These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Upcoming "balancing" overall repercussions.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#61 - 2012-09-24 08:58:21 UTC
Your own wording says it all. Most denotes > 50% mathematically. In order for the economy & PvP opportunity to remain at their current levels, it would have to affect 0%. Thanks for stopping in.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
0wl
Hailbird
#62 - 2012-09-24 09:04:11 UTC
Hmmm...One of the dumbest posts I've ever seen. Staggering in fact. You're wrong, Pipa is right.
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
#63 - 2012-09-24 09:06:33 UTC
Optimo Sebiestor
The New Eden School of trade
Organization of Skill Extracting Corporations
#64 - 2012-09-24 09:16:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Optimo Sebiestor
I think the problem is clearly the long range vs short range when it comes to missiles. This nerf woudn't be an issue if ham's had the same "tracking" properties as other short range medium weapons. If you don't do anything with this and nerf hml dmg properties, I think you'll get a transition time where people will try and adapt. Imo the pos changes migth affect wh space more than this. Caldari will cease to be anything more than a support race with the naga and rokh as its preferred fleet options for long range /short range dmg.
Pipa Porto
#65 - 2012-09-24 09:19:07 UTC
Cipher Jones wrote:
Your own wording says it all. Most denotes > 50% mathematically. In order for the economy & PvP opportunity to remain at their current levels, it would have to affect 0%. Thanks for stopping in.


The hell are you talking about? That's a lot of words that don't come remotely near coherency, but I'll take a stab at what I think you mean.

What evidence do you have to suggest that there will be any significant change to the number of people missioning (or the hours they mission, on average) or the number of people grinding WHs (or the hours they grind, on average)?

The incursion nerf sent the WHers who had abandoned their WHs in favor of VG incursion running back to their WHs (same with a number of people in Null, though they were also pushed by the Sanctum nerf). Missionbears didn't come from WHs, so they're unlikely to suddenly move to WHs en masse because Drakes and HMLs are nerfed. The new AI will also not affect missionbears because very few people use droneboats to mission, and drones don't provide a significant amount of gunboat or missileboat damage.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
John Ratcliffe
Tradors'R'us
IChooseYou Alliance
#66 - 2012-09-24 09:23:29 UTC
Destination SkillQueue wrote:
John Ratcliffe wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
If the proposed changes go ahead the CNR will once again become the unquestioned king of missile PvE, with a big increase in effectiveness. Heavy missiles are looking at a nerf, but every other missile type is looking at a big ole buff.



The CNR isn't getting a buff is it? And where have CCP stated that CMs are getting a buff?


It's a general buff because all T2 missiles are reworked and after the change you will have modules to buff your practical damage application with missiles.


That isn't really going to benefit the CNR though. For example, my CNR fit has 4 BCUs and 3 Rigors - my mid slots are all tank and PG. I wouldn't be prepared to compromise my tank any further and feel that the tanl/gank balance on that hull is as defined as it can be.

Now the Golem is a different matter. Were I able to fit a mod in the Mids to replace the 3 TPs then that would be of massive interest.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
John Ratcliffe
Tradors'R'us
IChooseYou Alliance
#67 - 2012-09-24 09:24:44 UTC
Saede Riordan wrote:
Ahem.



Adapt or die.


Yawn.

People do like to throw these meaningless little quotes around. I suppose they form a purpose if you are too lazy to post something worth reading Cool

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Pipa Porto
#68 - 2012-09-24 09:27:18 UTC
John Ratcliffe wrote:
That isn't really going to benefit the CNR though. For example, my CNR fit has 4 BCUs and 3 Rigors - my mid slots are all tank and PG. I wouldn't be prepared to compromise my tank any further and feel that the tanl/gank balance on that hull is as defined as it can be.

Now the Golem is a different matter. Were I able to fit a mod in the Mids to replace the 3 TPs then that would be of massive interest.



TCs/TEs plus Torps is, I think, the general idea of where the new missioning CNR will end up.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#69 - 2012-09-24 10:06:04 UTC
John Ratcliffe wrote:
Saede Riordan wrote:
Ahem.



Adapt or die.


Yawn.

People do like to throw these meaningless little quotes around. I suppose they form a purpose if you are too lazy to post something worth reading Cool


Doesn't make it any less true. This is hardly the first nerf mission runners have faced and far from the biggest. Its only really impacting two ships which eveyone with half a brain knew were overdue a nerf.
John Ratcliffe
Tradors'R'us
IChooseYou Alliance
#70 - 2012-09-24 10:21:23 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
TCs/TEs plus Torps is, I think, the general idea of where the new missioning CNR will end up.


The CNR isn't a Torp boat though, it's a CM boat. Obviously I'm open minded about it and it might be that after the changes are made it'd lend itself to Torps more. I guess it's a case of suck it and see.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
John Ratcliffe
Tradors'R'us
IChooseYou Alliance
#71 - 2012-09-24 10:23:04 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Doesn't make it any less true. This is hardly the first nerf mission runners have faced and far from the biggest. Its only really impacting two ships which eveyone with half a brain knew were overdue a nerf.


I know. As much as it pains me to admit it, a Drake than can solo every Lvl 4 is perhaps a tad OP. I did love using my Drake though Sad

How much longer do we need to wait until CCP fix the changes?

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Pipa Porto
#72 - 2012-09-24 10:29:58 UTC
John Ratcliffe wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
TCs/TEs plus Torps is, I think, the general idea of where the new missioning CNR will end up.


The CNR isn't a Torp boat though, it's a CM boat. Obviously I'm open minded about it and it might be that after the changes are made it'd lend itself to Torps more. I guess it's a case of suck it and see.


"Caldari Battleship Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Siege and Cruise Missile Launcher Rate Of Fire and 10% bonus to Torpedo and Cruise Missile Velocity per level of skill"

Looks like it's an Either boat. The only reason why nobody uses Torps on them is that they don't have the range or explosion velocity/size to reach out and touch things. TEs and TCs will potentially fix both of those problems.

Basically, Torps without significant ship bonuses usually suck eggs. These changes might fix that.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
John Ratcliffe
Tradors'R'us
IChooseYou Alliance
#73 - 2012-09-24 10:36:07 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
"Caldari Battleship Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Siege and Cruise Missile Launcher Rate Of Fire and 10% bonus to Torpedo and Cruise Missile Velocity per level of skill"

Looks like it's an Either boat. The only reason why nobody uses Torps on them is that they don't have the range or explosion velocity/size to reach out and touch things. TEs and TCs will potentially fix both of those problems.

Basically, Torps without significant ship bonuses usually suck eggs. These changes might fix that.


Fingers crossed. No real need to train a Golem if the changes happen in this way. It'll all depend on the fitting of course, but the Golem can only have 4 launchers so the CNR should be able to apply double the DPS in theory.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Pipa Porto
#74 - 2012-09-24 10:57:19 UTC
John Ratcliffe wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
"Caldari Battleship Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Siege and Cruise Missile Launcher Rate Of Fire and 10% bonus to Torpedo and Cruise Missile Velocity per level of skill"

Looks like it's an Either boat. The only reason why nobody uses Torps on them is that they don't have the range or explosion velocity/size to reach out and touch things. TEs and TCs will potentially fix both of those problems.

Basically, Torps without significant ship bonuses usually suck eggs. These changes might fix that.


Fingers crossed. No real need to train a Golem if the changes happen in this way. It'll all depend on the fitting of course, but the Golem can only have 4 launchers so the CNR should be able to apply double the DPS in theory.


L34RN 2 Marauder. But seriously, look at the Golem's bonuses.

The Golem's got 8 effective Launchers to the CNR's 8.75. If the TC/TE bonuses are good enough, the Torp CNR will dominate the Golem in most instances. It they aren't, the CNR will likely remain Cruisey.

That said, and like I said earlier, for most mission runners I know, the Mach/Nightmare have completely supplanted the Missile Battleship (CNR or Golem), and the Tengu is only used for a small number of missions that are literally perfect for the Tengu to blitz (though an AB Mach does nearly as well).

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#75 - 2012-09-24 11:05:25 UTC
John Ratcliffe wrote:


How much longer do we need to wait until CCP fix the changes?


The changes are the fix.
John Ratcliffe
Tradors'R'us
IChooseYou Alliance
#76 - 2012-09-24 11:07:14 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
John Ratcliffe wrote:


How much longer do we need to wait until CCP fix the changes?


The changes are the fix.


You misunderstand. What I meant was at the moment they are just proposals. At what point will CCP state 'Right this is what we are going to do' and on what date is that likely to be implemented?

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#77 - 2012-09-24 11:24:54 UTC
John Ratcliffe wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
John Ratcliffe wrote:


How much longer do we need to wait until CCP fix the changes?


The changes are the fix.


You misunderstand. What I meant was at the moment they are just proposals. At what point will CCP state 'Right this is what we are going to do' and on what date is that likely to be implemented?


Oh, these are due to hit tranq by mid december. Sisi testing should be sometime soon.
papamike
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#78 - 2012-09-24 11:54:20 UTC
No More Heroes wrote:
Speaker for TheDead wrote:
Arkon Olacar wrote:
So overpowered ships should remain overpowered because people are using them? kay



How can anyone use "Overpowered" when discussing a drake? Oops



The drake by itself is quite reasonable as is. If you put 200 or so in a fleet with 30 scimitars, some recons and dics and it becomes an instrument of destruction praying for war.


Considering NCdots current massacre of drake fleets I would seriously doubt this claim.

http://northern-coalition.co.uk/?a=home&scl_id=10

This month alone we are seeing almost 2000 BC kills, mostly drake fleets

http://northern-coalition.co.uk/?a=kill_related&kll_id=203333

Outcomes like this are a good example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNhF6oriOXM&feature=player_embedded


baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#79 - 2012-09-24 12:07:28 UTC
Quote:
We will only be activating specific parts of the new AI for this third template and it will not change how much damage the NPC do, how much damage they take, or generally how strong they are.


This is quickly turning into a none issue.
Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
#80 - 2012-09-24 14:52:42 UTC

Can I have your stuff please?

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli