These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
2manno Asp
Death By Design
#181 - 2012-09-12 15:00:13 UTC
agreed velara, I want more than pretty planets to look at.

ccp, please have this art team redo all the ships in eve except the manticore. that ship is toooooo damn sexy.
Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
#182 - 2012-09-12 15:02:11 UTC
Get them to do the Moa. PLEASE.

But I'm not CCP Soundwave, so what do I know?
Alexander Yukari
The Foundation Of Mammon
#183 - 2012-09-12 15:18:17 UTC
I like how you focus on core feature. While I`ve seen some whining in other places about "no Jesus feature" but screw that.

Maler and Omen being useful and fitable is great news.

T1 science frigs are very welcomed, hope you will consider some T1 science cruisers. There is lack of baby steps in exploration department. Players just rush into T3 since they do great job in doing plexes. Skill and ISK gap between t1/t2 exploration frigs and t3 is just annoying and not very newb friendly.

While some navy hulls do great job at clearing up to 4/10s like nOmen its still big expense for someone new.

Consider some t1 cruiser hull having similar bonuses to those frigs with bit of damage/sustain for solo exploration. Hell expendable t1 cruiser hull might revitalize low-sec exploration. Not sure about T2 variant , possibly it would be overshadowed by T3s and not used often.

Keep up the good work with rebalancing. Looking forward to BC changes and Drake pilot tears.
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers
#184 - 2012-09-12 15:26:34 UTC
out of curiosity, after battlecruisers, are you going to be doing changes to battleships also or do you feel they are pretty much ok as they are ( i personaly think they are all fine apart from the hyperion and the typoon)

loving the direction of cruiser changes, kinda a lil dissapointed the mauler isnt going to be a HAM boat though lol as a mini sacrilege
Cornette
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#185 - 2012-09-12 15:52:51 UTC
Nothing wrong with the phoon. It's a jack-of-all-trades ship. Excellent at nothing, but decent at several, and quite qood in the hands of a skilled pilot who know how to use it. The Hyperion at the other hand need a look at, since the arrival of ASB modules made it even more obsolete.
Plaude Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#186 - 2012-09-12 16:02:27 UTC
CCP, the changes look awesome, no kidding.

And the concept-art for the re-vamped Stabber/Vagabond hull just looks sexy.

New to EVE? Want to learn? The Crimson Cartel will train you in the fields of _**your **_choice. Mainly active in EU afternoons and evenings. Contact me for more info.
Lemming Alpha1dash1
Lemmings Online
#187 - 2012-09-12 16:11:32 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
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.


In Soviet Russia, Doctrine fleets you Bear

Information is Ammunition,

War does not tolerate Ambiguities.

May you live in an interesting Empyrean age !

http://eve-radio.com/
Vilnius Zar
SDC Multi Ten
#188 - 2012-09-12 17:05:33 UTC
Please do be careful with the Moa, while I can understand the "lets make something else OP for a bit" idea if it becomes a super Merlin you'll have overdone it.
Anvil44
Avedis Corporation
The Vanguard Syndicate
#189 - 2012-09-12 17:16:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Anvil44
As I see your progress (and applaud the good work), I stare into the crystal ball and run into an interesting road block: Industrials. I am very interested to see how you tackle those. Most especially Gallente is designed around tiers. If I were to throw out an idea that I am sure someone else must have come up with: Make the industrials modular so that there is only one hull but you can put on different subsystems. One for max capacity, one for higher warp speed, one for more agility and one for more resists/hp. At best, they would not quite match T2s but they could be close.

I may not like you or your point of view but you have a right to voice it.
Recoil IV
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#190 - 2012-09-12 17:33:27 UTC
Galphii wrote:
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.



Minmatar : +5 to missile damage bonus & +5% to missile rate of fire bonus :D
Xianqin
Perkone
Caldari State
#191 - 2012-09-12 17:37:17 UTC
"The beautifully sleek shaped Moa"

Hmm, sarcasm? Or a subtle display of foreshadowing...

I can dream. :)
Recoil IV
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#192 - 2012-09-12 17:38:12 UTC
MintyRoadkill wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Moa needs cap and fitting, not blasters.


Blasters will help, though.

The Caracal will be the Caldari Long-Range Cruiser.



And while we're at it, FIX THE EAGLE. (Also the Cerberus, but mostly the Eagle)



long range pvp doesnt exist anymore.its close-->medium range these days.caracal is useless if flown for long range,caracal the same.cormorant,moa,ferox,rokh all the ships that have bonus for optimal are just useles bonuses in my opinion.replace them with damage/rezists/tracking/faloff bonuses.
Recoil IV
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#193 - 2012-09-12 17:40:24 UTC
Xianqin wrote:
"The beautifully sleek shaped Moa"

Hmm, sarcasm? Or a subtle display of foreshadowing...

I can dream. :)


moa does have a beatifull shape
Xianqin
Perkone
Caldari State
#194 - 2012-09-12 17:45:55 UTC
Recoil IV wrote:
Xianqin wrote:
"The beautifully sleek shaped Moa"

Hmm, sarcasm? Or a subtle display of foreshadowing...

I can dream. :)


moa does have a beatifull shape


And is as sleek as Rosie O'Donnell. Twisted
Recoil IV
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#195 - 2012-09-12 17:47:26 UTC
Xianqin wrote:
Recoil IV wrote:
Xianqin wrote:
"The beautifully sleek shaped Moa"

Hmm, sarcasm? Or a subtle display of foreshadowing...

I can dream. :)


moa does have a beatifull shape


And is as sleek as Rosie O'Donnell. Twisted


and what would you like to see?oprah?
Recoil IV
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#196 - 2012-09-12 17:54:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Recoil IV
Megnamon wrote:
Stabber and Vaga full of sweet sweet yum.

Hopefully the Navy frigs will get some love soon. The Firetail is such a great little ship, just needs a little something to bump it back up to be worth the pricetag.



and worm.cruor,succubus and so on :D

actualy,tristan will be better to use than worm.and 5000 times cheaper
Komen
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#197 - 2012-09-12 18:53:21 UTC
Dat stabber. Oh, yes.

Interesting proposed changes. We'll see.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#198 - 2012-09-12 20:36:27 UTC
Why are you making cruisers viable against battlecruisers? If you do that, what is the natural counter to cruisers?

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Angus MacDoom
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#199 - 2012-09-12 21:48:28 UTC
Love the look of the vaga, but whats gonna happen to my favorite cane?
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#200 - 2012-09-12 21:59:22 UTC
Angus MacDoom wrote:
Love the look of the vaga, but whats gonna happen to my favorite cane?


Cane looks fine, Rather see other ships get fixed before cane.