These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Faction Battlecruisers - Would they work?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#81 - 2012-09-07 17:08:49 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
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.

I don't get it: the falloff is insane cause of Mach or cause TE is so ridiculously good?

For instance, both Locus coordinator and ambit extension rigs buff optimal and falloff by 15%, while TE impacts fallof twice as much. How is it balanced and how long does it actually take to tune this a bit, given your own words of smaller iterations?


Heh, the falloff is insane because the devs didn't communicate when balancing the two things. That is to say that Nozh was balancing TEs and added +30% falloff and Ytterbium was looking at the same problem from another angle and simultaneously gave the Mach a falloff bonus. I think what this may mean is that Angel ships are going to lose their falloff bonus - which I'm actually a fan of.

Also, regarding the 15% vs 30% of optimal/falloff. I think it's the correct choice. Optimal is a MUCH stronger mechanic than falloff is.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Karah Serrigan
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#82 - 2012-09-07 17:15:35 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
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.

I don't get it: the falloff is insane cause of Mach or cause TE is so ridiculously good?

For instance, both Locus coordinator and ambit extension rigs buff optimal and falloff by 15%, while TE impacts fallof twice as much. How is it balanced and how long does it actually take to tune this a bit, given your own words of smaller iterations?


Heh, the falloff is insane because the devs didn't communicate when balancing the two things. That is to say that Nozh was balancing TEs and added +30% falloff and Ytterbium was looking at the same problem from another angle and simultaneously gave the Mach a falloff bonus. I think what this may mean is that Angel ships are going to lose their falloff bonus - which I'm actually a fan of.

Also, regarding the 15% vs 30% of optimal/falloff. I think it's the correct choice. Optimal is a MUCH stronger mechanic than falloff is.

-Liang

Yeah, because if there is anything we want its homogenization. And there is totally no other weapon system that relies on optimal rather than falloff already...oh wait.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#83 - 2012-09-07 17:24:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Karah Serrigan wrote:

Yeah, because if there is anything we want its homogenization. And there is totally no other weapon system that relies on optimal rather than falloff already...oh wait.


I don't understand what you're getting at. Even with 30% falloff TEs, optimal bonuses are still much stronger than falloff bonuses. High optimal ships are still much stronger than high falloff ships. What is your point?

-Liang

Ed: Seriously, just lose the snark and try to say what you meant to say. I honestly don't know wtf you are getting at.

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Karah Serrigan
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#84 - 2012-09-07 17:31:42 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Karah Serrigan wrote:

Yeah, because if there is anything we want its homogenization. And there is totally no other weapon system that relies on optimal rather than falloff already...oh wait.


I don't understand what you're getting at. Even with 30% falloff TEs, optimal bonuses are still much stronger than falloff bonuses. High optimal ships are still much stronger than high falloff ships. What is your point?

-Liang

Ed: Seriously, just lose the snark and try to say what you meant to say. I honestly don't know wtf you are getting at.

Nevermind me, i misunderstood your post. I thought you were saying autocannons should rely on optimal and ships should get an optimal bonus rather than falloff because optimal is the better mechanic.
Im bad and i should feel bad.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#85 - 2012-09-07 17:32:33 UTC
Karah Serrigan wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Karah Serrigan wrote:

Yeah, because if there is anything we want its homogenization. And there is totally no other weapon system that relies on optimal rather than falloff already...oh wait.


I don't understand what you're getting at. Even with 30% falloff TEs, optimal bonuses are still much stronger than falloff bonuses. High optimal ships are still much stronger than high falloff ships. What is your point?

-Liang

Ed: Seriously, just lose the snark and try to say what you meant to say. I honestly don't know wtf you are getting at.

Nevermind me, i misunderstood your post. I thought you were saying autocannons should rely on optimal and ships should get an optimal bonus rather than falloff because optimal is the better mechanic.
Im bad and i should feel bad.


Heh, it happens to us all on occasion.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#86 - 2012-09-07 17:33:26 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:

Also, regarding the 15% vs 30% of optimal/falloff. I think it's the correct choice. Optimal is a MUCH stronger mechanic than falloff is.

Falloff rigs should provide 30% (40% for tech2) bonus then. That's kinda the whole point.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Cephelange du'Krevviq
Gildinous Vangaurd
The Initiative.
#87 - 2012-09-07 17:36:24 UTC
John Ratcliffe wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Ooops, made a wall of text Oops, well, hope that helps a bit.


It'll only help as long as you don't nerf the Drake or any other ship I own.


Wish in one hand and **** in the other and see which one fills up first. The Drake is in need of some balancing, as are a bunch of other hulls. I'm looking forward to what their tiercide does for the cruiser and BC line.

"I am a leaf on the...ah, frak it!"
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#88 - 2012-09-07 17:37:31 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:

Also, regarding the 15% vs 30% of optimal/falloff. I think it's the correct choice. Optimal is a MUCH stronger mechanic than falloff is.

Falloff rigs should provide 30% (40% for tech2) bonus then. That's kinda the whole point.


I see your argument and to a point I agree with it. But I feel that the opportunity cost of a low slot is much higher than that of a rig slot.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
John Ratcliffe
Tradors'R'us
IChooseYou Alliance
#89 - 2012-09-07 17:38:44 UTC
Cephelange du'Krevviq wrote:


Wish in one hand and **** in the other and see which one fills up first. The Drake is in need of some balancing, as are a bunch of other hulls. I'm looking forward to what their tiercide does for the cruiser and BC line.


If CCP nerf it then they can suck my **** TBH.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#90 - 2012-09-07 17:54:11 UTC
John Ratcliffe wrote:
Cephelange du'Krevviq wrote:


Wish in one hand and **** in the other and see which one fills up first. The Drake is in need of some balancing, as are a bunch of other hulls. I'm looking forward to what their tiercide does for the cruiser and BC line.


If CCP nerf it then they can suck my **** TBH.


Hard to give up your ez mode win button? Awww, it'll be ok. :)

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#91 - 2012-09-07 17:59:20 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:

Also, regarding the 15% vs 30% of optimal/falloff. I think it's the correct choice. Optimal is a MUCH stronger mechanic than falloff is.

Falloff rigs should provide 30% (40% for tech2) bonus then. That's kinda the whole point.


I see your argument and to a point I agree with it. But I feel that the opportunity cost of a low slot is much higher than that of a rig slot.

It is. So what? It's like saying opportunity cost of lows in armour ships are lower than those of shield ones and thus should provide reduced bonuses from damage mods. No way! If admitted that optimal is twice as valuable as falloff (which is debatable on itself, btw), corresponding rigs should keep this ratio just as modues.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#92 - 2012-09-07 18:01:09 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:

Also, regarding the 15% vs 30% of optimal/falloff. I think it's the correct choice. Optimal is a MUCH stronger mechanic than falloff is.

Falloff rigs should provide 30% (40% for tech2) bonus then. That's kinda the whole point.


I see your argument and to a point I agree with it. But I feel that the opportunity cost of a low slot is much higher than that of a rig slot.

It is. So what? It's like saying opportunity cost of lows in armour ships are lower than those of shield ones and thus should provide reduced bonuses from damage mods. No way! If admitted that optimal is twice as valuable as falloff (which is debatable on itself, btw), corresponding rigs should keep this ratio just as modues.


What a silly assertion. Opportunity cost should and does play a massive role in how powerful something should be.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers
#93 - 2012-09-07 18:13:18 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
I can't wait for the tears when the rebalancing program gets to supercaps!


I think this is going to be down to whoever draws the short straw, kinda like what they do when they need work that involves tackling POS code,


Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#94 - 2012-09-07 18:16:18 UTC
ITTigerClawIK wrote:
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
I can't wait for the tears when the rebalancing program gets to supercaps!


I think this is going to be down to whoever draws the short straw, kinda like what they do when they need work that involves tackling POS code,


I'm really sad that removing forcefields is going to ruin a hobby of mine - guessing POS passwords to steal stuff.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
stoicfaux
#95 - 2012-09-07 18:16:22 UTC
CCP Devs wrote:
blah blah blah


I can has cheese... pirate faction Tengu?

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#96 - 2012-09-07 18:24:45 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:

Also, regarding the 15% vs 30% of optimal/falloff. I think it's the correct choice. Optimal is a MUCH stronger mechanic than falloff is.

Falloff rigs should provide 30% (40% for tech2) bonus then. That's kinda the whole point.


I see your argument and to a point I agree with it. But I feel that the opportunity cost of a low slot is much higher than that of a rig slot.

It is. So what? It's like saying opportunity cost of lows in armour ships are lower than those of shield ones and thus should provide reduced bonuses from damage mods. No way! If admitted that optimal is twice as valuable as falloff (which is debatable on itself, btw), corresponding rigs should keep this ratio just as modues.


What a silly assertion. Opportunity cost should and does play a massive role in how powerful something should be.

What a demagogy. In that case locus coordinator rigs provide way too strong bonus compared to TE/TC - since their opportunity cost is so much lower.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Historical Research Advocate
Doomheim
#97 - 2012-09-07 18:36:07 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
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.


I'm not thinking of the next 10 years, I'm thinking of the last 4. The 4 in which I made long term decisions with results that wouldn't be seen for as long as a year or two. EVE has always stressed the importance of long term planning. When you guys say stuff like this, you're putting everyone who has been or will be making decisions about T3 training, acquisition, building, selling, etc into a very bad spot. You're making our old decisions, the ones whose repercussions we're still working through because thats how you designed the game, into potentially irrelevant or stupid choices. You're making decisions on future actions difficult as well, because no one knows how this will turn out. The issue here isn't so much the T3 itself. I'd care a whole lot less about redesigns if they didn't mean that 14 months of training was wasted or that the last 12 months I spent building up a production unit inside a WH was wasted because the produced ship's value drops.

You may not be here to win a popularity contest, but your company is. In fact, that's its purpose-- designing popular games that people want to play. Designing games that keep changing their fundamental elements and rendering old decisions irrelevant but requiring that decisions be made years in advance does not make your game popular, it makes it tedious and frustrating. There is a reason EVE has so many bittervets--you keep kicking us in the nuts.

postscript: Every CCP employee who communicates with the public should be sent to a Communications 101 class. Saying things like "we're not here to win a popularity contest" and "if we have to be universally hated... so be it" is provocative and puts the reader/listener into an adverserial mindset. Half of the crap CCP mods have to deal with from the playerbase is a direct result of poor communication by CCP employees.
John Ratcliffe
Tradors'R'us
IChooseYou Alliance
#98 - 2012-09-07 18:37:47 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
John Ratcliffe wrote:
Cephelange du'Krevviq wrote:


Wish in one hand and **** in the other and see which one fills up first. The Drake is in need of some balancing, as are a bunch of other hulls. I'm looking forward to what their tiercide does for the cruiser and BC line.


If CCP nerf it then they can suck my **** TBH.


Hard to give up your ez mode win button? Awww, it'll be ok. :)

-Liang


I don't PVP with it, but it's perfect in PVE and I want it left alone if it's not going to get a buff.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Metal Icarus
Star Frontiers
Brotherhood of Spacers
#99 - 2012-09-07 18:39:29 UTC
Who cares about faction BC's anyways, faction tech 3's are where its at!
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#100 - 2012-09-07 18:40:01 UTC
Historical Research Advocate wrote:
There is a reason EVE has so many bittervets--you keep kicking us in the nuts.

It's right the reverse - bittervets pop up when CCP is unwilling to admit its own faults - like with Drakes, tech3, Titans, cynoes and so on and so forth.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.