These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Dev blog: Ship balancing winter update

First post First post First post
Author
eXeler0n
Shark Coalition
#61 - 2012-09-11 13:06:41 UTC
m3talc0re X wrote:
http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/6758/caldaristabber.jpg

I'm just sayin'... -_-


Looks really nice man. But its not compact enough to be caldari...

eXeler0n

============================

Quafe:  http://quafe.de

Blogpack:  http://eveblogs.de

Akrasjel Lanate
Lanate Industries
#62 - 2012-09-11 13:08:33 UTC
Looks nice, but we will see then more stuff will be known for sure. Bear

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude

Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
#63 - 2012-09-11 13:13:58 UTC
Any change to the associated navy versions of the t1 cruisers? Some of them need a lot of love *cough*Scythe Fleet Issue*cough*, though not necessarily in the same role as their non-navy faction brethren (or whatever the female form is, since ships are often referred to as females).

Also, while damping needs love, so does target painting. If CCP is going to persist in sticking Minmatar with this "disruptive" EWAR, it needs to do something in an of itself, not enhance the effect of other things. Or is target painting "disruptive" like the Moa is "beautiful" or "sleek"?

CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#64 - 2012-09-11 13:15:43 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Please ccp don't make all the attack ships some terrible kiting sheit..

Give the thorax a rep bonus or something? then it can be fast and pew close range?



Other then that everything looks brilliant, although i am not really fuzzed about the "Making every ship a mini-battleship of some sort" Its a bit of a silly statement since well.. The difference in how a cruiser and a BS flies is so wast it becomes a bit odd..


The concept art for the vaga looks brilliant though, too bad it has the same problem as all the other HAC's.. BC's are cheaper and better.



  • Rep bonus on the thorax would make it more of a general combat than attack role. Having it in the "attack" category doesn't necessarily mean it's going to kite, but that it's going to be a fast and damaging hull. For a ship like Thorax it is suited to get close and deliver optimal damage.

  • Mini-battleship statement was to explain which kind of general direction we want to take the cruisers to in term of role. It doesn't mean we're going to blind copy battleships without putting some thought on how this translate into individual cruiser hulls Blink
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#65 - 2012-09-11 13:18:30 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Ytterbium
Gheyna wrote:
will you guys fix/balance navy faction frigates/cruisers to?

edit:
these changes looks awesome btw


There are a few exceptions, but navy frigates are mostly fine. Navy cruisers need some love yes, but that will very most likely not come out this winter.
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#66 - 2012-09-11 13:20:29 UTC
Tamonash en Welle wrote:
The revamps are awesome and all... but please please please do not forget to update the ship descriptions. For many ships they already make little sense compared to the actual role and strong points and with these changes it is only going to get worse.Straight

And, sure, new players can have fun in these ships, but they will be highly confused to pick a combat ship which primary role is described to be mining.


We have description changes planned for these ships as well, yes P
Camper101
State War Academy
Caldari State
#67 - 2012-09-11 13:21:27 UTC
First: I like the balancing changes, looking forward to see how they work out! Now give those balancing guys a few days off and get them rum and hookers Pirate

Second: HOLYSHITDATSTABBERISSEXY! Just on a little sidenote: I'd be very pleased if you can make the Vagabonds ears a bit more "batman-had-sex-with-a-dragon" like, as they were before. But at least it got ears :)


Camper101

2013.03.01 13:30:58 notify For participating in the General Discussion Forum Section your trustworthiness has been adjusted by -2.5000.

My name is Hans. The "L" stands for danger.

Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#68 - 2012-09-11 13:30:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Pinky Denmark
Im in serious love with these initiatives... Thank you for pushing destroyer/cruiser tiericide forward with hard work and dedication!!

I noticed the revamped ships often have a generous fitting so plz make sure the ASBs will be limited to 1 pr ship if you dont want them to be all dominant with the new ships :-)

Tbh the only thing Im really missing is a revamp to the RR modules making smaller modules worth considering and large modules less dominant like a range swap to force the massive RR platforms closer to the action and enable small RR platforms to be usefull assisting faster tacklers at range...

(The super fast low-sig Scimitars being able to kite at 70km is slightly game breaking for small scale warfare and small/medium rr modules are barely used)

Pinky
Morgan North
Dark-Rising
Wrecking Machine.
#69 - 2012-09-11 13:31:56 UTC
m3talc0re X wrote:
http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/6758/caldaristabber.jpg

I'm just sayin'... -_-


And thats why I really really would like to see CCP doing purchaseable paintjobs. That looks awesome.
Baljos Arnjak
Dark Praetorian Order
#70 - 2012-09-11 13:34:05 UTC
Camper101 wrote:
First: I like the balancing changes, looking forward to see how they work out! Now give those balancing guys a few days off and get them rum and hookers Pirate

Second: HOLYSHITDATSTABBERISSEXY! Just on a little sidenote: I'd be very pleased if you can make the Vagabonds ears a bit more "batman-had-sex-with-a-dragon" like, as they were before. But at least it got ears :)
Camper101


Actually, I think the new ears make it look a little Velociraptor'ish, which is freakin awesome =)
Kitt JT
True North.
#71 - 2012-09-11 13:35:36 UTC
Dat vaga!

Also, ship changes look great. Can't wait till all t1 hulls are viable.
Camper101
State War Academy
Caldari State
#72 - 2012-09-11 13:37:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Camper101
Baljos Arnjak wrote:
Actually, I think the new ears make it look a little Velociraptor'ish, which is freakin awesome =)


The longer I look at it the more I like it. It's just not as demonic as it was before, but it is sure sexy as hell Smile

2013.03.01 13:30:58 notify For participating in the General Discussion Forum Section your trustworthiness has been adjusted by -2.5000.

My name is Hans. The "L" stands for danger.

SMT008
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#73 - 2012-09-11 13:39:23 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
SMT008 wrote:

(I'm also very curious about how you will revamp the Scythe)


Your wish is my command.


That looks cool. At least it's not an unfittable tracking-link thingy so it's all good.

Do you have plans about faction cruisers ? I'm mainly talking about navy ships such as the Navy Caracal, Scythe Fleet issue, Navy Osprey...
Malkev
Deep Core Mining Inc.
#74 - 2012-09-11 13:41:42 UTC
It appears the Thorax's reign as most phallic ship in Eve may be coming to an end.

Congrats to you, Stabber.

(jeeze, even the name...)
Bilaz
Duck and Finch
#75 - 2012-09-11 13:43:13 UTC
Its nice to see balancing effort to speed up. But i cant help but ask - is there any plans to change some troublesome weapon systems and modules? since it would be quite hard to make a nice house if your floor is all warped, if you know what i mean. To reprase the question - is there any hope that along (or paralel Shocked) with changing hulls - stuff thats being fitted to them would be balanced too?

Also i think there is a problem with logistic ships - them being requirement to most non-solo pvp activities in eve, and capable of stacking much better than, say, e-war (while also protecting themselves much better than said e-war). If so - is it wize to make more logistic ships that perform not a whole lot worse, than their t2 counterparts while issies with t2 (and maybe carriers also) are not adressed?

Becouse i'm not into fleets that have so much repping power that its nearly impossible to break their combined spider-tank with equal numbers - but easily affordable logistics make creation of such fleets so much easier (while reducing cost in case of failure).

and last but not least - there is big gap between t1 and t2 cruisers - are you confident that changes that you propose would help to close it? or maybe you are thinking in small steps - one now, next in a year or two - please do tell what you think.
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#76 - 2012-09-11 13:54:19 UTC
FRIIIIIILLSS


So excited to see what you guys have been doing, thanks a lot and keep up the great work!

CCP fozzie, time to work double overtime and get the cruiser threads up. Pirate


Where I am.

Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#77 - 2012-09-11 13:58:57 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Please ccp don't make all the attack ships some terrible kiting sheit..

Give the thorax a rep bonus or something? then it can be fast and pew close range?



Other then that everything looks brilliant, although i am not really fuzzed about the "Making every ship a mini-battleship of some sort" Its a bit of a silly statement since well.. The difference in how a cruiser and a BS flies is so wast it becomes a bit odd..


The concept art for the vaga looks brilliant though, too bad it has the same problem as all the other HAC's.. BC's are cheaper and better.



  • Rep bonus on the thorax would make it more of a general combat than attack role. Having it in the "attack" category doesn't necessarily mean it's going to kite, but that it's going to be a fast and damaging hull. For a ship like Thorax it is suited to get close and deliver optimal damage.

  • Mini-battleship statement was to explain which kind of general direction we want to take the cruisers to in term of role. It doesn't mean we're going to blind copy battleships without putting some thought on how this translate into individual cruiser hulls Blink



So no gun rep crusier? =[

That's saddening.. But if its going to be fast and not kitey.. Is it going to be shield tanked? Because if it doesn't have a rep bonus it would have to fit a buffer which would make it slow.. I'm just not seeing how it will be an effective hull.

I just hope you keep up the active tanking thing you started with the asb's and the incursus. Active tanking is really the only way to make an armor ship without having it a complete immobile brick.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#78 - 2012-09-11 14:00:00 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Tamonash en Welle wrote:
The revamps are awesome and all... but please please please do not forget to update the ship descriptions. For many ships they already make little sense compared to the actual role and strong points and with these changes it is only going to get worse.Straight

And, sure, new players can have fun in these ships, but they will be highly confused to pick a combat ship which primary role is described to be mining.


We have description changes planned for these ships as well, yes P



When you rebalance the Phantasm, just read the current description and make it so that it fits that description.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#79 - 2012-09-11 14:01:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Diesel47
Holy crap, stabber will look good and NOT suck?

I have to start flying those.


How will battlecruisers fit into the whole scheme of things? Will they be not worth using because cruisers are going to be so strong?
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#80 - 2012-09-11 14:06:05 UTC
Diesel47 wrote:
Holy crap, stabber will look good and NOT suck?

I have to start flying those.


How will battlecruisers fit into the whole scheme of things? Will they be not worth using because cruisers are going to be so strong?


Battlecruisers are massively overpowered at the moment.. So i doubt that.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish