These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#661 - 2012-11-08 12:42:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Normal implants give a small enough bonus that you may be incentivized to use the right clone with the right ship but you're not crippled if you don't. We don't want committing to a jumpclone to lock you out of 3/4 of your role options for the duration.


A bit off topic but that is kind of a problem with the clone system as a whole, with regards to implants. Flying shield ships with armor implants wouldn't do you much good and if you can't use your jump clone (due to recent use) then you might decide to just not participate in a fleet operation on that occasion.

You should add "swap clones" that allow you to switch between clones freely, as long as you are docked in the station that contains your clones.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
#662 - 2012-11-08 12:47:36 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

So mindlinks providing a modest bonus would be fine, but the bonus is too big a part of the overal picture at the moment, we'd like to move some of that bonus elsewhere.



Don't get me wrong I'm not a games developer, but surely the easy option is to nerf mindlinks and boost bonuses?

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli
Maeltstome
Ten Thousand Days
#663 - 2012-11-08 13:05:15 UTC
Herren Varno wrote:
Restricting the use of offgrid boosting will be bad for the smallest scale of pvp (i.e. most of the pvp in Low-sec).


No, it will be good. No more tengu's AB'ing at 2.5k/s with the mighty unscannable loki giving them mega buffs to speed and web range.

Solo pvp should be solo - using a second char to multibox should be harder since you have 2 chars to organize. Right now having a second chart just increases the effectiveness of your primary char by using off-grid boosting.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#664 - 2012-11-08 14:01:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
DeBingJos wrote:
I wonder if I'm the only one that regrets the tier 3 battlecruisers are in the game. Imo the game was better off without them.

I think so as well, but they may actually become balanced over time.

Also, their initial success have been yet another proof of how absurdly overtanked EVE is. DPS/tank ratio of tier3 BC is what all ships should have. Or close to it. And it had been that way before CCP introduced current rigs (favouring tank over damage) and buffed HPs by several times.

It's really sad that we have no other options for this type of gaming, though. A ship of around 1 bil with corresponding increase in stats would be plain awesome. Instead we're stuck with overtanked faction/pirate battleships. FFS, I don't need this overtank and these extra EHPs! X

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Bercelak Cadwaladr
Perkone
Caldari State
#665 - 2012-11-08 14:17:13 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Bercelak Cadwaladr wrote:
Second: Skill times.
It is already extremely hard for new players to get into BCs and bigger and being able to fly them with a decent fit.


its not that long....


Bercelak Cadwaladr wrote:
With changing the requirements (BS needs BC, Cruiser needs Destroyer), this time is already increased. If a new player then wants to fly pirate BSs too, this time is increased even further, because they need the Dessy and BC skills of that race too now.
As i see it, time to get a BS as fast as possible (skipping Dessy and BC) is doubled; not considering implants/remappings and going to BS 3, which is the least necessary to get going, it's from ~9 to ~18 days and for pirate BSs from ~18 to ~36 days.
This may seem small, especially compared to the other skills necessary for a decent fir, but for a new player this is huge, considering he is introduced with skills just taking a few hours, and makes the start into the eve universe much more disencouraging.
I think the way to BS shouldn't take much longer than now, which could be accomplished by either reducing the requirements (BC just needs Cruiser 3 etc.), reducing the trainingtimes of the racial Dessy and BC skills or reducing the ship trainingtimes in general (e.g. reducing all ship skill multipliers, though which would lead to "unspent" skillpoints for players already having the skills).


sorry bro, in the grand scheme of EVE, 36 days is a walk in the park. I trained for 9 months before I ever touched a battleship.


As i said, it seems for new players like a lot of time. I have a char in training for BS's for 5 months now and still have 2 months to go (if i don't have to get the Dessy and BC skills up within that time, since that are another 24 days). It just makes it harder for people who know that they want to fly bigger hulls, even though they can't properly fit them and further increases the 7 to 9 months to be able to "properly" fly them (e.g. for nullsec ratting).

CCP Fozzie wrote:

And we don't have a date to give you on the skill changes but here's what I can say:
  • It won't happen in Retribution
  • It won't happen until we release the BC and BS changes
  • We can't commit to exactly when those changes will release yet
  • But I have an internal estimate about when we'll get it done, and that estimate makes me smug out
  • So if you're choosing between training those skills either sooner or later, choose sooner



I'm reading out of that that it's at least not happening within the next 2 months (assuming BC and BS changes aren't ready within one month after retribution).
But since this is a relative small change and that you already seem to have a good idea what to do, it probably could be implemented within a week (if concentrated on).
So i'm asking for an ETA for the BC and BS changes now, giving us at least a timespan within which we should get the skills up so we can adjust our skillplans according to that (and maybe make it possible to reach our short term goals before getting the skills).
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#666 - 2012-11-08 14:27:27 UTC
Are there any plans to rebalance T1 industrial ships or do you feel they are fine?

Something I have always thought would be fun to be able to do with the Dominix is to be able to use fighter drones with it. IMO this could be achieved by adding a secondary drone bay on the ship that could only hold fighters, thus resulting in the Dominix having, a 375m3 drone bay and a 25000m3 Fighter bay. Also the fighters should be unbonused from the hull.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Ethan Revenant
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
#667 - 2012-11-08 14:32:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Ethan Revenant
CCP Fozzie wrote:
So about mindlinks..

  • The fact that they are such a huge portion of the effectiveness of a booster isn't something we like
  • The fact that people are forced to use multiple jump clones or pop a new expensive implant every time they want to switch link types isn't something we like
  • The fact that they make the use of multiple gang link types at once so much worse isn't something we like
  • The exact way to deal with these problems isn't something we have hammered out yet, but we'll keep you updated

I'm a little confused. Mindlinks are probably the epitome of specialization, which y'all seem to like, but now you want them to be more generalized? And...we don't like command ships inherently being able to boost super-well, but by transferring the power away from the mindlink, now everyone will do it without having to commit to an implant?

Make no mistake, if mindlinks developed the ability to boost multiple things overnight I'd be pretty happy, and if the skills kept the status quo then I'd bite the bullet and train the skills, but I'm just puzzled by where you're trying to go with the specialization/versatility dichotomy.

Maybe I'm kind of bittervet about the "ohnoes, I have to jump clone to switch implants!" problem because w-space, though.
Maeltstome
Ten Thousand Days
#668 - 2012-11-08 14:33:00 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
DeBingJos wrote:
I wonder if I'm the only one that regrets the tier 3 battlecruisers are in the game. Imo the game was better off without them.

I think so as well, but they may actually become balanced over time.

Also, their initial success have been yet another proof of how absurdly overtanked EVE is. DPS/tank ratio of tier3 BC is what all ships should have. Or close to it. And it had been that way before CCP introduced current rigs (favouring tank over damage) and buffed HPs by several times.

It's really sad that we have no other options for this type of gaming, though. A ship of around 1 bil with corresponding increase in stats would be plain awesome. Instead we're stuck with overtanked faction/pirate battleships. FFS, I don't need this overtank and these extra EHPs! X


I think they where a much better introduction rather than other ships. Primarily jump freighters and marauders. T3 ships im still un-decided on due to missing the entire first year of their release.
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#669 - 2012-11-08 14:33:37 UTC
I agree - Tier 3 battlecruisers has not made the game any better...
CCP's attempt to hide the imbalance is just a slap in the face towards anything but bombers hehe

But CCP still hit the nail on the head in 1 case:
Creating a viable sniping platform
(cheaper than battleships and mobile enough to get away with warping around)

Unfortunately they haven't realized it and instead want to focus on the dps role as attack class where you already have 2 competent attack/combat class alternatives for each race? What?

Tier 3 ships are perfect for bombardment class battlecruisers and currently the best choice for making sniping viable again. Anything else will just make it another gank mobile to help campers, blobbers and griefers...

  • Nerf the velocity to match other battlecruisers
  • Nerf the scan resolution to match other battlecruisers (battleships have a bad scan resolution for a reason)
  • Nerf agility/mass a bit (just enough to make ceptors able to catch them before warping away from a bad landing)
  • Focus on the long range alpha guns and deter people from short range weapons
  • Bonus towards dps and signature reduction with a role penalty to RoF can do it
  • Remove drone bay on Talos
  • Compensate drawbacks with more hitpoints

Pinky
Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#670 - 2012-11-08 14:34:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Warde Guildencrantz
Rek Seven wrote:

You should add "swap clones" that allow you to switch between clones freely, as long as you are docked in the station that contains your clones.


Do that. It's really a pain for corps that want to go kill stuff in null, jumping into empty clones, then can't jump into their standard fleet ops implants for non-null after an entire day (meaning after the time an op would start the next day)

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us
Holy One
Privat Party
#671 - 2012-11-08 14:40:40 UTC
I really don't think anyone wants to see a BS IV requirement for caps. Srsly. Its bad enough as it is.

:)
Voxinian
#672 - 2012-11-08 14:44:31 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
With the Scorpion split into a separate line, there's room for more battleships, isn't there? Like a tracking disruption BS? :D


I hope the scorpion will be a bit less glass as it is now, as for defense/hp's it is like a T1 cruiser, but then at half the speed. And you can't fill up the midslots with shield modules cos you need them for ECM modules.
Sgt Napalm
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#673 - 2012-11-08 14:52:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Napalm
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Sinzor Aumer wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
  • The fact that people are forced to use multiple jump clones or pop a new expensive implant every time they want to switch link types isn't something we like
  • The fact that they make the use of multiple gang link types at once so much worse isn't something we like
    • Why?


    Normal implants give a small enough bonus that you may be incentivized to use the right clone with the right ship but you're not crippled if you don't. We don't want committing to a jumpclone to lock you out of 3/4 of your role options for the duration.

    So mindlinks providing a modest bonus would be fine, but the bonus is too big a part of the overal picture at the moment, we'd like to move some of that bonus elsewhere.


    I hope you really think this through before changing mindlinks to be less useful. There is/was a high bar of entry to be able to use mind links. The inconvince of jump clones is what separated a true command ship pilot over folks just flying the hull. I am perfectly happy with the current mindlink mechanic. Addressing off grid boosting would nullify a significant amount of the complaints before having to resort to the useful mindlinks.

    Ethan Revenant wrote:


    I'm a little confused. Mindlinks are probably the epitome of specialization, which y'all seem to like, but now you want them to be more generalized? And...we don't like command ships inherently being able to boost super-well, but by transferring the power away from the mindlink, now everyone will do it without having to commit to an implant?

    Make no mistake, if mindlinks developed the ability to boost multiple things overnight I'd be pretty happy, and if the skills kept the status quo then I'd bite the bullet and train the skills, but I'm just puzzled by where you're trying to go with the specialization/versatility dichotomy.

    Maybe I'm kind of bittervet about the "ohnoes, I have to jump clone to switch implants!" problem because w-space, though.


    This
    Archinquisitor
    KarmaFleet
    Goonswarm Federation
    #674 - 2012-11-08 14:59:11 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Intaki Kauyon wrote:
    CCP: Would like a more clear representation of the BC/Destroyer skill changes.

    Quote:
    Reimbursement details:
    •Let us repeat again: if you could fly it before, you will be able to do so after the change. Technically it means if you are able to fly an Oracle by having Amarr Cruisers 3 and Battlecruisers 3, we will remove the Battlecruisers skill from your character and give you Amarr Battlecruisers at 3. If you had Battlecruisers at 3 and Caldari Cruisers 3 instead, you would not receive Amarr Battlecruisers but the Caldari Battlecruisers skill at 3 instead. The same principle work with the Destroyers skill.
    • 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.

    With this in mind, it becomes quite obvious to focus on training the Destroyers and Battlecruisers skills before the change to get the maximum return effect. We highly recommend you start doing so now.


    That's all fine and well. But while you are warning us on what to train now, please help us understand the change. You talk about BC skills translating based on the race you own via Cruiser or Frigates, but you don't say how that translates based on reverse. For instance:

    If I have currently:

    BC to V
    Gall Cruiser to V
    but Caldari Cruiser to IV

    Do I get each one of the 4 BC new skills to V just becuase of current BC is V, or do I get:

    Gall BC to V
    but
    Caldari BC to IV

    ?

    In that case you would get both racial battlecruiser skills to V.
    You'll get exactly the same level of bonus to your ships after the skill change as you did before it, and since you only need the cruiser skills to 3 to fly those BCs and getting cruiser higher doesn't give bonuses to the BCs, any cruiser skill levels beyond 3 don't matter.

    Antoine Jordan wrote:
    So if I have Battlecruisers V and Amarr Cruiser III, after the patch I'll have Amarr Battlecruiser V, right? So that I can fly them to the same effectiveness I could before the patch.

    This is correct.


    Hooray and thank you!!!

    This is the clarification we have been waiting for since you started talking about destroyer/BC skill changes.
    Nice one, no mention of "subject to change". Therefore quoted for eternity.
    Voxinian
    #675 - 2012-11-08 15:01:25 UTC
    Besides from the revision of ships can please also something be done about ship insurances for faction and T2 ships. With T1 ships you can insure most ships for the 100% value, with faction and T2 ships even at max insurance you get crap in return. How about an option to insure it to a value you can set yourself. So if I want to insure a Scorpion Navy that I can insure it for 300 mil. With solo PVP I mostly fly cheap T1 ships cos you get nothing back if you lose a T2 or a faction ship.
    Garviel Tarrant
    Beyond Divinity Inc
    Shadow Cartel
    #676 - 2012-11-08 15:06:21 UTC
    The tears from linkscrubs in here please me greatly

    Get to it CCP, links need a thrashing!

    BYDI recruitment closed-ish

    Sinzor Aumer
    Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
    #677 - 2012-11-08 15:22:25 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:

    So mindlinks providing a modest bonus would be fine, but the bonus is too big a part of the overal picture at the moment, we'd like to move some of that bonus elsewhere.

    Fair enough.

    Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:
    Don't get me wrong I'm not a games developer, but surely the easy option is to nerf mindlinks and boost bonuses?

    Easy option doesnt mean right option.
    I'd better redistribute most of the bonuses to be based on the proficiency at ship. You know, those 2% and 3% are so tiny - I dont even understand what's the buzz all about it. It's not even worth effort to skill for Command ships 4 and Orca 4, leave alone to 5.
    Miregar Shakor
    Brutor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #678 - 2012-11-08 15:51:16 UTC
    Bouh Revetoile wrote:
    I explain : you need BS5 to learn carrier skill, though, when carrier is injected, do you still need BS5 to only train it ?


    Yes, you do.

    I was training Covert Ops IV when I got podded, without having an up-to-date clone. The Skill Clone Penalty was Electronic Upgrades from V to IV. My training for Covert Ops IV stopped, with this in the log:

    [ 2010.10.24 09:32:59 ] (info) To learn that skill requires having already learned the following skills: Electronics Upgrades : Level 5.
    Tippia
    Sunshine and Lollipops
    #679 - 2012-11-08 15:54:58 UTC
    Miregar Shakor wrote:
    Bouh Revetoile wrote:
    I explain : you need BS5 to learn carrier skill, though, when carrier is injected, do you still need BS5 to only train it ?


    Yes, you do.

    I was training Covert Ops IV when I got podded, without having an up-to-date clone. The Skill Clone Penalty was Electronic Upgrades from V to IV. My training for Covert Ops IV stopped, with this in the log:

    [ 2010.10.24 09:32:59 ] (info) To learn that skill requires having already learned the following skills: Electronics Upgrades : Level 5.
    \o/ Finally, some empirical data!
    Excellent to know — aside from the “don't need to fly” bit, it's always been a bit hazy how it works for the skill training.
    Omnathious Deninard
    University of Caille
    Gallente Federation
    #680 - 2012-11-08 16:06:48 UTC
    Miregar Shakor wrote:
    Bouh Revetoile wrote:
    I explain : you need BS5 to learn carrier skill, though, when carrier is injected, do you still need BS5 to only train it ?


    Yes, you do.

    I was training Covert Ops IV when I got podded, without having an up-to-date clone. The Skill Clone Penalty was Electronic Upgrades from V to IV. My training for Covert Ops IV stopped, with this in the log:

    [ 2010.10.24 09:32:59 ] (info) To learn that skill requires having already learned the following skills: Electronics Upgrades : Level 5.

    Won't this same thing apply when trying to train skills after the battle cruisers and destroyers skills are split up? Ex can to continue to train battleships without first training battle cruisers up to 4

    If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.