These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Obsidiana
Atrament Inc.
#161 - 2012-09-12 00:51:25 UTC
I hope the Moa gets a damage/resistance bonus. The range of medium rail guns is just way too short to be of much use. The tracking is too slow to snip frigates... who get to it too quickly. It's the slowest in class, so it can't hold range. The success of the blaster Ferox in ATX should be a sign of how the Moa should get bonuses. The Gallente will still out damage it with drones, but resistances will balance it out defensively.
Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#162 - 2012-09-12 01:08:06 UTC
Just a quick word on the new destroyers that are coming out; according to that chart, both destroyer hulls are going to be attack line. My question is; why? I thought you were trying to make destroyers a fully rounded class, and when the skill tree changes come along and players MUST train destroyers to level 4 to get to cruisers, they might have to spend some time actually using them - and they're stuck with the attack line? What if they want something tougher and don't want to just wait for the ability to fly a cruiser?

The new destroyer hulls should be combat line, not attack. Because VARIETY IS GOOD!

Here's my take on what the bonuses could be:
Gallente: +10% armor rep amount & 10% bonus to drone hitpoints
Amarr: +5% armour resist & +5m3 drone bay
Caldari: +5% shield resist & +5% missile damage bonus
Minmatar: +7.5% shield booster & +5% missile damage bonus

i.e. make them tougher, but with less damage and speed.

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
Ramman K'arojic
Lone Star Warriors
Brave Collective
#163 - 2012-09-12 01:10:20 UTC
I have had a good read of the comments here and Here .

Its good that cruises are moving along nicely. However one theme that keeps popping up is what is the role left for T2.

Marketing doctrine says you pay a premium price for premium product or feature. I.e You may pay 5x the amount for however you only get 30% better performance. And I don't think you can rightly say T2 is more specialized as the roles the function ships plays are already quite narrow. You could say that T2 ships also do other things well; however that means your really generalizing which is not goal

So what is the expected difference between a T1 and T2 cruiser - like role to like role is the T2 ship variant expected to be 1.3x 1.5x or x2 better than the T1 cruiser ?
Sekket
Perkone
Caldari State
#164 - 2012-09-12 01:35:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Sekket
I find the lack of mention o the industrial cruisers disturbing.

Not that there is any problems with them currently but with ship balance being talked about having them absent in the discussion when mining frigates and barges are brought up seems odd.

If there was going to be work on them what I'd like to see is some of theT3 tech worked into industrials. Not T3 industrials mind you but perhaps make it so the industrials mount cargo containers like sub-modules. Additionally things could be done with the shaders to make those containers that hold the extra valuable booty shinier and more desirable.
  • CQ isn't a refuge, it's a cage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iu4iekX3WE
SidneyB
Shadow State
Goonswarm Federation
#165 - 2012-09-12 01:36:57 UTC
I must congratulate the CCP art dpt. for the epic stabber / vaga overhaul. I can't wait for the winter expansion to hit TQ, even though at the time these changes will hit Tranquility, I'll be in the middle of the sea, inside the belly of a giant floating steel can, with limited internet connectivity.
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
#166 - 2012-09-12 01:46:26 UTC
When are you going to update the corresponding T2 frigates? Especially the Covert Ops frigates, so that they match the bonuses and functions of T1 versions?

As for the new destroyers, that's excellent. I've complained for years about the lack of a missile-based destroyer for Caldari, and a drone-based destroyer for Gallente, and finally they're coming. Nice!
stoicfaux
#167 - 2012-09-12 01:46:43 UTC
Quote:

As a reminder, we would like to state there are no skill changes planned for the winter expansion - your Destroyers and Battlecruisers skills are safe for now, as we are not adjusting spaceship command skill trees until we are done with the Battlecruiser class.

Does the "no skill changes this winter" include the the potential theoretical skill change of requiring Freighters V for Jump Freighters as per the "all Tech 2 ships require skill V in the prerequisite T1 skill" paradigm?

I'm 90% sure that it won't happen, but there's always someone who doesn't get the memo and decides to go after low hanging fruit.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Exie
Trust Doesn't Rust
Goonswarm Federation
#168 - 2012-09-12 02:00:30 UTC
Blah blah blah, balance, blah, new vagabond model, blah blah.... wait.
THE VAGABOND LOOKS SWEET AGAIN!!!!
Thanks Art Dept Teasers.
Bo'Orchu Taichar
Doom Generation
Best Intentions.
#169 - 2012-09-12 03:43:19 UTC
The new Stabber hull looks fantastic! PLEASE deliver that, I will love flying it even more.

Great job CCP, you guys are keeping this universe alive and fresh.
Logix42
Taxation Damnation
#170 - 2012-09-12 04:06:09 UTC
Stabber and Vagabond hulls YAY!!! Thank you CCP!

Go beyond the edge of space... Explore
Radius Prime
Tax Evading Ass.
#171 - 2012-09-12 07:07:21 UTC
But what was that about en par with battle cruisers? you ain't ruining one ship class for another now aren't ya?

Reopen the EVE gate so we can invade Serenity. Goons can go first.
Martin0
Brave Empire Inc.
Brave United
#172 - 2012-09-12 07:39:26 UTC
I'm looking for a vexor with more slots and able to fit medium blasters Big smile
Singoth
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#173 - 2012-09-12 08:36:09 UTC
AWESOME WORK!
Seriously. I'm looking forward to the next update Big smile

Less yappin', more zappin'!
Jain Za
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#174 - 2012-09-12 09:23:11 UTC
Good work, nice read.

Looking forward to some of the changes - but really hoping that you will take a look at command ships at some point.
El'ismhur Khunsiu
Les chevaliers de l'ordre
Goonswarm Federation
#175 - 2012-09-12 12:01:52 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
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.


+1 now you have some bonus to kill frigate size but ... The inertia is really bad (like turret lol). The only chance to kill one it's that some stupid frigate rush to you in close range.

This ship must be have the same inertia than cyna or something
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#176 - 2012-09-12 12:32:31 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
My friends have voiced some concern about the direction the balance of the game is taking with the upcoming changes to ship hulls. Increasingly, it's looking as though the balancing game is being played with particular load-outs for ships in mind, turning the Rock-Paper-Scissors game into one based around your choice of ship, without leaving opportunities to innovate in a ship's load-outs.

To a certain extent, I agree.

Part of the old design schema of Eve Online was that every tech 1 ship received minor bonuses towards particular rolls, and it was up to the myriad equipment/modules/skills available to the player to get something good out of the hull, rather than a predetermined optimum serving as the balancing benchmark. It's not an easy approach, by any stretch, but it did keep things interesting. By placing each ship into a designated roll, with designated fits and designed goals in mind when creating them, the risk is run that people won't have a chance to figure out any clever ways to use a hull outside of the vision chosen by the game designers.

Will there be steps taken in the allocation of slots, grid, CPU, and other attributes to force players to make compromises in the loadout and capabilities of their hulls, such as limiting the amount of CPU or Grid that they have so that players will find themselves asking "if only I could fit a 1600mm plate instead of an 800 while keeping these large guns..." and other such questions?


Limiting fittings is something we always have in mind no matter the ship class P. Also, the old design schema of EVE Online was, with all due respect, flawed. Slots, HP and to an extend fittings were directly tied to an arbitrary tier system, which doesn't fit a sandbox game. If anything, it was the very thing that prevented the Rock-Paper-Scissors situation you have in mind.

The direction we are taking is giving you hulls that have a baseline working role in fleet doctrine. But that doesn't change the fact it will still be up to you to decide how you individually want to fit them depending on your gameplay and circumstances.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#177 - 2012-09-12 13:01:15 UTC
I don't think i'm ever going to get used to this Devblogs that please me thing..

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Sturmwolke
#178 - 2012-09-12 14:25:35 UTC
"The beautifully sleek shaped Moa ..."?
Surely, you're joking Mr. Ytterbium .
ShiftyMcFly's Second Cousin
Doomheim
#179 - 2012-09-12 14:25:43 UTC
Ana Fox wrote:
What about solo pvp ?EHP buffs and two really cheep versions of logistic ,that looks like so blob friendly .

And can some of devs answer to Fon Revedhort question (post 51 ).


I'm not sure if solo pvp'ability and fleet warefare surviviability will ever go hand in hand without some funky damage stacking possibly lag monster causing duct tape work around.

Trying to make a game fun where 1v1 and 1v25-100+ (primary) both exist might not be possible where nearly every ship in each engagement can target a ship and fire without being concerned with what is between and what is behind their targets.

Fun and realistic are frequently on opposite sides of the equation.
Velarra
#180 - 2012-09-12 14:51:51 UTC
The Caldari cruiser hulls if completely redesigned by the art dept. responsible for the stabber / vaga would actually wind up being a lot more appealing to stare at for more than 5 seconds.