look at the minimum of 4 jet cans in space if you're expecting pilots to give up using a Hulk/Orca combo.

In Eve, time is money and vice versa- unless you can make the mackinaw/retriever mine more efficiently w/o Orca or other hauler support (basically make it mine more or equivalent to a Hulk mining and then the time it would take to fly back to station and grab an orca to haul jet cans etc), the Mackinaw/Retriever will be used by only a small percentage of players.

To the point: CCP, make the Mackinaw/Retriever worth my time as a lone miner and I will use this over the Hulk.


a bit of an ehp buff? are you serious?

BATTLE SHIP TANK = 100k EHP

You seriously dont seem to be calculating in the whole loss of 1 hulk = -300m ISK thats a lot of mining every time you loose one, which during certain times mainly in highsec happens quite often.
Dalilus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#203 - 2012-06-14 15:22:57 UTC
A suggestion: allow freighters to pick up ore at belts or wherever miners mine. The cargoholds of industrials are getting a bit small for the quantity of ore they must transport when a mining fleet of several hulks are chewing up belts.
Rrama Ratamnim
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#204 - 2012-06-14 15:24:22 UTC
Dalilus wrote:
A suggestion: allow freighters to pick up ore at belts or wherever miners mine. The cargoholds of industrials are getting a bit small for the quantity of ore they must transport when a mining fleet of several hulks are chewing up belts.


Umm thats what orca's and rorquals are for.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#205 - 2012-06-14 15:25:30 UTC
Lovely read, and a lovely ORE frigate design. Bravo, CCP!

The choice between tank and yield is (finally!) a good choice to make between the various barges. Consider the alternative that a number of people have suggested, of align time + MWD cap bonuses for the smaller hulls, so that you can choose between a small boat that can get out fast when necessary, a slow-moving, max-yield monster, and a compromise boat in the middle. The frigate is, of course, the ultimate GTFO boat.

But even if the choice winds up being between tank and yield, it'll still be nice to have a real reason to choose something other than a Hulk for ore mining.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
vasuul
BLUE M00N Fetish Group
#206 - 2012-06-14 15:28:22 UTC
Rrama Ratamnim wrote:
Orakkus wrote:


So um.. is there a petition out to give this nice new mining frigate a name.. perhaps.. the "Chribba"?


I would 110% get behind this, naming it after Chribba would be a wicked idea, and im sure most other people would be good with it as well lol



Aye +1 vote from me

I can't think of a better christening name for a new mining ship

If anyone in this game ever earned the honor of having a ship named after them. its CHRIBBA


Rrama Ratamnim
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#207 - 2012-06-14 15:29:04 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Rrama Ratamnim wrote:
Callic Veratar wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Target for release is autumn/winter, with these changes going into 2-3 different releases.


Excellent, that's exactly what I was hoping for. The first set after ATX in August, the second set in September, and the rest of the balances October-ish. Following that with new destroyers and mining frigate in November.



Phantam / Soundwave is the above kinda what CCP is looking to do? just to clarify though not specify exact dates/months but like the above.


I'd prefer not to give exact dates on stuff that's potentially months in the future, but that's fairly close to what we're hoping to do. The alliance tournament is next month which will see the first ships go out (the prize ships) which will be followed by the rest of the package, with changes going out somewhere around august and december.


ok that clears things up nicely thanks for the clarification.

btw VERY sexy mining frigate....

Does this mean the sensor damp changes will also be coming prior to winter expansion? Any outlook for the EAF changes/tweaks?
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
#208 - 2012-06-14 15:32:08 UTC
RedClaws wrote:
CCP,

Please realize that players with higher SP currently don't like flying destroyers and to a lesser degree frigates because of the clonecosts , for me it costs about 50-60 mil to replace my medical clone. The odds of getting podkilled in a light interdictor is quite high.

Having high skillpoints doesn't mean that the player also has a lot of isk or some way to make isk more efficiently than a lower skilled character. Sure, I don't deny that it helps but having 10 mil SP or 100mil SP doesn't really matter for the income of level 4 agent missions.

Thanks,
Red



Except for those of us doing faction warfare, where Destroyers are a big deal, and getting your pods out in lowsec is a non-issue. The universe does not live in 0.0.

"The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans 
Palovana
Inner Fire Inc.
#209 - 2012-06-14 15:37:06 UTC
The yellow and black of the Ore Frigate makes it look like a piece of construction equipment.

Quite appropriate for its role, IMO.

Please support: export of settings in editable format

Your stuff goes here.
Gnaw LF
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#210 - 2012-06-14 15:40:28 UTC
Nice job, the industrialists deserved some fresh content. Now if only you can add a dedicated gas mining ship. *wink*wink*nudge*nudge*
Peta Michalek
Doomheim
#211 - 2012-06-14 15:40:31 UTC
darmwand wrote:
Peta Michalek wrote:
CCP Phantom wrote:
A clarification about the time line.

This blog is an update on what we are doing this summer (therefore the title 'Ship balancing summer update') to be released this winter and later.


Seriously?

So let me get this straight.

T1 frigates.destroyers to be released this winter;
T1 BCs/BS one update after that(summer 2013)
T2 frigs/destroyers after that(winter 2013)
T2 BCs/BS after that (summer 2014)
T3 and/or faction ships at the end(winter 2014)

Two and half years long balance plan?


Sounds reasonable to me. You don't want them to rush into things, better make sure that the ships that have been rebalanced actually work before doing the next bigger class.


Well I am new here so I guess I'm not used to EVE work cycles, but you know - entire games were made in less time.

Plus there's the "why would I play/fly this now if it's going to be buffed/nerfed/changed anyway" factor.
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
#212 - 2012-06-14 15:40:52 UTC
well, that blog makes one lust for more! :D

are there some ideas how to differentiate between t1 and t2 barges?
in the blog they are grouped. would be interesting, what is planned there.
Selissa Shadoe
#213 - 2012-06-14 15:42:38 UTC
Aemonchichi wrote:
PLEASE CCP :

answer me this - what do you mean by -

Covetor/hulk: ore bay is identical to its current cargo hold, little to average EHP, but best mining output. Basically made for group operations when players have industrials and protection to back them up.

please explain WHAT protection you mean when you talk of this ? remote rep ? a low ehp ship? ever heard of alpha ? pretty please dear developer that is reading this explain what this protection could be in your eyes ? we need to understand what u think if you want us to give you feedback



I'm concerned about that too. If the Hulk is made any weaker and if the cargo hold is transformed to an 'ore hold' so that you're not able to increase the size with a cargo expander, then there's some real issues there. You'll be left making the 'best mining barge' (currently) in to something amazingly crappy just to make the other ship classes feel better. :/

"Whether suicide ganking or doing anything in eve, there are exorbitant amounts of people in the game and on the forums that are complete jerks." - Spikeflach
Swearte Widfarend
Ever Vigilant Fountain Defenders
#214 - 2012-06-14 15:47:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Swearte Widfarend
Quote:

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.
Autonomy: mining barges should have proper cargo holds so they not always have to rely on jet cans (without turning them into industrials however). That means giving them large, specialized ore bays where all the ore will automatically go into when mining.
Resilience: another point is to give some of them proper EHP not to be one-shot by anything that even remotely sneezes on them.

As a result we thus get:

New ORE frig: we want this ship to replace current mining frigates as low barrier of entry vessel, but also fulfill high-end gameplay expectations by providing a very mobile platform for mining in hostile space. Lowest mining output, decent ore bay, little to no resilience.
Procurer/Skiff: primarily made for self-defense. Better mining rate than the ORE frig, good ore bay, but capable of having battleship-like EHP.
Retriever/Mackinaw: made for self-reliance. Has the largest ore bay, similear to the size of a jet can, second best mining output but less EHP than the procurer mining barge.
Covetor/hulk: ore bay is identical to its current cargo hold, little to average EHP, but best mining output. Basically made for group operations when players have industrials and protection to back them up.


I want to suggest a few things based on this, remembering that the Tech 2 variants have specific roles already (Skiff = Mercoxit, Mackinaw = Ice, Hulk = Ore).

First of all, the Cargo Hold needs to be at least 300m3 on all of these barges, to account for crystals. Please don't forget that in your modifications.

I mentioned before it might make sense to add a second Tech 2 Retriever, for Gas Cloud Harvesting. Based on your suggested changes it's the best fit for the ship, since Gas has large m3 and is losec/nullsec/WH only. Also, Gas Cloud Harvesters are listed as mining lasers, so a bonused ship makes sense here.

Having the Procurer/Skiff as the "toughest" barges make sense, but you may also need to address the mining laser range on the Skiff. Mercoxit clouds (currently) should never reach a Skiff due to the range of the Deep Core Mining Laser II. Either the cloud needs to be larger, or the range reduced on those lasers. It makes sense that this should be the tankiest with the T2 variant use in mind, so no real issue here other than the joke of mercoxit cloud damage.

Retriever/Mackinaw as the self-reliance ship - OK, yeah. Largest Ore bay because of ice volumes - Mack pilots will love you, and make the Retriever a viable losec mining barge with the cost/volume/loss issue fairly balanced I think.

Covetor/Hulk - Best mining output - OK, so the wonder of the largest ship is the fastest output/highest volume per cycle. Here's where all the fun begins though - because of rigs and modules.

It's pretty common to fit Hulks (and Covetors) with Cargo Expansion Rigs and even sometimes the Expander II mods. I hope you realize this and will also either transfer the bonuses for these mods/rigs to the Ore Hold, or create a separate Mod and Rig to expand the Ore Hold (with similar penalties to the cargo rigs/mods). If you do it right with SM/M/LG Rigs, it also provides bonuses to the ORE Mining Frigate, the Orca and Rorqual, which wouldn't be a bad thing.

However, there are a large number of Barges out there fit with Cargo Expander Rigs - which (if the rig doesn't affect the Ore Bay after the change) is a pretty big issue (these rigs are pretty expensive, after all). I'm going to humbly suggest that if the Cargo Rigs don't affect the Ore Bay after this change, they be removed (not destroyed) and placed in the cargo hold of the ship they were on (for barges only).

Democracy is only as good as the despot managing the voting booth.
Rrama Ratamnim
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#215 - 2012-06-14 15:47:57 UTC
Peta Michalek wrote:

Well I am new here so I guess I'm not used to EVE work cycles, but you know - entire games were made in less time.

Plus there's the "why would I play/fly this now if it's going to be buffed/nerfed/changed anyway" factor.



TImeing in eve is different than other games, especially you have to take into accounts this isnt the only thing going on this is a subset.... These are changes being made in parallel to the other fixes and changes, that are ongoing for Inferno, as well as the ongoing development work that has to go into the winter expansion... theres a lot of stuff going on besides balancing.
Ravcharas
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#216 - 2012-06-14 15:49:06 UTC
Peta Michalek wrote:
CCP Phantom wrote:
A clarification about the time line.

This blog is an update on what we are doing this summer (therefore the title 'Ship balancing summer update') to be released this winter and later.


Seriously?

So let me get this straight.

T1 frigates.destroyers to be released this winter;
T1 BCs/BS one update after that(summer 2013)
T2 frigs/destroyers after that(winter 2013)
T2 BCs/BS after that (summer 2014)
T3 and/or faction ships at the end(winter 2014)

Two and half years long balance plan?

You're failing to factor in going back and revisiting stuff that gets broken during the process.
DazedOne
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#217 - 2012-06-14 15:49:26 UTC
Grog Drinker wrote:
Great stuff. Found myself actually thinking about mining Shocked.

Maybe make a t2 version of the mining frig with a cov ops cloak...



So what your saying you'll be invisible with mining lasers shooting out from you......

You deserve an epic FACEPALM
darmwand
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#218 - 2012-06-14 15:52:19 UTC
DazedOne wrote:
Grog Drinker wrote:
Great stuff. Found myself actually thinking about mining Shocked.

Maybe make a t2 version of the mining frig with a cov ops cloak...



So what your saying you'll be invisible with mining lasers shooting out from you......

You deserve an epic FACEPALM


I think he meant to have the cloak for travelling. Something like a Cheetah with mining bonuses.

"The pen is mightier than the sword if the sword is very short, and the pen is very sharp."
Alistair Cononach
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#219 - 2012-06-14 15:52:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Alistair Cononach
Sentient Blade wrote:
"Protection" cannot protect you from an alpha gank.


Being aware and warping out if others enter the belt can.

Flying the "BS Hitpoints" variant can.

There seems to be an assumption that afk-high-sec mining is a basic EVE human right. It isn't.

If you wish to be protected, fly the ships that can withstand ganks (like the new proposed skiff or a Mining Battleship).

If you have protection, are self-aware enough to not sit there when soemthing unknown warps into the belt, or are in nullsec (where your potection can alpha the ganker first or otherwsie provide cover for mining ops), then you can fly the high-yield no-tank variants.

What is your desired end result here? A ship that can tank any gankers, haul it's own ore, and be in effect untouchable in a high-sec environemnt while still pulling in the highest yield?

If so, no.

Now.....

My own silly idea is that Mining Lasers should be able to shoot ships. Not for great DPS of course, but it should be useable on hostile ships IMO. More self-defense capabillity, even if minor, is something I could support for mining vessels. Be it mining turrets shoot for one class lower level DPS, or adding a weapon-based turret slot of two to each miner for at least point-defense purposes, giving a fleet of miners the abillity to ward of tacklers potentially.
Sister Rhode
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#220 - 2012-06-14 15:53:34 UTC
It's exciting to play Eve now that they are actually focusing on the spaceship part of the game again!