These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Rebalancing EVE, one ship at a time

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Thelron
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#2081 - 2012-06-06 14:44:05 UTC
Nalianna wrote:
Tanae Avalhar wrote:


Forget rails and blasters on a Merlin go with autocannons, you'll be much better off for range compared to blasters and dps compared to hybrids.

Now this just shows me how unbalanced this game has come to be that putting autocannon on a ship that has hybrid turret bonuses can actually out-do hybrids on that same ship. You are saying that autocannon will have better range than blasters and better dps than rails? That sort of makes sense if it's true, can anyone else verify it? But what about with lvl 5 training in all appropriate skills? That will bring up both dps for rails and range for blasters. On the same hybrid-bonused ship, wouldn't that change things? Again, can anyone verify this?


Can't verify, but I have my doubts that unless you're fighting something with a *huge* maneuverability advantage that AC's will still be a *really* viable choice unless you're paranoid about cap warfare or something. Also, you'll be (much) worse off on range compared to rails (assuming that's what was meant by 'hybrids') and worse off on dps compared to blasters (again, assuming you're not facing down something that literally flies rings around you).

My big complaint is,

Creh Ester wrote:
So dear CCP, now the Merlin and Incursus both have three hybrid towers, and the same role, "shortrange brawler". So how are they now different and both valid? And you said this rebalancing was to avoid obsolete ships? Well, since almost regardless of how you fit these two ships now, the Incursus tend to end up with almost twice the tank. And it does that even as it's faster, deals more dps, and still have two empty slots left, and CPU and PG to go. So tell me, dear CCP, how is the Merlin not utterly obsolete now? Does "balance" mean something else to CCP? Explain, please.


Ranger1 is in fact correct- the lack of real "brawling" ships has always been a problem with the Caldari lineup, just as the obsession with them has always been a problem for the Gallente, especially with the way mechanics have developed over the years and the fact that ships aren't race-restricted (which they shouldn't be, with the exception IMO of at least some aspects of FW). So, having the Merlin go from an attempt at getting people to engage at long-range (which apparently hasn't worked for years, given the predominance of blaster/rocket fits over rail/light fits) to solidly supporting the up-close fighting it inevitably ends up doing (either by choice or not) isn't a problem.

Having it do so with almost the exact same configuration as every other frigate of its type is a HUGE problem. Why 3 +25% turrets, mirroring the 3 +25% turrets on the Incursus, and looking very similar to the 3 +25% turrets on the Rifter and even the configuration of the Punisher (and both of *those* have spare slots which may or may not fire missiles)? Why not 2 +25% turrets and 2 damage-or-ROF bonused launchers? Sure, you need 3 bonuses to make it work (dropping defense bonus wouldn't really be an option), but the scanning frigates tend to get 3 bonuses, and really it's just 2 bonuses anyway because the ship is (well, was) designed under the assumption that it needs all 4 weapons. You still end up favoring brawling (in as much as you don't have a range bonus in sight) but doing it in a way that's pretty well *completely different* from the other 3 candidates for "T1 brawler frigate," even a 2/2 Rifter (which even with equivalent guns would still be much more about using its maneuverability than the "grab and smash" approach the Merlin would have to take). But no, somewhere "brawler = 3 guns" seems to have formed as a fairly solid rule, and it makes me worry that by the end of "Tiericide" we'll also be seeing the effects of "Flavorcide."
Esheleen
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2082 - 2012-06-06 17:15:14 UTC
I'm really looking forward to this and really can't see why people are moaning so much about loosing the ability to fly some ships or slightly upset their training plan. I'd be really quite happy to loose the ability to fly a few ships:

- It would reintroduce some speicialistion between characters for more experienced players
- It provide another round of "adapt or die" as a nice challange
- It gives me some "new" old ships to look forward to flying again and something to work towards.

On the actual roles themselves I'm not too certain that we need three direct combat roles and would think bombardment would be better off as just a spec for the combat ships. In its place it would be nice to see a exploration role of ships.
Nalianna
Perkone
Caldari State
#2083 - 2012-06-07 03:44:20 UTC
Thelron wrote:
..... the lack of real "brawling" ships has always been a problem with the Caldari lineup, just as the obsession with them has always been a problem for the Gallente, especially with the way mechanics have developed over the years and the fact that ships aren't race-restricted (which they shouldn't be, with the exception IMO of at least some aspects of FW). So, having the Merlin go from an attempt at getting people to engage at long-range (which apparently hasn't worked for years, given the predominance of blaster/rocket fits over rail/light fits) to solidly supporting the up-close fighting it inevitably ends up doing (either by choice or not) isn't a problem.

Having it do so with almost the exact same configuration as every other frigate of its type is a HUGE problem. Why 3 +25% turrets, mirroring the 3 +25% turrets on the Incursus, and looking very similar to the 3 +25% turrets on the Rifter and even the configuration of the Punisher (and both of *those* have spare slots which may or may not fire missiles)? Why not 2 +25% turrets and 2 damage-or-ROF bonused launchers? Sure, you need 3 bonuses to make it work (dropping defense bonus wouldn't really be an option), but the scanning frigates tend to get 3 bonuses, and really it's just 2 bonuses anyway because the ship is (well, was) designed under the assumption that it needs all 4 weapons. You still end up favoring brawling (in as much as you don't have a range bonus in sight) but doing it in a way that's pretty well *completely different* from the other 3 candidates for "T1 brawler frigate," even a 2/2 Rifter (which even with equivalent guns would still be much more about using its maneuverability than the "grab and smash" approach the Merlin would have to take). But no, somewhere "brawler = 3 guns" seems to have formed as a fairly solid rule, and it makes me worry that by the end of "Tiericide" we'll also be seeing the effects of "Flavorcide."

I actually don't see the lack of real brawling ships (close-range, high dps, high tank) ships as being all that much of a problem, given that this is not the "Caldari way", which tends to be more kiting and sniping from long range. I know that most players just use whatever ship gives them the best brawling (if that's what they want), and that generally wouldn't in the past have meant that they chose Caldari ships for that purpose. But at least for us committed Caldari-style fighters, the Merlin still gave us a frigate that could kite, snipe with its missiles and rails, and generally hold its own, provided it was used with Caldari tactics to avoid damage and make the best use of its native bonused weapons (kiting and sniping at distance). Without turning the ship into a Gallente lookalike, with heavy armour based tank and blasters, how can this ship ever be a proper brawler? And if it is, what does a Caldari pilot use for a long range kiting assault frigate, at least until they specialise into the Hawk?
Ares Lee
The 10th Crusade
#2084 - 2012-06-08 14:53:21 UTC
Finally, I found a topic that is related to ship rebalancing issues and have CCP devs responding, a right place for me to share my opinions about rebalancing issues.
I want to restate some known, general balancing issues that must be considered in rebalancing and suggest several solutions.
1. Resistance bonus is superior to repair amount bonus
While repair amount bonus only provides a 37.5% increase in self-repair amount. Resistance bonus provides a 33% increase in effective HP, effective self/remote-repair amount. In short, repair bonus is slightly better in self-repair effectiveness, but inferior than resistance bonus in general. Resistance bonus also makes passive shield-tanking much easier.
1.1 Solution 1 (choose 1 from the following 3)
The resistance bonus will also cause a deduction in self/remote-repair amount by 2%/lvl. As a result, resisteance bonus will be outmatched by repair amount in repairing effectiveness.
1.2 Solution 2
The repair bonus will also increase the amount of received remote-repair by 7.5%/lvl. It makes ships with repair bonus much tougher if the repair network is established, but still vulnerable in the first volley fire.
1.3 Solution 3
Simply reduce the resistance bonus to 4%/lvl.
2. ROF is superior to damage bonus if the weapon does not consume energy
We all knew that ROF bonus provides 33% increase in DPS while damage bonus only 25%. It is fine if the weapon is energy-consuming, like Armageddon, as consuming 33% more energy caused by firing does matter. However, for projectile weapons and missiles, it is completely imbalance. Why the ship can have 8% more DPS by simply consuming 33% ammo. Ammo is cheap, and too easy to carry. I was very disappointed when CCP decided to halve the size of hybrid ammo. It was a wrong decision that tried to balance guns by buffing without nerffing. They should double or triple the size of projectile ammo, as it makes bringing more ammo to be more disadvantaged.
2.1 Solution 1
Simply double or triple the size of projectile ammo and missiles.
2.2 Solution 2
The ROF bonus will also cause a decrease in damage by 1%/lvl.
3. Deadspace shield booster is by far superior to deadspace armour repairer.
Armour tanking is designed to be an energy-efficient way to defense while shield tanking is effective, but not efficient. However, deadspace shield boosters ruin this rule. The activation cost to repair amount ratio is 1.5 for T2 shield booster and 2 for armour repairer. The Gist series is extremely efficient and the Pith series is extremely effective. On the other hand, the deadspace armour repairer only increase that ratio from 2 to 2.2(C Type)-2.8(X Type). It is completely outperformed by the shield booster. It is acceptable to make deadspace shield booster slightly better than armour repairer, but not that far. Moreover, shield tanking has many advantages already, such as, adaptive invulnerability fields, boost amplifiers and an intact armour buffer for escape.
3.1 Solution 1
Make the Gist series to be identical as the Pith. The shield booster is designed to be effective, not efficient.
3.2 Solution 2
Buff the deadspace armour repairer, make it on par with shield booster.
4 It is too easy to increase falloff range than optimal range, as one of the reasons why autocannon is OPed. Since the autocannon overhaul, fallout range can be increase by 30% by using either tracking enhancer or tracking computer. Combined with a common ship bonus and the setting that short-range ammo does not lower the falloff range, the falloff range of autocannon can be increased to a ridiculous level without a big sacrifice of DPS and tracking speed. One strange thing must be noticed. NPC’s tracking disruptors cannot lower the falloff range, making autocannon an ideal weapon against Sansha. I do not know whether it is intended or a bug, but the fact is it makes the imbaslance problem worse.
4.1 Solution 1
Close-range ammo will decrease the falloff range too. It will become impossible to have a great fallout range without sacrifice of DPS.
4.2 Solution 2
Lower the falloff bonus from tracking enhancer and tracking computer. Why can fallout range be increased by 30% while optimal range only 15%?

Last but least, CCP should not be too fond of those 5%,7.5% and 10%. If CCP truly wants to make the game more balance, ship bonuses should be more flexible, but not that rigid.
Shigamaru Kishame
Rave Nation
#2085 - 2012-06-13 22:47:23 UTC
I don't mind the idea of setting it up, just whatever you do, this could potentially, as stated before, create a VAST amount of upheaval. Best idea, I believe would be to treat current players kindly and GIVE them the multiple skills at what level they have trained them, respectively of course.

1.) Keeps are universe from falling into utter chaos
2.) Specialized corps with a majority of pilots in a faction will be given an upper hand in general.
3.)The system will be easier on newer pilots of course, since their at the beginning of the game basically.
4.) If you can't do that, get everyone an accelerator for skill progression that has a strict property to only train for ships.

This is just my opinion of course. I'm no programmer, but honestly, I'd set the skills into the system and take care of the pilots before kicking it into full gear. More or less, prevent chaos across eve as much as possible. As this would be a "New" game mechanic, I can't understand why current long-term players should suffer.

I'm not whining, just putting out a perspective, been a while since I looked at the dev blogs.
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#2086 - 2012-06-14 07:14:44 UTC
I hope the gallentean ships will be fixed and rebalanced with this patch.

What they need ? Changes unlogic things from CCP.

Short range weapons need faster ships. Already the gallentean ships is horrible slow. They cant reach effective distances enough fast. This is unlogical.
Tanae Avalhar
Doomheim
#2087 - 2012-06-16 11:15:57 UTC
Thelron wrote:
Nalianna wrote:
Tanae Avalhar wrote:


Forget rails and blasters on a Merlin go with autocannons, you'll be much better off for range compared to blasters and dps compared to hybrids.

Now this just shows me how unbalanced this game has come to be that putting autocannon on a ship that has hybrid turret bonuses can actually out-do hybrids on that same ship. You are saying that autocannon will have better range than blasters and better dps than rails? That sort of makes sense if it's true, can anyone else verify it? But what about with lvl 5 training in all appropriate skills? That will bring up both dps for rails and range for blasters. On the same hybrid-bonused ship, wouldn't that change things? Again, can anyone verify this?


Can't verify, but I have my doubts that unless you're fighting something with a *huge* maneuverability advantage that AC's will still be a *really* viable choice unless you're paranoid about cap warfare or something. Also, you'll be (much) worse off on range compared to rails (assuming that's what was meant by 'hybrids') and worse off on dps compared to blasters (again, assuming you're not facing down something that literally flies rings around you).

My big complaint is,

Creh Ester wrote:
So dear CCP, now the Merlin and Incursus both have three hybrid towers, and the same role, "shortrange brawler". So how are they now different and both valid? And you said this rebalancing was to avoid obsolete ships? Well, since almost regardless of how you fit these two ships now, the Incursus tend to end up with almost twice the tank. And it does that even as it's faster, deals more dps, and still have two empty slots left, and CPU and PG to go. So tell me, dear CCP, how is the Merlin not utterly obsolete now? Does "balance" mean something else to CCP? Explain, please.


Ranger1 is in fact correct- the lack of real "brawling" ships has always been a problem with the Caldari lineup, just as the obsession with them has always been a problem for the Gallente, especially with the way mechanics have developed over the years and the fact that ships aren't race-restricted (which they shouldn't be, with the exception IMO of at least some aspects of FW). So, having the Merlin go from an attempt at getting people to engage at long-range (which apparently hasn't worked for years, given the predominance of blaster/rocket fits over rail/light fits) to solidly supporting the up-close fighting it inevitably ends up doing (either by choice or not) isn't a problem.

Having it do so with almost the exact same configuration as every other frigate of its type is a HUGE problem. Why 3 +25% turrets, mirroring the 3 +25% turrets on the Incursus, and looking very similar to the 3 +25% turrets on the Rifter and even the configuration of the Punisher (and both of *those* have spare slots which may or may not fire missiles)? Why not 2 +25% turrets and 2 damage-or-ROF bonused launchers? Sure, you need 3 bonuses to make it work (dropping defense bonus wouldn't really be an option), but the scanning frigates tend to get 3 bonuses, and really it's just 2 bonuses anyway because the ship is (well, was) designed under the assumption that it needs all 4 weapons. You still end up favoring brawling (in as much as you don't have a range bonus in sight) but doing it in a way that's pretty well *completely different* from the other 3 candidates for "T1 brawler frigate," even a 2/2 Rifter (which even with equivalent guns would still be much more about using its maneuverability than the "grab and smash" approach the Merlin would have to take). But no, somewhere "brawler = 3 guns" seems to have formed as a fairly solid rule, and it makes me worry that by the end of "Tiericide" we'll also be seeing the effects of "Flavorcide."

Blasters have always worked better than hybrids whether they be blasters or rails on the Merlin. They are even more attractive now because you have the option to change your damage type.

Someones **[u]always[/u] watching**
Tanae Avalhar
Doomheim
#2088 - 2012-06-16 11:17:33 UTC
Nalianna wrote:
Thelron wrote:
..... the lack of real "brawling" ships has always been a problem with the Caldari lineup, just as the obsession with them has always been a problem for the Gallente, especially with the way mechanics have developed over the years and the fact that ships aren't race-restricted (which they shouldn't be, with the exception IMO of at least some aspects of FW). So, having the Merlin go from an attempt at getting people to engage at long-range (which apparently hasn't worked for years, given the predominance of blaster/rocket fits over rail/light fits) to solidly supporting the up-close fighting it inevitably ends up doing (either by choice or not) isn't a problem.

Having it do so with almost the exact same configuration as every other frigate of its type is a HUGE problem. Why 3 +25% turrets, mirroring the 3 +25% turrets on the Incursus, and looking very similar to the 3 +25% turrets on the Rifter and even the configuration of the Punisher (and both of *those* have spare slots which may or may not fire missiles)? Why not 2 +25% turrets and 2 damage-or-ROF bonused launchers? Sure, you need 3 bonuses to make it work (dropping defense bonus wouldn't really be an option), but the scanning frigates tend to get 3 bonuses, and really it's just 2 bonuses anyway because the ship is (well, was) designed under the assumption that it needs all 4 weapons. You still end up favoring brawling (in as much as you don't have a range bonus in sight) but doing it in a way that's pretty well *completely different* from the other 3 candidates for "T1 brawler frigate," even a 2/2 Rifter (which even with equivalent guns would still be much more about using its maneuverability than the "grab and smash" approach the Merlin would have to take). But no, somewhere "brawler = 3 guns" seems to have formed as a fairly solid rule, and it makes me worry that by the end of "Tiericide" we'll also be seeing the effects of "Flavorcide."

I actually don't see the lack of real brawling ships (close-range, high dps, high tank) ships as being all that much of a problem, given that this is not the "Caldari way", which tends to be more kiting and sniping from long range. I know that most players just use whatever ship gives them the best brawling (if that's what they want), and that generally wouldn't in the past have meant that they chose Caldari ships for that purpose. But at least for us committed Caldari-style fighters, the Merlin still gave us a frigate that could kite, snipe with its missiles and rails, and generally hold its own, provided it was used with Caldari tactics to avoid damage and make the best use of its native bonused weapons (kiting and sniping at distance). Without turning the ship into a Gallente lookalike, with heavy armour based tank and blasters, how can this ship ever be a proper brawler? And if it is, what does a Caldari pilot use for a long range kiting assault frigate, at least until they specialise into the Hawk?

How would you expect to get PvP kills by kiting? Hunting noobs? Ridiculous.

Someones **[u]always[/u] watching**
Andre Coeurl
Embers Children
#2089 - 2012-06-16 15:50:03 UTC
The "pure concept" of rebalancing ships by giving them roles is interesting, the practice is going to be a massive headache, but that may just work.

Again, the "platonic idea" of simplifying ships skilling is interesting too, but there's some more blatantly evident problems there, coupled to a debatable logic approach.
Consider someone who trained all races' destroyers and battlecruiser (it's quite common)...
How would anyone consider "simplifying" the addition of 8 more skills you need to train again, compared to the 2 skills you trained before?
Also, from a logical standpoint, destroyers are conceived as being slightly stronger frigates with more and loger ranged weapons, as much as battlecruisers are slightly stronger cruisers with more or larger weapons. Why would they be a separate racial skill, when the hulls they're based on are mostly the same as frigates and cruisers? It still makes A LOT of sense to me that a captain has to train a single skill to fly all destroyers, because he needs to understand the different weapon structure of those ships, but since the hull is based on an "extended frigate" it's the same for all races.

Also, why destroyers would be the prerequisites of cruisers? Cruisers are the direct derivate of frigates as they have the same balance between hull and weaponry, not at all the unbalanced thing a destroyer is.
Same goes for battlecruisers... a battleship is (or should be) a totally different thing.

If the proposed changes stick, why then there shouldn't be racial skills for all and an ship class? Why there shouldn't be an Amarr, Gallente, Caldari and Minmatar HAC skill, as well as Command ships, Recons, Logistics... damn, even Electronic Attack Ships, poor little things, would have 4 skills!
Wow that's a nightmare isn't it?
But it's just the logical consequence of the proposed skill tree change.
I can't see how this will be beneficial to anyone.
Nalianna
Perkone
Caldari State
#2090 - 2012-06-19 06:15:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Nalianna
Tanae Avalhar wrote:
How would you expect to get PvP kills by kiting? Hunting noobs? Ridiculous.

Kiting is just keeping range for your own weapons while hopefully keeping out of range or at least minimising damage of your opponent's weapons. You can still get PvP kills doing that, even against ships that are otherwise superior to your own. Other than the Drake, there are hardly really any Caldari ships that can survive long in a close range battle. I would contend that the Merlin couldn't, as it is designed around the idea of flying reasonably fast and keeping out of range to keep the damage down. I'm sure there are plenty of people who will say they've used a Merlin up close and personal - not saying you can't but it won't be as effective or last as long as, say, the Incursus. You can fit hybrid turrets to both, and will get more or less the same damage with both, but the Incursus will survive a close order fight much better than a Merlin. If one is to fly ONLY Caldari, what sort of frigate is left for heavier engagements? Only by going to T2 ships like the Hawk do you get the longer range necessary to stay out of that sort of trouble.
Commander Shale
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2091 - 2012-06-21 07:37:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Commander Shale
Quote:

Combat ships: designed for direct fights, such vessels are usually found spear heading an attack force, or sniping from long range. Have great damage and defense, but poor mobility. A good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line". EVE examples: Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Ferox, Maller.

Bombardment ships: provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordnance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal.


To me, this says anyone who missions in a Drake, Raven, or Nighthawk, specialized in missiles will suddenly have to completely stop and turn to train up turrets for a Ferox or Rokh... That or conform to the Tengu.

I've been spending close to a year, specializing in missile/command ship use, because I wanted to fly the Nighthawk. More than anything else I'm a mission runner, and my ultimate desire was to fly this ship.. In missions. Yes, I'm fully aware of the Tengu's capabilities and lower requirements... But I have 0 desire to fly a Tengu after having specialized in another ship that I find much more appealing anyways. (If I didn't like the Nighthawk, I wouldn't have invested all my skill training time in missile use...)

There are a lot of people out there flying Ravens, and Drakes in on their missions too... Are we really just going to have our missile boat defenses struck with the nerf bat so we have to go switch to hybrid turret ships if we want to solo tank through IV and V's? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it just sounds like the Drake/Ferox, and Raven/Rokh are just switching places in uselessness for a solo pilot.
Tanae Avalhar
Doomheim
#2092 - 2012-06-22 07:41:51 UTC
Commander Shale wrote:
Quote:

Combat ships: designed for direct fights, such vessels are usually found spear heading an attack force, or sniping from long range. Have great damage and defense, but poor mobility. A good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line". EVE examples: Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Ferox, Maller.

Bombardment ships: provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordnance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal.


To me, this says anyone who missions in a Drake, Raven, or Nighthawk, specialized in missiles will suddenly have to completely stop and turn to train up turrets for a Ferox or Rokh... That or conform to the Tengu.

I've been spending close to a year, specializing in missile/command ship use, because I wanted to fly the Nighthawk. More than anything else I'm a mission runner, and my ultimate desire was to fly this ship.. In missions. Yes, I'm fully aware of the Tengu's capabilities and lower requirements... But I have 0 desire to fly a Tengu after having specialized in another ship that I find much more appealing anyways. (If I didn't like the Nighthawk, I wouldn't have invested all my skill training time in missile use...)

There are a lot of people out there flying Ravens, and Drakes in on their missions too... Are we really just going to have our missile boat defenses struck with the nerf bat so we have to go switch to hybrid turret ships if we want to solo tank through IV and V's? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it just sounds like the Drake/Ferox, and Raven/Rokh are just switching places in uselessness for a solo pilot.


Hmm always thought a HAM Drake WAS a combat ship of the close variety and a HML Drake a combat ship of the sniping variety just nerfed by low delayed dps.

Someones **[u]always[/u] watching**
Commander Shale
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2093 - 2012-06-22 23:40:47 UTC
Tanae Avalhar wrote:
Commander Shale wrote:
Quote:

Combat ships: designed for direct fights, such vessels are usually found spear heading an attack force, or sniping from long range. Have great damage and defense, but poor mobility. A good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line". EVE examples: Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Ferox, Maller.

Bombardment ships: provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordnance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal.


To me, this says anyone who missions in a Drake, Raven, or Nighthawk, specialized in missiles will suddenly have to completely stop and turn to train up turrets for a Ferox or Rokh... That or conform to the Tengu.

I've been spending close to a year, specializing in missile/command ship use, because I wanted to fly the Nighthawk. More than anything else I'm a mission runner, and my ultimate desire was to fly this ship.. In missions. Yes, I'm fully aware of the Tengu's capabilities and lower requirements... But I have 0 desire to fly a Tengu after having specialized in another ship that I find much more appealing anyways. (If I didn't like the Nighthawk, I wouldn't have invested all my skill training time in missile use...)

There are a lot of people out there flying Ravens, and Drakes in on their missions too... Are we really just going to have our missile boat defenses struck with the nerf bat so we have to go switch to hybrid turret ships if we want to solo tank through IV and V's? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it just sounds like the Drake/Ferox, and Raven/Rokh are just switching places in uselessness for a solo pilot.


Hmm always thought a HAM Drake WAS a combat ship of the close variety and a HML Drake a combat ship of the sniping variety just nerfed by low delayed dps.



Exactly why I'm not understanding the sudden complete shift in roles. Do they really want every Caldari pilot in a Tengu that badly that they're ready to nerf the defense on every other missile boat? Could ships like the Rokh and Ferox (And even command ships) use some balancing to have a more useful role? Of course, but it shouldn't be at the expensive of nerfing ships that are most used...

That's not even to mention how we finally just got an update to missile effects, and now us non-Tengu, Caldari solo pilots should look forward to an update that will make us have to go to turrets anyways? Seems like they should stick the missile boats in combat, and the turret ships in bombardment... Or even better, not try to pigeonhole the ships into "Tank"/"DPS"/"Support" at all.
atrum dux
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2094 - 2012-07-05 12:57:52 UTC  |  Edited by: atrum dux
So will i get sp reimbursed from all those crap skills, like assault frigate, that i trained to advance to the ships I need or is this just a scam to make me pay more for my clone?
Samuella IV
#2095 - 2012-07-14 02:51:22 UTC
Why cant we have battleships with more slots for medium and small size guns to be able to defend from frigates. Common these ships are so huge. If you redisigning the ships then now its the time to make it more realistic. It would realy make more sense in the game and we dont mind training more skills for it .....
Cid SilverWing
Doomheim
#2096 - 2012-07-24 03:25:35 UTC
Splitting any skills = worst design choice no matter how you look at it.

Combine skills instead, de-specialize the menial things. Which means, as stated in one example, removing Heavy Assault Ships prerequisite for Command Ships and so on. Also get rid of weapon specializations and just make Level 5 grant umbrella access to their relevant T2 weapons.

The less grind, the better. There's no excuse for it. Leave the Battlecruiser and Destroyer skills as they are, they work perfectly as they are, due to Cruiser prerequisite. Don't change any of their other prerequisites either.

We've been screwed enough with the mess that is the Unified Inventory, don't make us waste more time than we already are with THAT nonsense grinding more skills, veteran or newcomer. It just isn't fair to anyone.

Also inbe4 stupid trolls - Battleship V for capitals, don't change that. Players should logically have to have trained skills at 5 to get into the so-to-speak endgame of EVE. It also rewards them whenever they go back to BS fleets in PvP and PvE (I quite enjoy Marauder ratting in Sanctums).
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#2097 - 2012-07-24 17:56:45 UTC
Tanae Avalhar wrote:

How would you expect to get PvP kills by kiting? Hunting noobs? Ridiculous.

Not all combat in the game is PvP, and kiting is magnificently effective against NPC's.

You might not like PvE (by the tone of your response I'd guess that it's likely that you don't), but it is still an important part of the game as designed and played.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Nalianna
Perkone
Caldari State
#2098 - 2012-07-24 22:33:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Nalianna
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Tanae Avalhar wrote:

How would you expect to get PvP kills by kiting? Hunting noobs? Ridiculous.

Not all combat in the game is PvP, and kiting is magnificently effective against NPC's.

You might not like PvE (by the tone of your response I'd guess that it's likely that you don't), but it is still an important part of the game as designed and played.

Kiting is simply staying out of the effective range of your opponent's weapons while keeping them in range of yours. It can be and is used in PvP as well as PvE. It's the ONLY way to win a fight where your opponent is more powerful than you can tank at closer range. It is, however, more difficult to pull off and takes quite a bit of skill, for those who are not used to it. For pilots that are used to just parking and shooting, it's potentially a devastating counter, as they can't reach you and you just don't keep still for long enough for them to get in a decent shot. Webbers, of course, change all that, but if you're fast enough already, and can take them out quickly enough, you will still win.

I don't think you have to like only PvE to use kiting effectively.
Jake Rivers
New Planetary Order
#2099 - 2012-07-30 14:23:01 UTC
Has CCP responded as to why they are limiting the amount of mining crystals the mining ships can carry?

The current setup on sisi severely limits the choices that we have enjoyed for a long time and really it makes no sense.

No other ship in the game faces such limitations on ammo.

Senex Legio
Mikoyan Gureyvich
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#2100 - 2012-08-03 20:08:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Mikoyan Gureyvich
Quote:
Bombardment ships: provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordinance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal.


Unless they change how missiles do damage I don't understand how you can "pin" a ship down. Real world artillery pins people down due to the area affect of shrapnel and I suppose to a lesser extent the noise & shock wave that follows. I don't see how this translates to Eve. If I start firing missiles at a ship, what's pinning them down? Nothing. They hit their MWD and start steaming toward me. There is no area/suppression effect to firing a missile.

Also consider that in the real world, you can't win a battle with just artillery. Nor do you normally deploy artillery with a small squad-sized engagements.

Will this come to mean that missile ships will become niche players appropriate only for larger engagements? Will my Drake and Navy Caracal be able to run missions anymore or will I need to train for some Minmitar ship just to run down the Radar/Magnetometric/Ladar/DED site I've scanned down in my Buzzard?

I know CCP aren't morons and I trust that those with missile skills won't be utterly nerfed but the language they used for missile ships makes me nervous.