These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
jonnykefka
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
#161 - 2012-11-06 17:24:00 UTC
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 that general idea, with one key detail: Inverse relationship of radius and power.

I don't mean that you can necessarily select to boost over a smaller radius to give bigger bonuses (though that might also be interesting, with scripts for example), but generally speaking, if you made it like bubbles but the bubble had a 250km radius, then the rebalanced bonus strength would be fine (as much as it is fine for off-grid boosting). If the bubble had a much smaller radius, say on par with warp disruption bubbles, then the bonuses should be increased, because it introduces a lot more vulnerability to the boosting ship and the fleet as a whole. It would require much more coordination to stay within the bonused sphere, and in short-range fleets it would bring the boosting ship much closer to the enemy neuts/webs/painhurtydeath.

Actually, the idea of being able to script links so that they apply over a much smaller radius but give greater bonuses is fairly appealing, and would probably introduce some really interesting emergent tactics at the level of ship positioning rather than fits/fleet comps.

Also, if you didn't see what I said about tech 3s earlier (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2145850#post2145850) I would really appreciate some insight into how this fits into the idea of making tech 3s more versatile as opposed to more specialized tech 2 ships.
DenForX
Resource Extraction Partners
#162 - 2012-11-06 17:26:08 UTC
Ok, so if you are going to kill generic skills and have racial specific ship skills for each ship class, ok. Are you going to reduce the multiplier on them since each skill will be less individually useful? Doesn't need to be a lot mind you but really, since you are taking away substantially from the skill's usefulness, you should consider reducing it's training requirement slightly.

Also:

Quote:
Changing skill requirements for capital ships from Racial Battleships 5 to 4, but introducing or increasing other skills to keep the same overall training time requirements


What the heck is the point with this? Add some other inane skill to what is already a long long slog. Not only do you have a new class of weapons to train, ship training, modules to train now let's tease with 'You won't need BS to 5 anymore but hey, you still won't save any time cause we are going to add something different.' That just seems puerile, stop it.
Dracko Malus
Messerschmitt Vertrieb und Logistik
#163 - 2012-11-06 17:26:36 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


I like the idea, but feel a bit unsure how this would affect small ships burning out of bonus range and what happens to their HP like used to happen when jumping with Shields ships having the HP drop down basically negating the bonus just after a jump.

Tess La'Coil's loveslave.
Bantara
Dolmite Cornerstone
#164 - 2012-11-06 17:27:57 UTC
ReK42 wrote:
It's still a nerf to the boost itself {...}

Problem with gamers on the internet--"nerf" has become synonymous with "reduction".
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#165 - 2012-11-06 17:30:17 UTC
On T3 ships i really hope they are limited to T1 resists but with navy like tank/fittings and certainly no resis bonus on subs and maybe increased sig radius also as these are many of the reasons T3's have ludicrous tank.

This way they could say do the job of 2 recon/CS/logi/e-war jobs but with weaker bonus and a slightly better tank than the e-war cruisers would have.
I would definitely like to see them as support ships only rather than combat ships as they are mainly used for now but ofc they would need to be cheaper as a result to make them viable.

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
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
#166 - 2012-11-06 17:32:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Daneel Trevize
Bantara wrote:
ReK42 wrote:
It's still a nerf to the boost itself {...}

Problem with gamers on the internet--"nerf" has become synonymous with "reduction".
Er because it means that? Maybe you're confused with a reduction being a bad/negative thing for balance, or in some way implying nerfing involves instantly bringing something below average or competitive, rather than just down from too high a place?
Romvex
TURN LEFT
#167 - 2012-11-06 17:32:45 UTC
can't wait for the command ship rebalance. finally a Damnation can be flown into combat!Twisted
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#168 - 2012-11-06 17:33:13 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



I like this idea. Offgrid boosting is hokey, even for miners.

I like where the whole devblog was going.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Lors Dornick
Kallisti Industries
#169 - 2012-11-06 17:33:55 UTC
Jennifer A wrote:
Would be cool if you fixed the HORRIBLE drone UI before you made half of the ships DRONEboats.

You're sure that you want the game designers monitoring this thread getting involved in a long outstanding UI issue?

There are better targets for that (5 y celebrating Karkur, Puncturis and "don't touch that button" Tuxford seems likely) and they appear to be well aware of it.

Let's focus our balancing wrath on Ytterbium and his game designer minions ;)

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.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#170 - 2012-11-06 17:35:56 UTC
Lors Dornick wrote:
Jennifer A wrote:
Would be cool if you fixed the HORRIBLE drone UI before you made half of the ships DRONEboats.

You're sure that you want the game designers monitoring this thread getting involved in a long outstanding UI issue?

There are better targets for that (5 y celebrating Karkur, Puncturis and "don't touch that button" Tuxford seems likely) and they appear to be well aware of it.

Let's focus our balancing wrath on Ytterbium and his game designer minions ;)


designer minions lol

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
Romvex
TURN LEFT
#171 - 2012-11-06 17:37:03 UTC
War Kitten wrote:
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



I like this idea. Offgrid boosting is hokey, even for miners.

I like where the whole devblog was going.

i endorse this product and/or service
Bantara
Dolmite Cornerstone
#172 - 2012-11-06 17:37:23 UTC
Daneel Trevize wrote:
Bantara wrote:
ReK42 wrote:
It's still a nerf to the boost itself {...}

Problem with gamers on the internet--"nerf" has become synonymous with "reduction".
Er because it means that? Maybe you're confused with a reduction being a bad/negative thing for balance, or in some way implying nerfing involves instantly bringing something below average or competitive, rather than just down from too high a place?

No, it didn't. Originally, "nerf" came from Neft bats and their other toys, referring to a reduction so severe as to make something useless.
I am not confused, especially since I don't feel reductions are a bad thing for balance--you are confusing me for the other guy.
Vereesa
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#173 - 2012-11-06 17:37:52 UTC
Dracko Malus wrote:


But how would you feel if this increased skill would be shared across the capitals? Like JDO5 and JDC4? Like the BlackOps ships have?


I wouldn't mind, Jump drive operation would be a good one for it since you need it to 5 before you can train the other useful skills. It would also save the headache of zero skill carrier pilots trying to hop on a logistics chain .

Jump callibration to 4 before you could sit in the ship is a bit harsh though, although it makes sense.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#174 - 2012-11-06 17:42:12 UTC
also on the topic of fleet boosts what are the plans on them as neutral boosts in say a high sec war?

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
DenForX
Resource Extraction Partners
#175 - 2012-11-06 17:42:23 UTC
Daneel Trevize wrote:
Bantara wrote:
ReK42 wrote:
It's still a nerf to the boost itself {...}

Problem with gamers on the internet--"nerf" has become synonymous with "reduction".
Er because it means that? Maybe you're confused with a reduction being a bad/negative thing for balance, or in some way implying nerfing involves instantly bringing something below average or competitive, rather than just down from too high a place?


The history of gaming teaches us that the bolded part is exactly what happens in the large majority of games, online or not.
Dracko Malus
Messerschmitt Vertrieb und Logistik
#176 - 2012-11-06 17:42:59 UTC
Vereesa wrote:
Dracko Malus wrote:


But how would you feel if this increased skill would be shared across the capitals? Like JDO5 and JDC4? Like the BlackOps ships have?


I wouldn't mind, Jump drive operation would be a good one for it since you need it to 5 before you can train the other useful skills. It would also save the headache of zero skill carrier pilots trying to hop on a logistics chain .

Jump calibration to 4 before you could sit in the ship is a bit harsh though, although it makes sense.

Well, jump Cal 4 is only 6 days approximately of training time. Add the 20 days for jump drive operation and you're pretty much in the direction of what BattleShip 5 would have taken you to train. And it makes you able to pilot the ship a lot better as you can actually get somewhere. (+4 implants and a general remap considered in training time.)

Tess La'Coil's loveslave.
CCP Soundwave
C C P
C C P Alliance
#177 - 2012-11-06 17:43:31 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Lors Dornick wrote:
Jennifer A wrote:
Would be cool if you fixed the HORRIBLE drone UI before you made half of the ships DRONEboats.

You're sure that you want the game designers monitoring this thread getting involved in a long outstanding UI issue?

There are better targets for that (5 y celebrating Karkur, Puncturis and "don't touch that button" Tuxford seems likely) and they appear to be well aware of it.

Let's focus our balancing wrath on Ytterbium and his game designer minions ;)


designer minions lol


Technically they're my minions Cool
Forlorn Wongraven
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#178 - 2012-11-06 17:44:49 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
You mentioned technical difficulties, is this really so hard to program?


The obvious problem is the constant appearance of broken grids and/ or gridfu.

Winner ATXI , 3rd place ATXII, winner ATXIII, 2nd ATXIV - follow me on twitter: @ForlornW
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#179 - 2012-11-06 17:45:02 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
Lors Dornick wrote:
Jennifer A wrote:
Would be cool if you fixed the HORRIBLE drone UI before you made half of the ships DRONEboats.

You're sure that you want the game designers monitoring this thread getting involved in a long outstanding UI issue?

There are better targets for that (5 y celebrating Karkur, Puncturis and "don't touch that button" Tuxford seems likely) and they appear to be well aware of it.

Let's focus our balancing wrath on Ytterbium and his game designer minions ;)


designer minions lol


Technically they're my minions Cool


I bow to the minion lord Lol

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
Ranamar
Nobody in Local
Deepwater Hooligans
#180 - 2012-11-06 17:45:44 UTC
Regarding the Ferox, if we're trying to keep it advantaged as a sniper, I feel like there's really only one way to think about it. It's not a large Moa, it's a smaller, faster Rokh. The tank bonus is needed for durability, I'd expect, and giving it range/damage will make it just a smaller-gunned version of the Naga, whose problems other people have covered here. (I agree with the people saying that "Large Moa" will make one or the other insufficiently good. The same goes for the Naga comparison.)

I'd really like to see a properly snipey Ferox, now that I might actually have T2 medium rails soon, but it needs to be able to hold up under fire to compete with things like the Drake, even if that's an extreme example which may be getting a tanking nerf to go with its damage nerf.