These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jagga Spikes
Spikes Chop Shop
#241 - 2012-06-14 16:21:31 UTC
i support this product and/or service. neat!
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#242 - 2012-06-14 16:21:56 UTC
can't wait till all of the hulk miners realize that the Skiff is much more resilient and they switch to it, making Hulkageddon a thing of days past (no, not really)

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#243 - 2012-06-14 16:22:04 UTC
Maul555 wrote:
wow, I didn't even think of that. your right. If ore automatically goes into an ore hold that is smaller than my expanded cargo hold, this will majorly mess up a lot of mining... Having to evacuate ore much more often or face your mining lasers shutting down on you when it fills up. CCP, I beg thee, just increase the size of the cargo hold and completely forget about having a dedicated ore hold. I ether that, or make the ore hold much bigger than the cargo hold.
If you need a larger ore hold, pick one of the other barges. If you want to use the Hulk, get an Orca to support it.

…and your cargo hold will be much smaller than the ore hold, so there is no point in trying to expand on it — doing so will just make the ship worse.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#244 - 2012-06-14 16:25:27 UTC
Dino Boff wrote:
I love the coming changing, but something's missing Roll...

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?


Not sure if you've mined gas before - but its *dangerous* business. Exploding clouds and all. I don't really think a frigate is best suited for this - though I too would LOVE a dedicated gas harvester. I don't really envision it as an ORE barge though, maybe a unique Poteque Pharmaceuticals cruiser with 5 turret slots and a 1000m gas bay? Could also just be a Tech 2 Noctis variant as well.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Grady Eltoren
Hogyoku
#245 - 2012-06-14 16:26:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Grady Eltoren
darmwand wrote:
Grady Eltoren wrote:
Too many frigates.


Huh, how can there be too many of something? I like having more combat frigates around, that will make fights much less predictable.



Dude,

There are 7 (count them SEVEN) STANDARD Frigates for EACH race. NOT INCLUDING navy/faction varieties.

We could shrink that down to 5 and take 2 from each race and make them NEW destroyer hulls. This would simplify the workload on the Art department. It would also make CCP Ytterbium's (and company) job EASIER by letting them focus on 5 GOOD frigates that fit the new tiericide philosophy.

The logic is undeniable. :)

You can have brawlers, long range, ewar, missile, you name it varieties of the 5 frigates.


Total new amount of destroyers 3 per race (just like the battlecruisers).
Total frigates 5 per race which is plenty to do what the devs want.


ALSO - one more idea.

Of those two new destroyer hulls available with my idea of moving two frigs to the destroyer class...

Make one of them per race a mini version of the Tier 3 Battlecruisers (Tornado, Naga, Oracle, etc). You could have a really nice glass cannon in the destroyer class that can fit Medium guns on a small gun platform. Cheap DPS. People love the Tier 3 BC's - - they would love the new "tier 3" Dessies.
Lili Lu
#246 - 2012-06-14 16:26:27 UTC
Darius III wrote:
Overall these changes, IMO reflect the renewed dedication CCP has taken with regards to FiS and i am liking the rebalancing hat they are doing. +1

Yes, it is nice they recognize the problems finally, and the solutions hinted at seem on the right track. Unfortunately they don't seem to recognize that this effort has a "need for speed" heh. It is central to the health of the game.

CCP should be pouring manpower into coding, testing, and art for this effort. Not wasting it on a new inventory system that was not really needed. Sure it's nice to name pos mods or whatever. But, having to do things now with two or three clicks for what used to take one click is not an improvement. And having those devs tied up in fixing the inventory mess makes me sad face.

Frigs by coming winter? Cruisers by one year from now? BCs by one and half years from now? T3s when? Commands when? HACs? EAF? Please prioritize this process. Speed it up. Pour more people into it.

Give us the new "weapon disruptors" so that missiles have some counters like turrets, besides a ******** smartbombing (which works better for drones anyway) or broken and useless defender missiles. Give us the micro jump drive? There are some innovative mods you've floated on the forums but appear to be years away. You moved pretty quickly on the new shield boosters and adaptive armor hardeners. You moved quickly to tweak the hardeners. What's wrong with doing the same with TDs and tweaking them until you have the grand plan suite of changes in place?

All fine to have grand plan for comprehensive overhauls but since this will take years to implement how about some relaitively easy to code stop gap measures? How about just giving damp boats, painter boats, TD boats a 10% bonus or something. Make those other forms of ewar mean maybe half of what ecm means, whereas now they mean maybe a quarter of ecm. DO SOMETHING relatively easy and not game breaking in the interim as we wait for the grand plan to be implemented.
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
#247 - 2012-06-14 16:27:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Moonaura
Fon Revedhort wrote:
So battlecruisers are still remaining as OP as today?

So EHP idiocy is kept the same?

So tech3 vs Command Ships nonses is left intact?

Who the hell decided it's a good idea to commit that much manpower into damn frigates? Come on, man! By next summer, the date you're going to have remote chances of actually addressing bigger stuff (I'm even optimistic here), It will have been a damn year of you trying to fix these pesky frigates! How long will it take to address all the other issues then?

Let me remind you of some:

- cyno mechanics
- rigs
- armour vs. shield in general (with Shield extenders not affecting mobility, while apparently they should)
- abovementioned stuff

QuestionUghQuestion


Again, like many other players, you seem to assume that nobody flys these T1 frigate things... we fly them regularly, because of the way Faction Warfare works. And its a lot of fun let me tell you :)

How should shield extenders affect mobility? What? The extra size creates push back from the solar wind or something? lol

One thing that is typically forgotten is that to tank for shields properly, it means using the mid slots up, as well as a rather large amount of power grid to fit them. And last time I checked, Caldari weren't all that fast to begin with. I've heard this idea promoted before and its a poor way to fix the nano drake issue. Not exactly many Rokh's whizzing around at speed are there?

"The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans 
Denidil
Cascades Mountain Operatives
#248 - 2012-06-14 16:28:10 UTC
CCP i love this set of changes :D

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.
Eternal Error
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#249 - 2012-06-14 16:31:16 UTC
I'll wait until more details are out to really discuss it, but "battleship-like EHP" (100k+) on a mining barge sounds a bit excessive to me. Mining frigate is needed. I don't like the introduction of a pure missile ship for every race as it can encourage non-caldari guys to really go for missiles, which is a mistake that early. However, that has always been an issue as some of them had a few missile hardpoints, so whatever.

+1 for upgrading a current frigate to a destroyer class rather than getting an entirely new destroyer. All the frigate choices can easily overwhelm a newb, and most older players only use the brawler frigates anyway.

+1 for speeding up your timetable. A lot of these changes are common sense, and some of the more serious issues with cruiser/BC hulls cannot wait until next year.
Swearte Widfarend
Ever Vigilant Fountain Defenders
#250 - 2012-06-14 16:31:36 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Swearte Widfarend wrote:
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).
Same goes here: doing that, and trying to expand the cargo hold of the new Hulk to begin with, would be to go completely counter to its new purpose and intended use. You don't need a big ore hold — the Orca in your gang has that covered.

Most likely, when these changes go through, they're simply going to force-strip all barges and exhumers since none of the fittings will make sense any more (and some of them might even no longer be able to fit the things they currently carry). They've done that before when they've completely revamped ship bonuses and layouts, so it will probably be the preferred solution here as well.


I've not seen CCP pull rigs off ships and repackage them - a straight up strip of the ship would result in the destruction of the rigs. And 10 million ISK is't a lot, for one person/one ship, but when you have thousands of ships with two expander rigs, that's gone from one guy and 10 million ISK to a few billion ISK of assets across hundreds of players potentially destroyed by "stripping the ships" - hence the question.

Democracy is only as good as the despot managing the voting booth.
Maul555
Xen Investments
#251 - 2012-06-14 16:31:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Maul555
Tippia wrote:
Maul555 wrote:
wow, I didn't even think of that. your right. If ore automatically goes into an ore hold that is smaller than my expanded cargo hold, this will majorly mess up a lot of mining... Having to evacuate ore much more often or face your mining lasers shutting down on you when it fills up. CCP, I beg thee, just increase the size of the cargo hold and completely forget about having a dedicated ore hold. I ether that, or make the ore hold much bigger than the cargo hold.
If you need a larger ore hold, pick one of the other barges. If you want to use the Hulk, get an Orca to support it.

…and your cargo hold will be much smaller than the ore hold, so there is no point in trying to expand on it — doing so will just make the ship worse.



According to the dev blog, the hulk will have an unchanged base cargo hold, and an additional ore hold that is the exact same size. They also plan on having ore automatically dump into the ore hold, thus limiting any options to expand my "ore space". I think this was a short-sighted decision by ccp, and may be an unintentional nerf. Just because CCP said it is planned does not mean it needs to be gospel. Here we can correct the course. I don't think I should have to choose a lesser mining vessel just because someone goofed on a new feature. Or are you saying that you support a hulk capacity nerf? It may give me more total space, but having ore dump into a bay I can't expand is a nerf. Its a convenience nerf, and forces miners to be much more attentive. Its a reduction in options even though they are giving me something new.
Fabulousli Obvious
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#252 - 2012-06-14 16:32:04 UTC

I can understand the new ORE Frigate for beginners.....but there is indeed NOTHING HERE for the Veteran Miner.

"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"

Skiff gets "battleship-like EHP", but Hulk stays the same BY THOSE WORDS.

The New Player Experience is being nicely worked on, that's for sure and "**OBVIOUS**",..........but what about Player RETENTION ?

I am NOT YOUNG ENOUGH to know EVERYTHING.  ~~ Oscar Wilde, writer, d. November 30, 1900
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#253 - 2012-06-14 16:36:28 UTC
Fabulousli Obvious wrote:

I can understand the new ORE Frigate for beginners.....but there is indeed NOTHING HERE for the Veteran Miner.

"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"

Skiff gets "battleship-like EHP", but Hulk stays the same BY THOSE WORDS.

The New Player Experience is being nicely worked on, that's for sure and "**OBVIOUS**",..........but what about Player RETENTION ?


Fly the Retriever/Mackinaw then.

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Saracena
Infinatech
#254 - 2012-06-14 16:37:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Saracena
Good changes overall but a gas mining ship would be a welcome addition if you're really looking hard at role management/need within the game. People have said they wanted something along those lines; it's in the assembly hall of acknowledged frequently proposed ideas for goodness sake. This would have been a perfect chance to address that need unless you're specifically thinking about cruisers.

But overall good looking changes, especially ehp.

edit: wait, you don't plan on buffing hulk ehp? meh. Not so good.
Swearte Widfarend
Ever Vigilant Fountain Defenders
#255 - 2012-06-14 16:38:47 UTC
Fade Toblack wrote:
Swearte Widfarend wrote:
I know that ship skills provide bonuses based on the level of the skill, but I really think you should re-evaluate "all ships unlocked at level 1." Granted, with skills at such a low multiplier, the difference between 1 and 3 is only a couple hours, but I think you should consider unlocking hulls with skill level, with a cap that all hulls are unlocked by LV 4 for a Tech 1 ship. Logically, the hulls are different, and behave differently, so having a higher skill would also imply that the hull has a higher benefit in some way (which may even be true after the changes).


No! You're basically going back into tiers, where you unlock "better" ships.

The new thinking where all ships in a class have slightly different abilities and roles is much better. Rather than nearly-always flying the "best" ship, the trade-off allows for more variety in the game. With this world-view, unlocking all the ships at the same time makes more sense.


Was going to argue this, wrote up my argument, and decided I agree with you.

Jeremy Hayden wrote:
It seems a bit odd to me that some mining barges would get a special ore bay and others won't. In my opinion, it would make more sense to standardize and give every ORE ship a dedicated ORE hold.

Retriever - Large ORE bay (jetcan size), small-medium cargo hold depending on fittings. Increased EHP, but not even near the procurer/skiff. It's a flexible ship, its yield is decent, but still not as good as the more dedicated t2 ships like the mack, hulk, or covetor. It can hold the most ore, though.

Mackinaw - Medium ORE bay. small - medium cargohold depending on yield or defense fittings tradeoff. Increased EHP from current, but still average EHP. Would still receive ice bonus to keep it as the best yield ship for ice mining.

And while we're at it:

Orca

- X-large ORE bay (increased from current). 80,000m3

- Same size cargohold as current.
- Same size corp hanger as current.
- Same size ship maint hanger as current.


Why would you make the Mack ORE bay smaller, when it's specific role is to harvest the largest volume product in EVE? That seems stupid to me. Also, don't think I've seen a Tech 2 hull have a smaller cargo volume than Tech 1 - but I can't be arced to look at every Tech 1/Tech 2 ship ATM. Sure it has it's on DB entry so they can do whatever, but what's your justification for the smaller hold on the ship that harvests the largest junk?

Democracy is only as good as the despot managing the voting booth.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#256 - 2012-06-14 16:42:04 UTC
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.

Thanks, this timeline is much appreciated.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Lili Lu
#257 - 2012-06-14 16:42:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Eternal Error wrote:
I'll wait until more details are out to really discuss it, but "battleship-like EHP" (100k+) on a mining barge sounds a bit excessive to me. Mining frigate is needed. I don't like the introduction of a pure missile ship for every race as it can encourage non-caldari guys to really go for missiles, which is a mistake that early. However, that has always been an issue as some of them had a few missile hardpoints, so whatever.

+1 for upgrading a current frigate to a destroyer class rather than getting an entirely new destroyer. All the frigate choices can easily overwhelm a newb, and most older players only use the brawler frigates anyway.

+1 for speeding up your timetable. A lot of these changes are common sense, and some of the more serious issues with cruiser/BC hulls cannot wait until next year.

The mining barge changes make sense though if the beefy one has one strip miner hardpoint. You want safety mr miner, well you trade that for lesser yield. Makes sense. But yes the cruiser and BC issues need faster attention. Frigs really should be done by the end of the Summer, and then Cruisers and BCs by the next expansion. I hope CCP rethinks their timetable to speed it up to that.

I'm ambivalent about everyone getting a missile frig. Amarr makes sense ever since the Khanid changes. Gallente really doesn't. But oh well, one frig is no big deal. That there are so many frigate probably lent itself to everyone getting one. I suppose Frigs could be the most diverse. Hell I'm even rethinking my criticism of the Caldari FW guys post wanting a drone frig. No harm in frigs tbh. With the fewer number of tech I cruisers there it is unlikely that Gallente will get a missile cruiser and Caldari a drone cruiser. Having frigs be so diverse can help new players discover a type of ship they might like and then cross train to a race that specializes in that before losing too many sp to training their original race of ships and not liking the predominant weapon system for it. As long as there is not a clear "winner" weapon system sucking so many people into it, like there is now with HMs and Drakes/Tengus for both pve and pvp.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#258 - 2012-06-14 16:43:17 UTC
Swearte Widfarend wrote:
I've not seen CCP pull rigs off ships and repackage them
I have. It's not a problem.

Maul555 wrote:
According to the dev blog, the hulk will have an unchanged base cargo hold, and an additional ore hold that is the exact same size.
Read it again — that's not what it says. It says “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.”

In other words, they will lose their current standard cargo holds and get a large ore bay instead, otherwise, they compete with industrials for the role of hauling cargo. For the Hulk, specifically, this means that the new ore bay will have the same size as the current cargo hold, and what the new cargo hold size will be is left unmentioned — probably a few hundred m³. There won't be any real need to expand that cargo hold, or the ore bay for that matter, and with the already-expanded ore bays on the others, they don't need particularly the expansion either.

The cargo hold will basically be there to hold your mining crystals.
Maul555
Xen Investments
#259 - 2012-06-14 16:46:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Maul555
Tippia wrote:
Swearte Widfarend wrote:
I've not seen CCP pull rigs off ships and repackage them
I have. It's not a problem.

Maul555 wrote:
According to the dev blog, the hulk will have an unchanged base cargo hold, and an additional ore hold that is the exact same size.
Read it again — that's not what it says. It says “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.”

In other words, they will lose their current standard cargo holds and get a large ore bay instead, otherwise, they compete with industrials for the role of hauling cargo. For the Hulk, specifically, this means that the new ore bay will have the same size as the current cargo hold, and what the new cargo hold size will be is left unmentioned — probably a few hundred m³. There won't be any real need to expand that cargo hold, or the ore bay for that matter, and with the already-expanded ore bays on the others, they don't need particularly the expansion either.

The cargo hold will basically be there to hold your mining crystals.



Tippia, please... read it again
Quote:

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.


CCP is going to be forcing the highest mining output of all exhumers into a small bay that cant be expanded.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#260 - 2012-06-14 16:46:55 UTC
CCP Phantom wrote:
Our all beloved spaceships (they make wonderful explosions) are an important part of the New Eden and therefore our developers also apply special love to them. A while ago we announced a grand plan to balance the existing ships.

Now that we had enough time to collected good feedback (thank you for all the constructive discussions) and to think about it, we can present you an update of our plans.

Please welcome CCP Ytterbium and his new dev blog "Ship balancing summer upgrade" where he explains our updated plans and introduces the road ahead in regards to ship balancing. The blog can be read here.

Your constructive feedback is most welcome.


Good stuff!

But your intro was misleading. "Ship balancing summer upgrade" makes me think there is an upgrade coming this summer. Reading the devblog titled, "Ship Balancing Summer Update", we find that the timeline is really a Winter Upgrade.

Funny how one little typo totally changes expectations...

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.