These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#321 - 2012-06-14 17:47:33 UTC
Looks good, love the way you plan to distinguish the barges from one another. Any plans for a dedicated gas-snorter?

So the new dessies will be bog standard dps/ehp .. what possible purpose would they have that is not covered by existing hulls?
Make them small'ish (frig size or lowere even) semi-zippy with range and efficiency bonuses to small RR modules. Logistics platform is all that is truly missing from the lights, done properly it should be able to survive/function as support for an AF/Ceptor gang.
Quote:
...part of what players now call “tiericide”...

What do you mean by "now? Pretty sure that's what we've called it for several years, believe the thread calling for tiericide (use roles rather than tiers as differentiator) is just over two years old now .. way to keep up with the rabble, dears Big smile

Good thing about an endeavour like this is that it is very easy to grade/judge after it has gone live .. just see if variety of ships used is close(r) to number of ships available rather than the 10-15% we are probably at nowadays Big smile
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#322 - 2012-06-14 17:47:38 UTC
Haifisch Zahne wrote:

However, I will point out that I and many others wasted a lot of time training Destroyer and Battlecruiser to Lever V because of the announced changes when my neural map was just horrible for it. Something on the order of around 20 days. Wasted. Thanks.


Just thought I'd point out that those two skills are some of the most useful in the entire game. You'd be hard pressed to convince everyone it was a waste of time. Go forth and pwn, you've got a lot of options now!!

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Maul555
Xen Investments
#323 - 2012-06-14 17:50:52 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Maul555 wrote:
Pointing out what may be an unintentional operational nerf to Hulks, and a lesser extent Covetors, is not whining. Debating the merits of changes and giving the devs something to think about is what this forum is for.

Considering the ships are being re-purposed into new roles, I'd say it's not exactly an "unintentional operational nerf". Retriever/Mack will be the ship of choice for AFK solo mining, Hulk/Covetor for fleet mining (hence no real need for a bigger hold), Procurer/Skiff for specialized work and also for the paranoid. The ships will not have the same stats after this change.

In short, you're whining.



You cannot be sure its unintentional, and neither can I... I saic, "what may be..." I am pointing out these problems that are not apparent on the surface, so that the devs can act on them as they wish. If this is some smart part of the plan, then fine. but don't pretend to read their minds.
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
#324 - 2012-06-14 17:52:29 UTC
Maul555 wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Maul555 wrote:
So if I want to semi-afk mine ore in highsec, I have to use a mackinaw now. and its my problem? mining ore in a mackinaw? that just seems pants on head ********.
Why is it ********? It'll be the best ship for the job. Picking the best ship rather than one that doesn't do the same job as well seems rather clever, I'd think…


Quote:
If ccp adds ore hold expanders and rigs, this would fix all the problems I can see.
What problems? Your refusal to fly any other ship than a Hulk isn't a game design problem — it's just you being stubborn.

Again, get out of the “Hulk is best — must use Hulk!” mindset and the problems you're having instantly vanish.

Denidil wrote:
at a much higher cost.
Doesn't matter.


Mackinaws have always been Ice mining platforms because of bonuses, and Hulks for all Ores except Mercoxit. I understand that CCP is tryign to shake things up a bit, but it seems really wierd for a Mackinaw to be the "best choice" for mining ore in my playstyle, because CCP took away customizations options.

---

No. The problem is that CCP is forcing ore into a new bay that cannot be expanded. I am loosing operational space. This requires more attention to keep my lasers from automatically shutting off when the bay gets full. You cannot deny that they have taken away customizations options by forcing that stuff into an ore hold. That's what I am talking about. And that's the problem that ore bay expanders/rigs would solve.


who told you that you can't move ore into your cargohold and thus having 8k m³ + 10k m³ (your numbers) as "operational space"?
the blog did not say "there shall be no more ore in cargo holds". maybe wait until the idea gets more fleshed out in another dev blog?
geeee.......
Denidil
Cascades Mountain Operatives
#325 - 2012-06-14 17:53:12 UTC
Henry Haphorn wrote:


In addition to my Hulk comment, I also don't want to see any tank buffs on the Hulk as it is already capable of achieving over 30,000 EHP with the right skills and mods. Those who always complain about the Hulk's lack of tank happens to be those who always fit cargo rigs and cargo mods (these take away tank) then complain why a cruiser took out their Hulk.


no.. all mining barges should receive a buff to their innate tank - they're cruiser sized hulls. that being said

skiff - battleship like tank
mackinaw - battlecruiser sized tank
hulk: weak cruiser sized tank

for base tanks.. then mod how you want. add some new modules that increase ore bay at a meaningful cost to tank, maybe some mining rigs that hurt tank too.

CCP already stated they're going to make the mining yield spread much closer than it is now.

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.
Ma'kal
State War Academy
Caldari State
#326 - 2012-06-14 17:56:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Ma'kal
This sounds great. i was hoping to see some more info on this subject and it is sounding good. I am looking forward to how these ship changes help diversify what ships are flown in the Eve universe. Down with the Drake domination of the ship that is for everything.

Edit: Forgot to mention I really like how you are changing the mining ships.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#327 - 2012-06-14 17:58:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Maul555 wrote:
Mackinaws have always been Ice mining platforms because of bonuses…
…and you're sure they'll remain ice mining ships with the same bonuses? And if they do retain the T2 roles, use a Retriever instead — same solo-centric design, without the odd bonus for a different resource than the one you're interested in.

Quote:
it seems really wierd for a Mackinaw to be the "best choice" for mining ore in my playstyle, because CCP took away customizations options.
Actually, they gave you even more options, because now you have six useful ships to choose between for this task, with a much wide span of abilities, and every one of them can be customised to match your needs.

Quote:
No. The problem is that CCP is forcing ore into a new bay that cannot be expanded. I am loosing operational space.
So what? You don't need it any more. You jettison the stuff or transfer it to the Orca directly once every six minutes, which requires such a pitiful amount of attention that it should have roughly zero impact on your operation.

Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
who told you that you can't move ore into your cargohold and thus having 8k m³ + 10k m³ (your numbers) as "operational space"?
I did, because it doesn't make any sense to let them retain their current cargo holds given the design goals provided in the blog.
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#328 - 2012-06-14 18:00:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Karl Hobb
Maul555 wrote:
You cannot be sure its unintentional, and neither can I... I saic, "what may be..." I am pointing out these problems that are not apparent on the surface, so that the devs can act on them as they wish. If this is some smart part of the plan, then fine. but don't pretend to read their minds.

Neither do I but they're re-purposing these ships. Changes are going to happen and the Hulk will end up with a different role (fleet miner) and it will need to fit that role (excellent yield, not much cargo since you'll have a fleet to handle that). Everything in parens here has been stated in the dev blog.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Maul555
Xen Investments
#329 - 2012-06-14 18:00:43 UTC
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:


who told you that you can't move ore into your cargohold and thus having 8k m³ + 10k m³ (your numbers) as "operational space"?
the blog did not say "there shall be no more ore in cargo holds". maybe wait until the idea gets more fleshed out in another dev blog?
geeee.......



I never said that. Of corse I can move that stuff into the cargo hold... I have absolutely no need to though. I mine with an orca. Ore goes straight from my big expanded cargo hold straight into my orcas corporate hangers. This new change dumps mined ore right to a new ore bay, that cannot be expanded. This means I will have to dump the ore hold to the corporate hangers much more often, or face all my lasers shutting down on me. This is what I am mad about... Some of us like to do stuff while mining. I didn't realize that highsec mining was supposed to be such an attentive operation ^^.
Torneach
Doomheim
#330 - 2012-06-14 18:03:51 UTC
Looking good, I do have a few concerns, mostly with regards to the mineral costs of the rebalanced 'untiered' ships.

Currently, in the tiered system, the weaker frigates cost fewer minerals to produce, corresponding to their comparable weakness to the more powerful frigates, namely the Punisher, Merlin, Incursus, and Rifter. Among other factors including demand, this causes the weaker lower tier frigates to be much cheaper on the market than the powerful combat frigates.

When these changes go live, will the build requirements for the newly-balanced ships be adjusted to reflect the new untiered design system?
Maul555
Xen Investments
#331 - 2012-06-14 18:05:29 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Maul555 wrote:
Mackinaws have always been Ice mining platforms because of bonuses…
…and you're sure they'll remain ice mining ships with the same bonuses? And if they do retain the T2 roles, use a Retriever instead — same solo-centric design, without the odd bonus for a different resource than the one you're interested in.

Quote:
it seems really wierd for a Mackinaw to be the "best choice" for mining ore in my playstyle, because CCP took away customizations options.
Actually, they gave you even more options, because now you have six useful ships to choose between for this task, with a much wide span of abilities, and every one of them can be customised to match your needs.

Quote:
No. The problem is that CCP is forcing ore into a new bay that cannot be expanded. I am loosing operational space.
So what? You don't need it any more. You jettison the stuff or transfer it to the Orca directly once every six minutes, which requires such a pitiful amount of attention that it should have roughly zero impact on your operation.

Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
who told you that you can't move ore into your cargohold and thus having 8k m³ + 10k m³ (your numbers) as "operational space"?
I did, because it doesn't make any sense to let them retain their current cargo holds given the design goals provided in the blog.



Tippia, Now you are just arguing to argue... I have stated my position and pointed out some possible unintended consequences. The devs will now do what they do. I am done.
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
#332 - 2012-06-14 18:09:04 UTC
Maul555 wrote:
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:


who told you that you can't move ore into your cargohold and thus having 8k m³ + 10k m³ (your numbers) as "operational space"?
the blog did not say "there shall be no more ore in cargo holds". maybe wait until the idea gets more fleshed out in another dev blog?
geeee.......



I never said that. Of corse I can move that stuff into the cargo hold... I have absolutely no need to though. I mine with an orca. Ore goes straight from my big expanded cargo hold straight into my orcas corporate hangers. This new change dumps mined ore right to a new ore bay, that cannot be expanded. This means I will have to dump the ore hold to the corporate hangers much more often, or face all my lasers shutting down on me. This is what I am mad about... Some of us like to do stuff while mining. I didn't realize that highsec mining was supposed to be such an attentive operation ^^.



ah, got it. you are an afk miner.
well i have to say, thats whining on a very high level...
i also like to do stuff while mining and 3 minutes (even with full orca bonus and mining drones you can not get below that)
give you plenty of time to do so. 1 second later you can go afk again.
i do not see the problem. there is really potential in the new changes.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#333 - 2012-06-14 18:11:40 UTC
Maul555 wrote:
Tippia, Now you are just arguing to argue... I have stated my position and pointed out some possible unintended consequences. The devs will now do what they do. I am done.
…and I'm saying that they're not unintended and that the things you consider problems are actually the solution to the problem tiercide is trying to fix.
gfldex
#334 - 2012-06-14 18:14:35 UTC  |  Edited by: gfldex
:o

With that frigate you will turn me into a miner!

EDIT: And I would like to have this helmet for incarna.

If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.
Maul555
Xen Investments
#335 - 2012-06-14 18:15:25 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Maul555 wrote:
Tippia, Now you are just arguing to argue... I have stated my position and pointed out some possible unintended consequences. The devs will now do what they do. I am done.
…and I'm saying that they're not unintended and that the things you consider problems are actually the solution to the problem tiercide is trying to fix.



You cant know it's intentional unless you are one of the DEV's or know someone who knows something specific that you are not letting on about.

In any case. Its not something I am going to rage quit over. I would really like to drop the topic now as the new changes appear to be creating a fanboi attitude and spawning arguments.
Swearte Widfarend
Ever Vigilant Fountain Defenders
#336 - 2012-06-14 18:25:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Swearte Widfarend
Tippia wrote:
Maul555 wrote:
Tippia, Now you are just arguing to argue... I have stated my position and pointed out some possible unintended consequences. The devs will now do what they do. I am done.
…and I'm saying that they're not unintended and that the things you consider problems are actually the solution to the problem tiercide is trying to fix.

Tiericide has nothing to do with the Mining Barge changes except that in removing the racial frigate that was substituted as a frigate miner, CCP noticed the rest of the barge fleet and decided to tweak it.

CCP is redefining the functionality and roles of Mining Barges, but (like a few other ships in EVE), two mining barges actually had roles that were specific and being filled correctly.

This is ship rebalancing - I'd expect you to understand the difference - and people are asking questions because some of the changes being suggested (because this is change for the next 4-5 months) are vague, which means they aren't fully thought out or fleshed out yet.

CCP is defining roles for ships - some of us realize that at least two of the six ships in the barge class have roles that they already perform fairly well, and want to know if that is changing.

Democracy is only as good as the despot managing the voting booth.
Andoria Thara
Fallen Avatars
#337 - 2012-06-14 18:30:17 UTC
I keep seeing people say miners will continue to use the Hulk because of the yield. Did everyone miss this part of the blog?

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.
Selissa Shadoe
#338 - 2012-06-14 18:30:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Selissa Shadoe
Maul555 wrote:


Tippia, Now you are just arguing to argue...


It's just what she does. Lol You didn't think that smug character pic was JUST a picture did you? Big smile

"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
Maul555
Xen Investments
#339 - 2012-06-14 18:32:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Maul555
Andoria Thara wrote:
I keep seeing people say miners will continue to use the Hulk because of the yield. Did everyone miss this part of the blog?

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.



I didn't miss it. I like it and cant wait for it. It will make barges much more useful in wormholes especially.

I also cant wait to play with that new frig... I don't know how useful it will be for me, but im gonna buy a few anyways ^^
Sheol Duncan
Perkone
Caldari State
#340 - 2012-06-14 18:32:27 UTC
No destroyer/battlecruiser change, but any word on the removal of the Battleship 5 requirement for caps that was in the original dev blog?