These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Vorian Atraties
Atlantis Industrial Ltd
Spaceship Family
#721 - 2012-06-19 01:21:52 UTC
Not fond of the changes to the Hulks.. It's like the most popular ship to gank in high sec so you boost the hp on the other 2 but not the one everybody uses, that one gets less and pretty much left alone.. What's the point in flying one now?? Meh subscription ends in 3 days may as well just let it laps.. Minecraft is more fun than eve these days...


v.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#722 - 2012-06-19 01:40:26 UTC
Vorian Atraties wrote:
Not fond of the changes to the Hulks.. It's like the most popular ship to gank in high sec so you boost the hp on the other 2 but not the one everybody uses, that one gets less and pretty much left alone.. What's the point in flying one now?? Meh subscription ends in 3 days may as well just let it laps.. Minecraft is more fun than eve these days...


v.


Could have sworn that literacy was one of the system requirements for EvE. Could have sworn...

(Protip: Read the whole devblog before posting. The other ships are getting buffs so they can compete with the Hulk).

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#723 - 2012-06-19 02:21:44 UTC
Vorian Atraties wrote:
What's the point in flying one now??
Same as always: it gives you higher yield.
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#724 - 2012-06-19 02:25:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Richard Desturned
Vorian Atraties wrote:
Not fond of the changes to the Hulks.. It's like the most popular ship to gank in high sec so you boost the hp on the other 2 but not the one everybody uses, that one gets less and pretty much left alone.. What's the point in flying one now?? Meh subscription ends in 3 days may as well just let it laps.. Minecraft is more fun than eve these days...


v.


Perhaps you should consider weighing your options - you can maximize yield with a Hulk at the expense of tank and cargo capacity, you can compromise and use a Mackinaw/Retriever and get good yield with a reasonable tank and cargo capacity, or mine with a Procurer/Skiff and get acceptable yield with a brick tank. Choices, choices, choices.

You don't have to mine in a Hulk just like a nullseccer doesn't have to rat with a Machariel and Nyx alt.

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#725 - 2012-06-19 02:51:23 UTC
Kyrralixa Joringer
Scarlet...Widow
#726 - 2012-06-19 06:56:27 UTC
Tippia wrote:
In particular there's the question along the lines of why the dedicated ice miner (the old role of the Mack) will also be the solo ship (the new role of the Retriever hull). What if you want dedicated ice miners with group benefits?


I was pondering this exact question earlier this week... and I hit upon an idea - why not move the mercoxit and ice mining specific bonuses out of the ships and into scripts for the MLU and IHU modules - kind of like the ones for tracking computers?

We could have more variety in scripts since the bonuses wouldn't be locked into the ships, and more variety in fits which is kind of the point of this rebalancing anyway.
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
#727 - 2012-06-19 07:49:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Imryn Xaran
Tippia wrote:
There are no rigs that improve your yield.


Sigh… Yes I should have said “fit” there, but you could have worked it out from the context if you weren’t such a pedant

Tippia wrote:
Yes. Just like everyone else.


No. Miners in low and null do not need to compromise yield

Tippia wrote:
…aside from the fact that the Hulk is already able to defend itself quite well, and with some group support backing it up, it's pretty darn difficult to kill (unless you want to expend a huge amount of ISK or manpower on the kill). Doing so will make the ganker move on to an easier target.


A hulk, optimised for mining yield, is not able to defend itself no matter how much support is available. In a mining op you would want to optimise the yield from your hulks to justify all the time and effort being expended, but in high sec where the ganker always gets the first shot that means you lose your hulk

Tippia wrote:
They're not forcing you. They're giving you tools that match a specific job. Whether you choose to use those tools for that job, or whether you pick some other tools, or use the tools for a completely different job, is still entirely up to you. That's what makes it a sandbox. They provide tools — you use them to build.


When the “Tools” they give us only work properly in some areas of the game and not others then yes, they are forcing us to play in certain areas

Tippia wrote:
Well, they're encouraging group play by making sure that, to get the best yield, you have to use the ship that requires a group to shine. That sounds very non-broken to me.


The ship that requires a group to shine is the hulk, but when mining in high sec even in a well organised mining op the hulk is too vulnerable to gankers when optimised for mining yield. Many people (including you) have said that miners should use a different fit or a different barge to overcome this, but that means that high sec miners have to compromise on mining yield to gain defence even when in an organised mining op, whereas low and null miners don’t have to make the same compromises. To me that is broken game play. They might as well change the description of the hulk to read “Fleet Mining Barge – Recommended for Low and Null Sec use only”.
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#728 - 2012-06-19 07:58:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Ribikoka
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:
Ribikoka wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:
Ribikoka wrote:
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:
Sigh...For ****'s sake [facepalm]


Yes facepalm, because you wrote idiotic things.

You want to proof ? Drake Rebalance Topic

Check the datas. Everything was wrote there earlier.

http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20

1 Drake 95646 kills (almost double numbers than any ships)

Most used weapons:

1 Heavy Missile Launcher II 34381

The drakes is OP, need rebalance and nerf. The buff of cruisers not help for this problem.
500+ drake fleets in 0.0. Drake blobs everywhere and the missile spam eat server resources more than any gunboat fleet.

And stop those arguments, how you playing 3.5 years ago. Many players playing with this game more than 9 years ago, just like me too.


***


You are wrong. That is not arguments, that's truth and no matter you like it or not.
The drakes overpowered. That's why 0.0 alliances using them.
Easily to tank them with logistics, they have infinity cap (fleet doctrines), they have relative long shoting range. They have ridiculous large HP than other BCs.
Those informations at hyperlinks not lying and the +500 drake fleets it's a real problem already.
And dont forget do you asked datas with your another character and you told you dont belive for a twitter blog. The eve killnet top20 datas and the other ones not lying. So, try harder your evade.

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/Drake3LSE.jpg and you said this ship is not overpowered.
232.5 passive shield HP regenerations / seconds it's a bad joke too (2615HP/11.25sec). 2x large armor repairer (not medium) can healing 1600HP/11.25 sec.
So what do you talk about it ?


Idiocracy.


Man, that drake was just an example for how overpowered drake defensive system than any BC HP.
It's your time to fit other BC without rig or module lose which have atleast same defensive capacibility with medium weapons systems. No matter if you have all lvl5 skills. Show to us another BC fit with acceptable DPS with medium weapons and which is have BS category defense attributes.

Remember what i wrote in another topic from drake example when someone change scrambler to passive EM resist, because 0.0 blob fitted drakes not have warp distruptors:

"~27200Shield HP (WTF this BS category HP ???), EHP ~117k, resists without overheat 74/63/72/77 (76/66/75/79 with Invu Field overheat)
WTF; Shield passive regeneration without any shield booster or active repairer 77.3 HP/sec (696HP until 9 seconds) which is much more than 2x t2 medium armor repairing (2x320HP/9sec). It's insane."

So it's your time to prove or gtfo.

So, you wrong again. This is not a 0.0 doctrine drake fit when you talk about AWU 5.

This is a 0.0 newbee ship doctrine:

Advanced 'Limos' Heavy Missile Bay I
Advanced 'Limos' Heavy Missile Bay I
Advanced 'Limos' Heavy Missile Bay I
Advanced 'Limos' Heavy Missile Bay I
Advanced 'Limos' Heavy Missile Bay I
Advanced 'Limos' Heavy Missile Bay I
Advanced 'Limos' Heavy Missile Bay I

EM Ward Amplifier II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Large Shield Extender II
Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I

Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Capacitor Power Relay II
Power Diagnostic System II

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I

This is not equal with the example drake fit, that was just example how OPed the drake defense than any BC.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#729 - 2012-06-19 08:19:23 UTC
Imryn Xaran wrote:
No. Miners in low and null do not need to compromise yield
Sure they do, if they want to gain defence — it's still the same ship, so the same rules apply.

Quote:
A hulk, optimised for mining yield, is not able to defend itself no matter how much support is available.
That's because optimising yield is something rather different than having an optimal fit. An optimal fit is one that lets you do the job the best — a fit that only focuses on yield will only be able to do half the job… As it happens, the Hulk can already project a significant tank while still providing a high yield.

Quote:
When the “Tools” they give us only work properly in some areas of the game and not others then yes, they are forcing us to play in certain areas
Good thing that they're not doing that, then (except for the Rorqual).

Quote:
The ship that requires a group to shine is the hulk, but when mining in high sec even in a well organised mining op the hulk is too vulnerable to gankers when optimised for mining yield.
Hardly true even right now, and even less so after this change since there will no longer be any reason to weaken it by throwing on (already needless) cargo expanders. Right now, it can be made largely impervious to gankers (to the point where, to kill the Hulk, they have to expend more money than the miner) and this will not be made worse by tiercide.

Quote:
Many people (including you) have said that miners should use a different fit or a different barge to overcome this, but that means that high sec miners have to compromise on mining yield to gain defence even when in an organised mining op, whereas low and null miners don’t have to make the same compromises.
The nullsec miners have to make the exact same compromises: if they want the ships to have high protection, they will have to sacrifice some of the yield. With these changes, you'll be able to do it in two ways: tanking your hulk or picking a different ship. This holds true regardless of what space you're in, and it holds true for miners just like it does for everyone else.
Ares Lee
The 10th Crusade
#730 - 2012-06-19 08:29:19 UTC
There are some ideas other than drake that CCP have mentioned in the CSM meeting minutes in 2011.

The content about fixing command ships is quoted as below:
Command Ships and Warfare Links: CCP suggested that Command Ships should have their attributes looked into and have their utility expanded by adding two races of leadership bonus to each hull, instead of one; for example, the Eos might offer both bonuses to Information Warfare and Armor Warfare. The CSM was excited by this idea. CCP and the CSM discussed the power of Strategic Cruisers vis a vis Command Ships; both CCP and CSM agreed that the Strategic Cruisers are overshadowing Command Ships in terms of their link bonuses. CCP suggested, and the CSM agreed, that Strategic Cruisers should have a lesser but more versatile bonus to Warfare Links than Command Ships, as versatility is a core concept for Tech 3 ships.

But according to the current schedule, we won't see the new bonus of command ships in this year. I hope CCP will make a hotfix for Eos instead of to do so in next year.
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
#731 - 2012-06-19 09:26:24 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Sure they do, if they want to gain defence — it's still the same ship, so the same rules apply.

Now you are just being obtuse. They don’t NEED to compromise because they can operate in 100% safety.
Tippia wrote:
That's because optimising yield is something rather different than having an optimal fit. An optimal fit is one that lets you do the job the best — a fit that only focuses on yield will only be able to do half the job… As it happens, the Hulk can already project a significant tank while still providing a high yield.

Wrong. In the context of a well organised mining op the optimal fit is one that maximises yield. Anything else is just wasting the time and effort of all the supporting players.
Tippia wrote:
Good thing that they're not doing that, then (except for the Rorqual).

The tools we have to protect a mining op don’t work in high sec – that should be obvious to anyone with half a brain.
Tippia wrote:
Hardly true even right now, and even less so after this change since there will no longer be any reason to weaken it by throwing on (already needless) cargo expanders. Right now, it can be made largely impervious to gankers (to the point where, to kill the Hulk, they have to expend more money than the miner) and this will not be made worse by tiercide.

We can get rid of cargo rigs, but the changes don’t free up any low slots – those are still needed to improve mining yield. After the changes the hulk (in optimal mining yield fit) will have an, at best, marginal improvement in its tank – not enough to offset the gankers first strike advantage.
Tippia wrote:
The nullsec miners have to make the exact same compromises: if they want the ships to have high protection, they will have to sacrifice some of the yield. With these changes, you'll be able to do it in two ways: tanking your hulk or picking a different ship. This holds true regardless of what space you're in, and it holds true for miners just like it does for everyone else.

Again with the obtuse-ness. When 100% protection is available through supporting players in an op why do they need to compromise? They don’t HAVE to compromise at all.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#732 - 2012-06-19 09:38:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Mechael
Imryn Xaran wrote:
they can operate in 100% safety.


Imryn Xaran wrote:
100% protection is available


You keep on using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Only time anything is 100% safe in EVE is when it's docked in a station. Oh, and clothes for some reason are always 100% safe.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#733 - 2012-06-19 10:22:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Imryn Xaran wrote:
Now you are just being obtuse. They don’t NEED to compromise because they can operate in 100% safety.
…if you remove the belt rats and if you dock up as soon as anything remotely threatening appears (which, by the way, will impact your yield far more than a bit of tank will).

Quote:
Wrong. In the context of a well organised mining op the optimal fit is one that maximises yield. Anything else is just wasting the time and effort of all the supporting players.
…and saves them money since they don't have to keep rebuying those Hulks. No, it's not wrong. The purpose of the ship is to bring home the bacon. If it can only catch it and not bring it home, it is not good at its job.

…and yes, you can still maintain a high yield while projecting a good enough tank to stave off gankers.

Quote:
The tools we have to protect a mining op don’t work in high sec – that should be obvious to anyone with half a brain.
Tanking works. Logis work. Fleet bonuses work. ECM drones work. Shooting the guy works. Hmm… what else is there, and why doesn't it work in highsec?

Quote:
We can get rid of cargo rigs, but the changes don’t free up any low slots – those are still needed to improve mining yield. After the changes the hulk (in optimal mining yield fit) will have an, at best, marginal improvement in its tank – not enough to offset the gankers first strike advantage.
And fitting a Hulk for full yield is still suboptimal since it causes such horrendous ISK losses. If it doesn't cause any horrendous ISK losses, then there is no problem to begin with, and you can fit the ship the same way you imagine it would be done in low or null.

Quote:
Again with the obtuse-ness. When 100% protection is available through supporting players in an op why do they need to compromise? They don’t HAVE to compromise at all.
The obtuseness here is that you assume that the “100% protection” doesn't come at a cost. It does. They most certainly have to compromise their yield to gain that level of security.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#734 - 2012-06-19 10:36:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
  • WILL EXHUMER SHIP SPECIALIZATIONS BE AFFECTED BY SUCH CHANGES? Most likely not, except maybe for the Skiff as mentioned above.
  • Then you're minimizing the effect that these new ship roles have. People will still mine ice in Mackinaws, because it's still the best ship for the job. They will not move to a Skiff, even during events like Hulkageddon.

    As someone above mentioned (Tippia?), you should create mining scripts that are inserted into Mining Laser Upgrade and Ice Harvester Upgrade modules, which supply the existing exhumer bonuses. Exhumer bonuses to specific types of mining are then removed.

    In that way, players will use the ship that is functionally best for a situation (defense, yield, solo), and then load in appropriate scripts to mine the material they want at the yield/penalty a script gives.
    Tippia
    Sunshine and Lollipops
    #735 - 2012-06-19 10:45:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
    Poetic Stanziel wrote:
    As someone above mentioned (Tippia?), you should create mining scripts that are inserted into Mining Laser Upgrade and Ice Harvester Upgrade modules, which supply the existing exhumer bonuses. Exhumer bonuses to specific types of mining are then removed.

    In that way, players will use the ship that if functionally best for a situation (defense, yield, solo), and then load in appropriate scripts to mine the material they want at the yield/penalty a script gives.
    I won't claim ownership of that idea, but I like it. What I said was that the mixing and matching of overall role and extraction speciality should be given to the players to choose, and then the T2 hulls could have some additional bonus that gives that overall role an additional tweak (I suggested giving Hulks agility and MWD-based bonuses, for the Mack… idk, maybe something along the lines of improved drone capacity to let it fit a wider variety of drones, which fits with the self-sufficiency theme, and I have no suggestion for the Skiff P)
    DJ P0N-3
    Table Flippendeavors
    #736 - 2012-06-19 12:59:55 UTC
    Imryn Xaran wrote:
    Now you are just being obtuse. They don’t NEED to compromise because they can operate in 100% safety.


    oh goodness what could this be

    or this

    Every type of space has its own safety measures, and yet ganks continue to happen in every type of space anyway.

    I didn't realize there was so much space honor in flying a Hulk and no other ship.
    Felter Echerie
    Profit Prophets
    #737 - 2012-06-19 13:28:46 UTC
    DJ P0N-3 wrote:


    Every type of space has its own safety measures, and yet ganks continue to happen in every type of space anyway.

    I didn't realize there was so much space honor in flying a Hulk and no other ship.






    i guess that's the major problem here... people trained so hard to fly a hulk and want to fly it everyday...
    i began playing this game from less than a month now, and is pure awesome.
    the frig changes are more than welcome, as it is tiresome to get roflstomped everytime by tech2 battlecruisers, at least for a noob like me who doesn't have much clue of what's happening sometimes.
    and well... i started playing this game mostly because of mining... i find it neat that you can play a game without beeing agressive... i spent lots of time jetcaning with the navitas... getting fliped and all that good stuff... then i got a procurer (wich y'all know is quite useless) and now i use a retriever(im dellaying the covie training because you NEED a battle cruiser) and well...
    Im not as experienced in this game as you folks are... but these changes they're announcing are making the game much more interesting and viable to new players like me. I mean... it doesn't make any sense that the hulk need to be the best mining ship in every way... i mean... why mining needs to be such an expensive and dull acticity? these changes are clearly making the game better, as they give more options to suit your playstyle... and well if you'll need to brake your rigs... cry me a river.
    Arianne Dallocort
    Garoun Investment Bank
    Gallente Federation
    #738 - 2012-06-19 15:27:02 UTC
    I only fly Gallente so I can't speak for everything but I'm excited about the idea of the Navitas being a drone boat. Drone destroyers sound pretty sweet too, I might actually put more skill points in destroyers now.

    The new mining barge changes are a good idea in my opinion as well, especially the ore bay.

    Good work CCP. Big smile
    Vanessa Vansen
    Vandeo
    #739 - 2012-06-19 18:41:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Vanessa Vansen
    An idea how to adapt mining barges and exhumers and how to introduce a mining frigate:

    Unify skill requirements: Use the same for Procurer (this), Retriever and Covetor. Use the same for Skiff (this), Mackinaw and Hulk. This way you get rid of the tiers and open the way of roles.

    Grant roles to mining brarges: Bring the Procurer in line with the Skiff (Mercoxit mining), the Retriever with the Mackinaw (ice mining) and the Covetor with the Hulk (non-Mercoxit mining). Example follows below.

    Now, the mining frigate has to be balanced with a Covetor for non-Mercoxit and a Procurer (now similar to a Skiff) for Mercoxit mining. In addtition, also grant bonus to gas mining to make it useful beyond being a stepping stone towards mining barges.

    Introduce a T3 mining barge ;-)
    This way you can cover all the cargohold vs. yield vs. EHP.

    From my point of view, it would fit very well into how CCP plans to setup their ships
    T1 ships with roles, T2 ships specializing in those roles and T3 ships generalizing them.

    Mining Barges with Mining Barge Skill bonus
    - Procurer
    60% bonus to Mercoxit Mining Crystal yield multiplier per level

    - Retriever
    5% reduction in Ice Harvester duration per level
    Role: 100% bonus Ice Harvester yield but 25% penalty to duration

    - Covetor
    3% better yield for strip miners per level

    Exhumers
    - Skiff
    Mining Barge Skill bonus
    69% bonus to Mercoxit Mining Crystal yield multiplier per level
    20% reduced chance of Mercoxit gas cloud forming per level
    Exhumer Skill bonus
    7.5% bonus to all shield resistances per level
    add anything you like, yield is already as current

    - Mackinaw
    Mining Barge Skill bonus
    5% reduction in Ice Harvester duration per level (maybe increase it further)
    Role: 100% bonus Ice Harvester yield but 25% penalty to duration
    Exhumer Skill bonus
    7.5% bonus to all shield resistances per level
    add anything you like, yield is already as current

    - Hulk
    Mining Barge Skill bonus
    6.5% better yield for strip miners per level
    Exhumer Skill bonus
    7.5% bonus to all shield resistances per level
    add anything you like, yield is already as current
    Tommy Blue
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #740 - 2012-06-19 19:12:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Tommy Blue
    Imryn Xaran wrote:
    that means that high sec miners have to compromise on mining yield to gain defence even when in an organised mining op, whereas low and null miners don’t have to make the same compromises. To me that is broken game play.


    Oh noes, the miners who expended the TIME, MONEY, and EFFORT to operate in nullsec get to have a higher mining yield.

    Please, stop your bitching and come to terms that a group of miners who are part of an alliance that spend billions of isk and lots of effort to take space and make it safe for them (or just spend lots of isk to rent it) have the right to a higher yield. Stop complaining and if you want that yield, you need to go out and do it yourself.

    "And what if I do not want to go to nullsec?" Well then, you have to deal with less yield. Nullsec is where the riches are (or should be). The complexes are better, the ratting is better, the PI is better, and the mining is better. If you don't like this then EVE is not the game for you.

    People have to understand that as space becomes less safe the potential for riches increases. (Low-sec needs a boost >.<) And don't you dare start talking about how safe nullsec is, because the people who own the space spend time, money, and effort to make it so, of which the high sec miners have done none.

    So, you can risk going at it with a max yield hulk to match those in nullsec with the high possibility of getting blown up (lots of risk, lots of reward), or you can tank up your hulk, or change to tanker barges with inherently less yield (less risk, less reward).