Ships & Modules

Too much work. Just give the Brutix another slot, switch the graphics of the Proteus Friction Extension processor with the CPU efficiency gate, and I´m happy.

Still, a dev specifically mentioning that the Eos needs some hard and sweet love is awesome.

I love Caldari Navy Ships (already have a CNR & SNI), so I really want to see a CN Drake. But only as long as it's more OP than it is already.

The T3 Cruisers can be completely removed from the game as far as I care, should never have been introduced in the first place.

Oh and if they nerf off-grid boosting I am going to be seriously pissed off, given I've been training an alt for precisely this role for the last 2 months.

Hello there, we've read your post a while back - again, it's not because we are not replying that we aren't interested in various hot topics.

What's making (some) tier2 BCs partially so good is due to the modules they use and less to the hull itself. That's the case for the Drake for example. The combination of long range heavy missiles plus shield tanking is amplifying the potential of the ship far too much than intended. That's an issue that cannot be fixed by just quickly changing some numbers up and down as part of a temporary fix.

Sure, a temporary fix may help in the meantime, but it can actually complicate things when we actually get to fully rebalance the battlecruisers. We're not saying it cannot be done, but, for being an old Dev chap within CCP, I have seen first hand what happens when ship balance is prematurely rushed: things tend to get over-nerfed or buffed one way or another and then left to rot for ages. And don't let me fool anyone here by trying to put the blame on other Devs, for this isn't the case: I know this for a fact for doing this very mistake myself several times. I was the one overbuffing the Dramiel to insane speeds in the first place (and to an extend all Angel Cartel Pirate ships).

That's why I tend to be cautious and recommend the balancing guys to do the same when dealing with such problems. Balancing ship hulls on their own is already difficult, but add module balancing into the fray and the complexity blows out of proportion. Another anecdote: the insane falloff we get on particular Angel Cartel ship fits was because I failed to properly communicate with CCP Nozh when rebalancing the Machariel while he was looking at Tracking Enhancers.

We're not trying to specifically wallow in self-pity here but to explain it is important to learn from previous mistakes. We are not excluding the possibility of giving temporary fixes to ships that need them, we are just suggestion caution.


We would also like to reply on the comments about tech3 ships being balanced for their cost and skill requirements. This should not be a factor for balancing most EVE vessels, because it breaks the purpose of a sandbox game which offers differently shaped tools for you to use as you see fit. And that's without even saying that, with time, as your playerbase gets older and accumulate resources, entry requirements are more and more easily reached, thus resulting in everyone getting their hands on the ship that was initially restricted to a few. And before you ask, some ships, like the Navy/PIrate hulls were designed to be plain better than tech1, others, like tech2/tech3 were not. Tech2 are supposed to be specialized, and tech3 more generalized - performance gap should not be so great that you can forget about tech1 entirely.

Also, we are aware of the number of used tech3 ships in general, and how far the repercussions could go for tweaking them. We know this would be a hot discussion from our playerbase as nobody wants to see their assets changed. That is normal human reaction. We can guarantee you that no matter what happens here, we will definitely do our very best to be as diplomatic, open minded and communicative as we have been in the past to ensure we hear all ends of the arguments and annoy the less amount of people.

However, we are not here to win a popularity contest, we, as ship balancing designers are here to make sure the state of the game is healthy in the long run, and if we have to be universally hated for doing what's needed for EVE Online to last 10 more years in the long run, so be it.


Ooops, made a wall of text , well, hope that helps a bit.

i totaly wish we got more replys like this for alot of other commonly asked things so thanks for this.

also, TOTALY looking foward to seeing the first run of T1 cruiser changes, i am hoping that my omen is in the first batch( let it use lasers without fitting mods please).

HAC's and pirate cruisers have been out for over 7 years and people STILL think they have ever been relevant.

Heres a hint: T3 is not what killed them.

it was yoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooouuuuuuuuuuu!

You're not planning on making t3's as hilariously useless for the cost as the nighthawk is currently when compared to the drake and tengu are you? (I think that's what a lot of people really want to know, not so much that you plan to change things)

If someone needs to spend about a billion isk and risk loosing skillpoints for loosing the ship it kinda should be just plain better than a command ship that only costs a quarter to half of that no? Risk vs reward and all that jazz.


Oh and on Langs earlier post, while you're giving some lovin to the Succubus, any chance you could kick a little love towards the Cruor?

I can't wait for the tears when the rebalancing program gets to supercaps!

lol

That's one of these few things which keep me subscribed

Navy and Pirates the way I see them in devblog seems to be the same bad thing tiers are now. Why not making them with interracial specialization instead? Giving them some advantages of 2 races involved in skill requirements and making navy more defensive (especially against the opposite race) and pirate more offensive...

90% webs is a step in a right direction.