These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Back to the balancing future!

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#121 - 2012-11-06 16:35:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Warde Guildencrantz
CCP Fozzie wrote:



  • The Ferox and sniper/brawler role
    • Our ideal goal for the Ferox is a ship that can be used as either a sniper or brawler (as long as it takes advantage of the optimal bonus with blasters), but that leans a bit towards sniper. We recognize that this is going to be a very difficult like to walk considering how much competition the Attack BCs (formerly known as Tier 3) give in the sniping department. Giving it a niche may mean giving it optimal/tracking bonuses and an extra turret, it may mean a damage bonus, or it may prove impossible. Consider "Big Moa" to be a fallback if the design doesn't shape up once we start playtesting.
    Getting this ship to work will likely also require a closer look at medium railguns as a weapon system.


    The ferox will never be better than the naga at kite sniping. It's just impossible.

    I am trying to think of a scenario where the ferox could better and the only one i can think of is the fact that the ferox could kill an interceptor with drones, but that is all. For the ferox to be better with medium rails having their current damage, it would need to be faster than the naga. That's not happening...

    Thus, make it a big moa. (however this makes the moa less useful) Or, make it something completely different (preferable)...like a caldari boat that can actually mount some neuts without dying in a fire with its cap and fitting. Needs something different. It's too awesome looking of a ship to be left in the "meh, it's okay but not that great" set of ships any longer. Needs to become FOTM material!!!

    Probably a look at rails (especially medium) would be the best option. They need a real reason to be used. (Artillery- alpha, Beams- great EM damage and pretty good alpha as well, long range missiles - good steady damage for any damage type.)

    Small rails are great, and large rails are great, (but mainly only on the naga and talos.)

    But they need their own 'thing' that makes them great. Having such crappy damage while having respectably good range (better than the other turrets) is okay, but something else needs to be in there to make rails great. Like they reload instantly or overheat makes their damage go through the roof (or damage buff as it currently is and tracking as well are increased), or something like that.

    TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us
    Harvey James
    The Sengoku Legacy
    #122 - 2012-11-06 16:35:58 UTC
    Azura Solus wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Iniquita wrote:
    I think its worth remember that there is a fifth leadership type in eve. Have you taken into consideration how a nerf to off grid boosting would affect mining in eve?


    Yup it's something we're putting a lot of thought into. Moving links ongrid has significant technical blockers at the moment so it's not coming anytime soon, and between now and that bright sunny someday we'll spend a lot of time consulting with miners to make sure gameplay stays interesting and useful.



    as i suggested above from what i can tell your biggest pet peve is being able to boost behind a pos. so why dont you make them unable to do so. while still allowing it from safe spots


    No links give a significant bonus and as such should be balanced as a big risk to being primaried and killed as e-war ships are.
    within LP range.

    T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

    ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

    Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
    CCP Fozzie
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #123 - 2012-11-06 16:36:50 UTC
    ReK42 wrote:
    Fozzie could you comment on the boost amount issue? Why did you bring it down to 2%/3% rather than keep it 3%/5%? Are you open to considering reversing that and giving the one on-race bonus 5% on command ships?


    My official position on this issue is as follows:

    5% link bonuses are broken powerful, and I'm going to stab them in their metaphorical eye and then wiggle the knife.
    In game.

    Game Designer | Team Five-0

    Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
    Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
    Ogopogo Mu
    O C C U P Y
    #124 - 2012-11-06 16:36:52 UTC
    I think the Ferox suggestion is the same one the team tried to use on the Merlin. Hopefully this one won't go through either.


    1. Medium rails are awful.
    2. Shield resist bonuses are what allows the Ferox a brawler role.
    3. If you want to snipe with a Caldari BC, you're silly if you use a Ferox instead of a Naga.


    I like the idea behind the Tierecide project, but seriously the way to fix a platform that does not work is not always a total forced narrow repurposing. Fix the number of slots and the fitting issues and see how it goes. This, like a lot of the recent changes, have good intentions but are really bulldozing anthills. Introducing the ASB instead of just adjusting the parameters of active shield tanking is a perfect example of the problems you create when sledgehammering balance issues.
    Pattern Clarc
    Citeregis
    #125 - 2012-11-06 16:37:17 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Wanted to quickly address two of the more common points raised so far here:

    • Skirmish links and the Amarr/Gallente command ships
      • We recognize that the skirmish links do fit especially well with Gallente blasterboats and the Gallente scram range bonuses. The initial plan here gives Skirmish to the Proteus for that reason, but it may prove a good idea to give skirmish bonuses to the Eos and Astarte as well. We are not going to rule out the possibility of making the Amarr command ships Armor/Info bonused and the Gallente command ships Armor/Skirm bonused. This would cause a significant disruption for the 7 of you that have the Eos trained specifically for Info links, but that may be a sacrifice worth making. Not going to make any promises now but it's on the table.

    • The Ferox and sniper/brawler role
      • Our ideal goal for the Ferox is a ship that can be used as either a sniper or brawler (as long as it takes advantage of the optimal bonus with blasters), but that leans a bit towards sniper. We recognize that this is going to be a very difficult like to walk considering how much competition the Attack BCs (formerly known as Tier 3) give in the sniping department. Giving it a niche may mean giving it optimal/tracking bonuses and an extra turret, it may mean a damage bonus, or it may prove impossible. Consider "Big Moa" to be a fallback if the design doesn't shape up once we start playtesting.
      Getting this ship to work will likely also require a closer look at medium railguns as a weapon system.

    Armour with skirmish with a few cracked eggs for gallente is far better than the alternative.

    Removing resists as step one of your Ferox plan fills no one with confidence.

    Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
    Lors Dornick
    Kallisti Industries
    #126 - 2012-11-06 16:37:17 UTC
    Azura Solus wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Iniquita wrote:
    I think its worth remember that there is a fifth leadership type in eve. Have you taken into consideration how a nerf to off grid boosting would affect mining in eve?


    Yup it's something we're putting a lot of thought into. Moving links ongrid has significant technical blockers at the moment so it's not coming anytime soon, and between now and that bright sunny someday we'll spend a lot of time consulting with miners to make sure gameplay stays interesting and useful.



    as i suggested above from what i can tell your biggest pet peve is being able to boost behind a pos. so why dont you make them unable to do so. while still allowing it from safe spots


    Erh? Because that would most likely involve even more technical blockers?

    CCP Greyscale: As to starbases, we agree it's pretty terrible, but we don't want to delay the entire release just for this one factor.
    Qaidan Alenko
    Eezo-Lution Inc.
    #127 - 2012-11-06 16:37:32 UTC
    Quote:
    Drake: once again, blame the modules, not the hull – while missiles are being looked into by CCP Fozzie, shield tanking is the root of the problem here.
    Can any light be shed on this area? What is being bandied about with mods and shield tanking?
    Go ahead... Get your Wham on!!!
    MadMuppet
    Critical Mass Inc
    #128 - 2012-11-06 16:38:28 UTC
    The Claymore is going to become a missile boat? That sucks.

    This message brought to you by Experience(tm). When common sense fails you, experience will come to the rescue. Experience(tm) from the makers of CONCORD.

    "If you are part of the problem, you will be nerfed." -MadMuppet
    Gypsio III
    Questionable Ethics.
    Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
    #129 - 2012-11-06 16:41:23 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:

    However, let's throw a brainstorming concept out here just for fun: What if gang links worked a lot like warp disruption spheres? Smile


    You mentioned technical difficulties, is this really so hard to program? It would seem to be the obvious way of doing it. The only question would be the size of the sphere. A small sphere would force people to choose between bonuses and options of tactical positioning, but forcing choices can be a good thing. There'd be scope for a warfare link that increased the range of other links too.
    Pattern Clarc
    Citeregis
    #130 - 2012-11-06 16:42:40 UTC
    MadMuppet wrote:
    The Claymore is going to become a missile boat? That sucks.

    The beginning of the end of all split weapons?
    That is literally the end of suck.

    Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
    ReK42
    Dreddit
    Test Alliance Please Ignore
    #131 - 2012-11-06 16:42:59 UTC
    Welp.
    Bloodpetal
    Tir Capital Management Group
    #132 - 2012-11-06 16:43:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
    CCP Fozzie wrote:


    Harvey James wrote:

    An AOE range would be the way too go and make all CS brawlers


    However, let's throw a brainstorming concept out here just for fun: What if gang links worked a lot like warp disruption spheres? Smile


    I like this

    Ok, I do not think you need the Squad>Wing>Fleet command hierarchy for bonuses to apply. I mean, it's a nice idea, but it's a pain in the ass more times than anything at all, really, seriously when it comes to who you want to be able to warp a fleet while who you want to give bonuses. Assigning wing boosters and stuff is annoying and if you move it to on-grid boosting, you then have to juggle boosters if you lose your booster, and it's impossible to do in large scale fights.

    Maybe for the basic leadership skill based % boosts, those can require a hierarchy, but for gang boosting, I dont think you need the hierarchy requirement there at all.

    Then, yes, make it an AOE affect and set the range to something appropriate (50-100km?). Or, better yet, you can make certain ships give bonuses to gang boosting range instead of affect (i.e. so t3 gets a range bonus to command link range, while T2 gets an effect bonus - or whatever).

    This would make me happy. The range makes sense, the bonuses will be better managed, and so on. Having multiple boosting ships on the field at the same time will be effective and not require juggling command positions in the middle of something stupid going on - and it makes the whole system a lot smoother and effective.

    Where I am.
    Melina Lin
    Universal Frog
    #133 - 2012-11-06 16:43:16 UTC
    On the matter of Ferox:

    14 inches mate! 14 inches and you want to make it a cowardly sniper? A sub-par sniper of all things?

    *stares disapprovingly*
    Harvey James
    The Sengoku Legacy
    #134 - 2012-11-06 16:50:55 UTC
    Also removing command processors would be nice although if we have the links as an AOE then maybe they wouldn't use them as they would need tank but still its much like micro shield mods they aren't needed and dont get used much.

    T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

    ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

    Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
    Irregessa
    Obfuscation and Reflections
    #135 - 2012-11-06 16:53:03 UTC
    Quote:
    With the way nested skill requirements work in EVE, it also means that you will still be able to fly an Apocalypse even if you don’t have the Amarr Battlecruiser skill trained at 4 after the change. It won’t matter as long as you have the Amarr Battleship skill at the proper level.


    Um, isn't one of the facets of tiericide is that you just need level 1 of the appropriate skill to fly that category of ships (i.e. Amarr Battleship I for all the Amarr battleships)? If so, the bolded sentence makes no sense, unless the appropriate level is I.
    CCP Fozzie
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #136 - 2012-11-06 16:56:16 UTC
    Irregessa wrote:
    Quote:
    With the way nested skill requirements work in EVE, it also means that you will still be able to fly an Apocalypse even if you don’t have the Amarr Battlecruiser skill trained at 4 after the change. It won’t matter as long as you have the Amarr Battleship skill at the proper level.


    Um, isn't one of the facets of tiericide is that you just need level 1 of the appropriate skill to fly that category of ships (i.e. Amarr Battleship I for all the Amarr battleships)? If so, the bolded sentence makes no sense, unless the appropriate level is I.


    The appropriate level is 1 :)

    Game Designer | Team Five-0

    Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
    Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
    Takeshi Yamato
    Ministry of War
    Amarr Empire
    #137 - 2012-11-06 16:59:23 UTC
    CCP Fozzie

    What's the plan for the drone Prophecy exactly? Is it going to be a Harbinger with less damage from lasers and more damage from drones? Or something unique?
    Dracko Malus
    Messerschmitt Vertrieb und Logistik
    #138 - 2012-11-06 16:59:24 UTC
    Wait a minute, you currently need racial cruiser 3 to get in a BC. But frigate 4 for a Cruiser.

    Doesn't it make more sense to transfer the whole range up or down a notch to the same level?

    Frigate 3 for Destroyer
    Destroyer 3 for Cruiser
    Cruiser 3 for BattleCruiser
    Battlecruiser 3 for Battleship
    BattleShip 3 and Capitals 3 for Dread/Carrier
    Carrier 3 for SuperCarrier
    Not sure what to do with Titan Skill though but I think Capital Ship 5 for Titan is fine.

    Carriers and/or Dread to 3 wouldn't really make sense. Dread would perhaps be a choice, but Carrier with Drone interfacing 5 doesn't really as Titans don't have drones anymore.

    I already have the solution for the "lack of skills" or "training" time complaint for the capitals.. just add the requirements for Jumpskills currently required for the BlackOps to the Capitals. That makes most sense.

    So Jump Drive Operation 5 & Jump Drive calibration 4.
    I cringe whenever I hear someone ask for a cyno with Jump Drive Calibration 3.

    Yes, training into a different race Capital once you've gotten into the first onewill be shorter, but I don't really see a problem in that. As long as you've trained for the actually useful capital skills which BS5 really isn't.
    Perhaps adding Large Capital Turret for each race to level 5 a pre-req for Dreads, and Fighters to 3/4 or something for Carriers?

    Tess La'Coil's loveslave.
    Marlona Sky
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #139 - 2012-11-06 17:03:56 UTC
    CCP Fozzie,

    Is there any plans to completely change information links to something more useful? Currently shield, armor and speed links help every ship. 99% of the time players will choose one of those three over information bonuses every day of the week and twice on Sunday. The current fleet hierarchy only sees real use of bonuses in the fleet and wing command spots. Which is tank and skirmish. Would changing the info bonuses to be bonuses to drones, which 90% of all ships in the game have, be an option?

    Also I am one of the 7 with max information bonuses on T3 and command ships. Blink
    Sheynan
    Lighting the blight
    #140 - 2012-11-06 17:04:10 UTC
    \o/ down with the boost overlords \O/


    \O/