These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Make Tech 1 Cruisers and Battlecruisers unable to fit heavy tank for balancing
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Masamune Dekoro
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#81 - 2012-07-02 00:40:20 UTC
I'd prefer to see a reduction of base EHP and fitting capacity across the board for the cookie cutter BCs - Drake and Cane especially.

With regards to plates, I think it would be an idea to look into changing the speed debuff into a pure agi debuff - making them turn slower and accelerate slower, without reducing top speed.
Kadeyoo
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#82 - 2012-07-02 01:55:25 UTC
The Drake is fine the way it is. Reason why it's so widely used, is because it has a big tank and low damage = low FC aggro = never called primary unless everything else is gone. Once you go down the HAM road with Drakes, they are pretty much just like a Hurricane - but with extreme fitting problems. The argument that it's easy and fast to train for is either invalid (because it only holds true for players that are less than 3 months old), or leads up to the first - something you can fly that does not help in damage application much, and is not focused.

If players are focused and die, they lose isk, they get a red entry on their killboard - so they fly a Drake instead.



As for the original topic:

The problem does not lie within being able to fit 1600mm plates or LSE on ships, but that some of the ships have too much PG/CPU/Cap for easy fitting. The reason why T2 ships have an easier time doing those fittings, is because they have much more PG/CPU/Cap than their respective T1 versions. The issue lies within ships themselves, not within the lack of completely arbitrary and unjustified limitations of modules that you think should exist.
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#83 - 2012-07-02 02:30:16 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
Have you or anyone you know found the target spectrum breakers of any use? I ask because I am on semi-permanent hiatus from 0.0 and large fleet fights (even after maxing every existing command skill and command shipsSad). Does it change the equation of being volleyed in any way?


They are pre-nerfed in too many ways to be useful. Not the least of which is the restriction to BS when it takes like 7-8 seconds to relock a BS in another BS.

Quote:
Yes, tier 3s. But again the lack of heavy tank limits dependence solely on them. In a way they also make sense from a character sp development standpoint. An inducement to prioritize training your paritcular tech II gun tree over BS. And for tech II of the large size guns that requires a couple maxed gunnery support skills. Not a bad thing their introduction.


Most groups running sniper Tier 3s accept T1 guns. LR T1 guns are all acceptably good in fleets, close range t1 guns... not so good. Same alpha, good enough range (especially the Naga, holy ****).

Quote:
The Talos while lacking the utility of the other 3 does however get a drone bay for what it's worth and has a different role it can fill. Tier 3s other than stepping on sniper HACs was not a bad thing imo. If HACs are not going to get an hp buff, which might make AHACs come back in an op fashion, they do need to find some new role(s) for HACs. I'm not sure what that can be. Maybe some limited ewar parital immunity Question


HACs are still fine as long as you aren't fighting a million dudes. Or, if you absolutely have to, have something meat-shielding to take the hits.
Noisrevbus
#84 - 2012-07-02 02:30:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
Lili Lu wrote:
Tier 3s other than stepping on sniper HACs was not a bad thing imo. If HACs are not going to get an hp buff, which might make AHACs come back in an op fashion, they do need to find some new role(s) for HACs


All other BC in LR setup (eg., arty Canes). <- volleyed, outranged, out-dpsed.
All other midweight snipers (Nano Pocs etc.) <- out-run, out-afforded, allround yet unfocused.
All other expensive mobile snipers (Tech 3, Black Ops, Machariels etc.). <- out-afforded, out-dpsed, or out-afforded x2.
All other lightweight snipers (Combat Recons, SHAC, Sniper bombers etc.). <- volley by DPS despite support-control.
All forms of budding HAC rush (DP Deimos, etc.). <- bloom versus approach, works vs. BS but not kiting BS-guns.
All forms of midweight rush (Nano Pests etc.) <- sig to tank

It's 6 different core tactics, 8 different classes, 10+ different mainline ships, etc.

All of these are either countered, passed into other peripherals (Titan-suicide Pests etc.) or usurped by Tier 3 BC.

Some of those ships will have new "whine threads" on Ships & Modules asking for them to be buffed.

Many of these concepts do not outright lose, they are simply forced off grid and discouraged from engaging.

All of these were effective counters to Drakes until various forms of numerical mass hit: All subcapital buffers, lag or Tidi, drone-response, multiple/split warp-ins and so forth. None of which occur within 200-man locals. The goalposts have been effectively shifted with TiDi and server upgrades, but rebalancing all ships is a daunting task with a low success rate so far; or should i say, limited success with unintended majority drawbacks.

Another thing that is quite funny is that almost all of these were things recently buffed: Pirate faction changes, Tracking enhancer changes, Minmatar BS changes, Combat Recon changes, Gallente buff changes.

Who stood to gain? All tank-heavy concepts with projection: Baddons, Maels, Drakes, Tengus, Rokhs, Capitals, Supers (at smaller scale various DP with projection such as Gila or Ishtar or other heavy tanks with projection such as Napocs or Ndomis, and other forms of 100mn/Tier 3). They do not scale to fleet because of affordability and drone-use (application).

I don't mind one bit that resources and time have been spent to combat lag and make fleets more fun, or that we balance ships at that scale. I do mind however when we balance ships only for that scale, or that no resources and no priorities have been spent elsewhere for the past 6 years of aknowledging AFK-empires as something negative for the game; 4 years since the nano-equilibrium being broken and 3 years since the failed initial adress of these rooting issues with Dominion.

Well, they have been spent elsewhere, but all in avoiding the problem: dividing the sandbox and isolating the open world - which is worse because you are isolating even more players.

Wormholes, Factional Warfare, Incursions, PoCos etc. = themeparks, all of them.

Can't compete? Have something "just for you". That's the epitome of a theme park, discouraging interaction.

ps. I hit the character-cap alot when posting, that's why almost all my posts have edits Blink.
Noisrevbus
#85 - 2012-07-02 03:15:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
I need to stop posting in this thread and give some other people the chance, i'd just like to comment on Lili and Mfume's last bit of discussion regarding blob-limitations.

Standings is definately one way to do it. As noted earlier, i don't really see the need for things that hardcode and punish a certain behaviour. The things Lili mentioned that you can achieve with a number of different standings changes is well enough for me. It's cool that people can adapt and overcome the limitation, with effective target calling or w/e. I don't want to remove effective use of numbers, just balance it. In line with that, soft standings changes is a perfect example of "cumber in number".

Anything that allow you some ability to hide in a crowd is a good thing. FC's may still broadcast targets. That's working as intended. Jumping into a 1000-man local, you will not be the only guy on grid though and that matters alot. Even if the tools are there too make sure you can still effectively organise, limiting them to a certain degree will require more from effectively organising numbers and more snafu will appear along the way (diplomatic issues, tensions, conflict, action). The problem today is not that we have tools, it's that they are too powerful which make effective organisation in such a manner too easy.

It's that foolproof side of it that is way too powerful. Advantages completely void of drawbacks are not balanced.

All i need is that one extra idiot in a 1000-man local shooting a blue and we're on the right track Smile.

Other examples include:

Volume-based infra, wether that's a station, a POS or even a PoCo are all faced with resource necessities and exponential resource advantages (ships, ship sizes). Two drakes are twice as good as one. They have degrees, a PoCo is more easily flipped than a Station, but they are all still volume-based, can't be interacted with at smaller scale and are better to interact with by amassing volume. Alternatives to that lie in timers, which can also be scaled to degree. You can mix volume and timer at your liking, the only note of importance is that today everything is about volume. There are no alternatives. Today, even useless lowsec PoCo fights and you will see 100-man gangs, because they are based on volume mechanics.

Reinforcing or repairing them require a certain volume for smooth operation, which set a bottom line of resource necessities that then scale exponentially because double volume equals half the time. PoCos are just as much blob as any other feature based on similar mechanics. Different scale though, but not very different and not different enough to stop the Drake from being popular there either.

Something a bit more abstract is other forms of activity or occupancy controls. They are much harder to define, and quite volatile with results that are hard to predict. At the same time, they have some very appealing qualities when you get them right. Think about how general skirmish warfare tend to apply for example. When it's all about ship kills whoever have the current advantage tend to be offensive. It's by that principle Nano always used to work, and to a certain degree it still holds true. It's not a question of e-honour or hardcode rules, but more about the natural order and logic of things. It's all about shifting responsibility over to whoever have control.

Look at a Football game (meh, the spaniards won again, eh Lili?) and you can see that natural occurence there as well until goals are scored. Then the opposite intend to happen, same as in EVE and games usually go a tad more boring. In even games though the advantageous play offensively, and the positions shift in the event of a goal. EVE skirmish work on the same principle, undermanned defensive play until you are forced to switch to offensive. It's difficult to control with game-design, but extremely rewarding and self-regulating when you can.

There you have examples of "cumber in number", "volume-based mechanics" and the abstract "occupancy" perspective.

Anyway, i'm done ranting semi-offtopic, sorry P.
Maeltstome
Ten Thousand Days
#86 - 2012-07-02 07:51:24 UTC
I don't think i've ever read so much butthurt since the pre-falcon-nerf days

Maybe we should bring back nano-battleships so people REALLY have something to moan about.