These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
#201 - 2012-09-12 22:17:19 UTC
Mechael wrote:
Why are you making cruisers viable against battlecruisers? If you do that, what is the natural counter to cruisers?



Other cruisers. Ships are good within their own size class and with the one above and below to some degree, this seems fine to me.

Fear and Loathing in Internet Spaceships
Angus MacDoom
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#202 - 2012-09-12 22:36:45 UTC
Diesel47 wrote:
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.


Sorry, I was referring to the impending nerfs targeting the cane and drake in the devblog, and i quote:

Quote:
It also gets us so much closer of the next long awaited ship class that needs to be purified with fire: battlecruisers. Prophecy, Ferox, Brutix, Cyclone, we know how you feel. Drake and Hurricane, we are coming for you too.
Gibbo3771
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#203 - 2012-09-12 23:37:54 UTC
Balance them all you want but until you nerf the **** out of the ASB they will all be fit the same.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#204 - 2012-09-12 23:57:01 UTC
Angus MacDoom wrote:
Diesel47 wrote:
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.


Sorry, I was referring to the impending nerfs targeting the cane and drake in the devblog, and i quote:

Quote:
It also gets us so much closer of the next long awaited ship class that needs to be purified with fire: battlecruisers. Prophecy, Ferox, Brutix, Cyclone, we know how you feel. Drake and Hurricane, we are coming for you too.



its finally getting its well deserved nerf

Hopefully along with the rest of tier 2 bc's >_>

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#205 - 2012-09-13 00:47:21 UTC
Only thing the cane needs to bring it in more balance is a smaller or non existant drone bay and 100 less powergrid base. Other than that, it's fine.

Drake just needs to lose some PG, drone bay, and the resist bonus while nerfing heavy missiles further.

The other two are pretty fine as is.

The teir 1's are another story all together. They're all pretty much ****.
Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#206 - 2012-09-13 01:32:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Hakaru Ishiwara
Phenomenal job on the vaga and stabber models.

Keep at it with the rest of the Minnie fleet and you might recover from this summer's Minnie model graphics draft run. Big smile

EDIT / Also:

Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Angus MacDoom wrote:
Diesel47 wrote:
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.


Sorry, I was referring to the impending nerfs targeting the cane and drake in the devblog, and i quote:

Quote:
It also gets us so much closer of the next long awaited ship class that needs to be purified with fire: battlecruisers. Prophecy, Ferox, Brutix, Cyclone, we know how you feel. Drake and Hurricane, we are coming for you too.



its finally getting its well deserved nerf

Hopefully along with the rest of tier 2 bc's >_>
I honestly do not understand the desire to nerf a given ship / class in the world of EVE.

One of the joys of this game is finding ways to counter and crush ships that are considered to be over-powered. This happens all of the time with FoTM fleets getting countered by imaginative FCs and strategists. This applies to both small-gang and large engagements.

What drives me bat-**** crazy about 'the need to nerf' a class of or a specific ship is that CCP [historically] goes to the ******* far reaches of extreme and renders once useful and sexually arousing ships into wet noodles.

Not only does this result in killing the fun for that ship's operators, but the massive skills (time and subscription fees) spent on maxing out that ship are thrown away like a used condom: great fun while in use but now filled with fetid seed.

Disclaimer: Yeah, I have BC 5 trained up on two characaters. Pirate I lost out big-time with the dual Gallente nerfs five years back too with drone bandwidth shrinkage and the dampeners getting shafted. Falcon range -- yup, had just trained it up. The list goes on and on.

+++++++ I have never shed a tear for a fellow EVE player until now. Mark “Seleene” Heard's Blog Honoring Sean "Vile Rat" Smith.
Xindi Kraid
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#207 - 2012-09-13 01:47:28 UTC
So I notice the destroyers are all listed in the attack row, given the ships show, that means faster ships, but a little less resilient.
Personally, I would suggest half of the destroyers (maybe the new ones) be put in the combat role, being a bit more resilient.
Sarah Moonshine
Moratorium Inc.
#208 - 2012-09-13 03:33:55 UTC
I'm a bit dismayed to get Drakes nerfed. Sure, they're a workhorse, staple ship, but along with tengus, it's the sole remaining viable Caldari Ship (as per current doctrines, anyway) for pvp. Please keep that in mind when making any changes. Same goes for Canes, which seem to be fine as they are.

As for the rest, changes seem to be mostly in the right direction.

Now, wtf is that new stabber hull? I mean, what about the visual identity? Where's the magnet-drawn-through-a-scrapheap-and-fixed-with-duct-tape look? D:

Just kidding, it's pure win.
Dagus Rex
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#209 - 2012-09-13 03:47:03 UTC
There is some obvious visual similarity in certain Destroyers and Battlecruisers:

Cormorant-> Ferox
Thrasher-> Cyclone
Catalyst ->Myrmidon

Wouldn't it be cool if the new Destroyers shared some visual resemblance to certain Battlecruisers like the Drake, Prophecy and Bruitx?
Caprice Azar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#210 - 2012-09-13 07:45:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Caprice Azar
Yeah I derped and posted in wrong thread oh well. Yay ship balancing etc
Carry on.
Lord Leftfield
Doomheim
#211 - 2012-09-13 08:49:46 UTC
Rawr, I want new skill layout...

Life is just a 420 all the way home :) Please give me more of that chocolate brew!!
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#212 - 2012-09-13 09:51:36 UTC
Anvil44 wrote:
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.


Ah yes, industrials. Forgot about those. Long term plan is not to make them modular (that's tech3 territory) but have the fill different purposes, just like the Mining Barges.

For quick example out of the top of my head, you could keep the iteron V as the super fragile ship with huge cargo hold, have the IV be fast and agile, with a smaller cargo hold to compensate, the III have average cargo but good EHP and so on. We could mimic tech2 industrial roles without being as specialized.

Again, having a modular industrial / mining / hauling cybertron prime transformer hull is more in the area of tech3 ships. Which isn't a bad idea, when you think about it, but not coming for a while. We first need to address issues with the existing tech3 ships before introducing new ones.
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#213 - 2012-09-13 10:30:13 UTC
Yeah good call on addressing issues with the current T3 ships. Most of them feel more like Bumblebee then cybertron prime, at least compared to the tengu.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
Sturmwolke
#214 - 2012-09-13 10:51:14 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Anvil44 wrote:
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.


Ah yes, industrials. Forgot about those. Long term plan is not to make them modular (that's tech3 territory) but have the fill different purposes, just like the Mining Barges.

For quick example out of the top of my head, you could keep the iteron V as the super fragile ship with huge cargo hold, have the IV be fast and agile, with a smaller cargo hold to compensate, the III have average cargo but good EHP and so on. We could mimic tech2 industrial roles without being as specialized.

I hope you guys aren't planning to homogenize the asymmetrical spread of industrial ships between the races (Amarr:2, Gallente:5, Minmatar:3, Caldari:2).
It's one of those areas where choices really do make an impact and it's a common topic between newbies. Discourses about gameplay should be encouraged to keep the interest alive.
Bubanni
Corus Aerospace
#215 - 2012-09-13 12:27:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Bubanni
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Anvil44 wrote:
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.


Ah yes, industrials. Forgot about those. Long term plan is not to make them modular (that's tech3 territory) but have the fill different purposes, just like the Mining Barges.

For quick example out of the top of my head, you could keep the iteron V as the super fragile ship with huge cargo hold, have the IV be fast and agile, with a smaller cargo hold to compensate, the III have average cargo but good EHP and so on. We could mimic tech2 industrial roles without being as specialized.

Again, having a modular industrial / mining / hauling cybertron prime transformer hull is more in the area of tech3 ships. Which isn't a bad idea, when you think about it, but not coming for a while. We first need to address issues with the existing tech3 ships before introducing new ones.


Wouldn't Iteron I serve best as the fast and agile? since it's smallest (which also has less cargo?)

also all industrials have redundant CPU, you might look into tweaking fittings on them at some point :) perhaps give them some more PG in return so some people can fit more tank if they want.

Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934
Anvil44
Avedis Corporation
The Vanguard Syndicate
#216 - 2012-09-13 13:03:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Anvil44
Bubanni wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Anvil44 wrote:
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.


Ah yes, industrials. Forgot about those. Long term plan is not to make them modular (that's tech3 territory) but have the fill different purposes, just like the Mining Barges.

For quick example out of the top of my head, you could keep the iteron V as the super fragile ship with huge cargo hold, have the IV be fast and agile, with a smaller cargo hold to compensate, the III have average cargo but good EHP and so on. We could mimic tech2 industrial roles without being as specialized.

Again, having a modular industrial / mining / hauling cybertron prime transformer hull is more in the area of tech3 ships. Which isn't a bad idea, when you think about it, but not coming for a while. We first need to address issues with the existing tech3 ships before introducing new ones.


Wouldn't Iteron I serve best as the fast and agile? since it's smallest (which also has less cargo?)

also all industrials have redundant CPU, you might look into tweaking fittings on them at some point :) perhaps give them some more PG in return so some people can fit more tank if they want.

I would guess that CCP Ytterbium was just throwing some initial thoughts off the top of his head. Details most likely could wildly differ. Also Sturmwolke does make a good point. However, the one thing I didn't like was being a new player, not knowing what I might like somewhere down the road and having myself 'stuck' with a racial choice due to only really understanding a small amount of the vast ship data. In other words I chose Gallente because I thought the whole 'Privateer' thing was where I was interested in going, and since the Itty V hauled the most, that was what I wanted. Not sure if I would chose any different now but I can fly Caldari and Minmatar now as well so it is so hard to say.

I may not like you or your point of view but you have a right to voice it.
Anvil44
Avedis Corporation
The Vanguard Syndicate
#217 - 2012-09-13 13:10:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Anvil44
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

Again, having a modular industrial / mining / hauling cybertron prime transformer hull is more in the area of tech3 ships. Which isn't a bad idea, when you think about it, but not coming for a while. We first need to address issues with the existing tech3 ships before introducing new ones.

So many have theorized on Tech 3 Industrials and this is where I always saw them going. One that could be reconfigured to be a mining ship nearly as good as an exhumer, a hauling ship nearly as good as Transports, a salvager nearly as good as the Noctis and a gas harvester, better than any other gas harvesting ship currently in existence (this should be fairly easy to pull off). I was also thinking of it being configurable similar to a hacking type ship as well but you seem to be doing ok with the frigates there so maybe not.

I may not like you or your point of view but you have a right to voice it.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#218 - 2012-09-13 13:10:37 UTC
Dear Sirs,

you are blatantly awesome. All this stuff is the best thing since I started playing EVE.

<3

.
Shaera Taam
Khanid Prime Free Irregulars
#219 - 2012-09-13 15:44:11 UTC
absolutely amazing work, to all the ladies and gentlemen involved

and to the art department, i want to pass along an especially big hug... the stabber looks less like a flying trash heap and quite in line with it's fast-and-deadly revamp. very nice

the vagabond? omg... looks like some frilled prehistoric predator! much better than the sky-diving-house-elf it is now, lol.

thank you all...

Thus Spake the Frigate Goddess!
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#220 - 2012-09-13 16:29:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Garviel Tarrant
Hakaru Ishiwara wrote:
I honestly do not understand the desire to nerf a given ship / class in the world of EVE.

One of the joys of this game is finding ways to counter and crush ships that are considered to be over-powered. This happens all of the time with FoTM fleets getting countered by imaginative FCs and strategists. This applies to both small-gang and large engagements.

What drives me bat-**** crazy about 'the need to nerf' a class of or a specific ship is that CCP [historically] goes to the ******* far reaches of extreme and renders once useful and sexually arousing ships into wet noodles.

Not only does this result in killing the fun for that ship's operators, but the massive skills (time and subscription fees) spent on maxing out that ship are thrown away like a used condom: great fun while in use but now filled with fetid seed.

Disclaimer: Yeah, I have BC 5 trained up on two characaters. Pirate I lost out big-time with the dual Gallente nerfs give years back too with drone back shrinkage and the dampeners getting shafted. Falcon range -- yup, had just trained it up. The list goes on and on.




Ship balance revolves around buffs and nerfs..

You can't JUST buff everything every time you rebalance, you will end up with ridiculous numbers. Some ships are moved up, some are knocked down.

How much time you spent on the ship is completely irrelevant, especially since BC's will definitively still be good quit being bad.

But yes CCP have a history of overnerfing, but they have been doing well recently.

CCP simply CANNOT hold back on nerfing just because it will make some people sad, for every OP thing nerfed there are hundreds of people who will cry when they lose their winmobiel.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish