These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cpt Gobla
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#681 - 2012-11-08 16:09:15 UTC
I do have one question,

many of these changes seem to rely on shield vs armor tanking being balanced as well as active vs passive tanking also being balanced.

When would those changes be coming?

Because even at the cruiser level those imbalances are noticeable, though not to quite such an extent as with BCs and BSs where they make entire hulls sub-optimal.

It seems rather odd to balance ships with the express purpose of making sure each and everyone is viable whilst having underlying balance issues that make several of those ships unviable delayed until later.

To put it more simply, what's the use in balancing a ship that's going to remain unbalanced anyway until the tanking situation is resolved? So can we expect those tanking changes to come at the same time as the BC changes?
nikon56
UnSkilleD Inc.
#682 - 2012-11-08 16:17:53 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
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

to be honnest, i think one shall at least have BC4 before training BS
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#683 - 2012-11-08 17:08:15 UTC  |  Edited by: I'm Down
Grath Telkin wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

I'm not really seeing the advantage of separating bonuses. As the plan stands one can simply change clones and links and you have a new fully bonused set of links without changing ships while also having a choice of weapons systems which will be more relevant if/when the changes come that force boosters to be on grid.


Ok, ask yourself this: Not many trained for an Eos (CCPs own words not mine), CCP are making a drive to get people into hulls that aren't used, after this change, what motivates you to train for the commanship (Eos)nobody uses now when a Damnation can do the same thing?

EDIT: It feels like the idea of haviing multiple bonuses was to make the ships more attractive to use, like the Eos could run a mixture of Info and Armor links, thus people MIGHT start fielding them in fleets, but if you must still pick only a single set, then of course you'd pick the armor set, and the Damnation would be the preffered choice because of its more robust tank if it needs to be on grid.



More on Graths point. Why would you ever pick an Eos with 6 lows and no resist bonus to get the exact same link options as a Damnation with 7 lows, an armor bonus, a resist bonus and all that knowing it's future is going to be on grid fighting? If anything, it obsoletes the EOS more.

What would make more sense in the grand scheme of things is to:

1) make fleet commands more combat able.... I actually agree with the devs there.
2) Add more fittings space
3) Add more defense since they're going to be the first target called in every fight on grid.
4) Make the Fleet command give the omni bonuses to one type of warfare up to 6 links (trash the damn command link)
5) Make the Field command get only 1 link (AGAIN, TRASH THE DAMN COMMAND LINK TO PREVENT MORE) but, make the link do 5% or higher on a particular bonus so that there is a reward to that one particular link option while being combat able. This means at best, a fleet could get all 3 armor links at a higher bonus... but couldn't also get other racial links like skirmish.

6) keep racial bonuses so that there is reward for choice.
7) Fix the Gallente/Minmatar so that they can cross connect with both armor and shield fleets more appropriately to provide more use options. (This probably means redistributing slots so that both get more mids and lows)
8) Possibly go back and add in 1 or 2 more fitting slots on every ship so that they can diversity more readily. One of the biggest problems now is that a lot of people don't want to fly a command ship that can't do jack **** when running 6 links. This is where more fittings and slots come into play, particularly mids/lows.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#684 - 2012-11-08 17:19:09 UTC
Skill point loss is dumb. Plain and simple. Get rid of clone upgrade costs. The only thing it does is punish older players for playing the game and discouraging players from flying edge-of-the-seat ships that die a lot resulting in pod loss.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#685 - 2012-11-08 17:23:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
Well presumably CS will get an 18/19 fitting slots being the T2 variant as atm CS only get 17 slots and tier2 bc's get 18.
Except minnie CS that have 18 slots? god know's why :P

A note on links besides exchanging the info for skirmish on the gal CS as they are the second speed race and need it and amarr are more disruption based.

Maybe add a new drone based link boosting all the drone stats to varying degrees and add them as options to the EOS and legion.
replacing the skirmish link on the legion and EOS to add more racial flavour and give people a reason to use the EOS and drone fleets in general.
That and drones really need a overhaul and this would help differentiate things a little more.

Also on the idea of AOE links i assume the info link would need more range to be useful on e-war ships but i would propose a strength penalty to balance the extra range.
I would encourage the armour and siege links to be the shortest ranged links as they focus on buffing tanks which is a brawling fighting style.
And the skirmish could be inbetween as speed ships will be spread out more and will have a harder time staying in range and would have a more moderate penalty for the slight extra 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
Ravcharas
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#686 - 2012-11-08 17:25:58 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
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.X


Part of why Eve combat is exciting is because it doesn't happen at the drop of a hat, there's no instancing arenas so you need to actually go out of your way to pick a fight. But comparing how long it can take to get a fight to how quick it is over, I wouldn't mind a slight cut to dps overall.

Holy One wrote:
I really don't think anyone wants to see a BS IV requirement for caps. Srsly. Its bad enough as it is.


I want more carriers out there. And JDO5 is enough of a wait.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#687 - 2012-11-08 17:33:30 UTC

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


Ok thanks Fozzie for the fast response, it sounds like you guys had already thought of exactly what we saw when we looked at the proposed changes.



Sgt Napalm wrote:

I am perfectly happy with the current mindlink mechanic.

The current mindlink mechanic is in fact fine with the current set of command ships, however the proposed changes to commandships are pretty intense and reworking the mindlinks or the way they interact with the command modules is the only real way to make the actual changes workable.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#688 - 2012-11-08 17:33:54 UTC
nikon56 wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
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

to be honnest, i think one shall at least have BC4 before training BS

While that is true for most, it is not true for all, but there is no excuse to not train them up properly before hand, it is still an interesting effect that might cause problems.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Mordo Mordaeus
Hawaiian Huulajuice
#689 - 2012-11-08 17:40:06 UTC
And why am I surprised?
As always mostly nerfs on things that actually makes this game fun to play...
You dear ccp... You suck...

Mordo Mordaeus Pirate and humanitarian.. ;)
Ravcharas
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#690 - 2012-11-08 17:40:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Ravcharas
Marlona Sky wrote:
Skill point loss is dumb. Plain and simple. Get rid of clone upgrade costs. The only thing it does is punish older players for playing the game and discouraging players from flying edge-of-the-seat ships that die a lot resulting in pod loss.

I agree. Upgrading a clone to keep skillpoints is not really a choice, or at least not a very interesting one, it's just another mandatory cost following podding.

Instead let players upgrade their clone to provide a benefit. ("Eifyr and Co. presents the Speed Daemon mk. 1 grade clone package, 1% bonus to ship velocity!" or whatever) If you want to turn it into a decent isk sink you make the upgrades run out so you have to renew them periodically if you want to keep enjoying the benefit. That would also get some isk out of clones in highsec, where podding is rare.

If you desperately have to, skillpoints could still be a factor in determining the price of upgrades, so that the best upgrades gets exponentially more expensive as pilots age.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#691 - 2012-11-08 17:49:10 UTC
Ravcharas wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
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.X


Part of why Eve combat is exciting is because it doesn't happen at the drop of a hat, there's no instancing arenas so you need to actually go out of your way to pick a fight. But comparing how long it can take to get a fight to how quick it is over, I wouldn't mind a slight cut to dps overall.

That's right, finding a fight takes quite a while - that's why I prefer to have fun during the said fight and actually KILL ships instead of just watching their endless lifebars slowly getting redish.

But you personally can drop some damage mods and put even more fugly shield extenders or plates. While those not interested in boring slugfests should have a option of fast-paced PvP, which atm is available only for cheap-ass tech1 tier3 battlecruisers.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Albert Spear
Non scholae sed vitae
#692 - 2012-11-08 18:33:38 UTC
The following is an interruption of this thread....

This is on the topic of rebalancing - but not on the topic of BattleCruisers, Battleships and other combat ships...so forgive me in advance.

When are the lowly haulers going to get some love?

The gap between haulers and freighters is worse than the gap between mining barges and exhumers was.

I would love to see a "tug" added to the hauler range -

A small ship with the ability to move jetcan sized cargo modules. The addition of each can would significantly impact speed and agility.


I would love to see a toucan - a slow, poorly flying, hauler with the ability to move 2 jet cans of cargo. (If you want to understand the logic of slow and poor flight look at the Toucan entry in Wikipedia).

I would love to see these two ships having low entry skills - with bonuses that come when you get higher skills in place - but maybe skills that come much later in the typical progression (e.g. advanced spaceship command offering the bonus for agility - but not being required to fly the ships initially).

Why? Because if you look at the real tramp ships and tugs, almost anyone can learn to pilot them well enough to use them, BUT the real professionals have decades of experience and are artists in using them.

They tend to be cheap to buy and maintain in the real world, they tend to be useful but slow, and when they are in the hands of a master, they can almost dance.

Having sailed the world for much of my life on ships, I would love to see some of that kind of thinking go into ships like this.

If there is enough interest, I will be happy to move this to another thread.

I will now return this thread to its originally scheduled discussion...

Again forgive me for the interruption

Thank you
Terra Infector Adoudel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#693 - 2012-11-08 19:33:59 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Only rational integers need apply Smile

So do I take this as meaning that if you say only had 1 hour left of BC V when the patch hits you'll lose all the training down to BC IV?
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
#694 - 2012-11-08 19:34:26 UTC
Are the racial destroyer skills getting put in on Dec. 4th or with the battlecruiser stuff?

Not today spaghetti.
Lors Dornick
Kallisti Industries
#695 - 2012-11-08 19:40:33 UTC
Sexy Cakes wrote:
Are the racial destroyer skills getting put in on Dec. 4th or with the battlecruiser stuff?

No.

The changes in skills will happen, sometime, but not on Dec 4th according to Ra^h^h CCP Fozzie.

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.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#696 - 2012-11-08 19:41:22 UTC
Sexy Cakes wrote:
Are the racial destroyer skills getting put in on Dec. 4th or with the battlecruiser stuff?

When everything is done.
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
#697 - 2012-11-08 19:42:43 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Sexy Cakes wrote:
Are the racial destroyer skills getting put in on Dec. 4th or with the battlecruiser stuff?

When everything is done.


Right caught that part but my question was aimed at the destroyer skills getting split into racial skills and whether or not they are coming with the Dec. 4th patch.

Not today spaghetti.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#698 - 2012-11-08 19:47:49 UTC
Sexy Cakes wrote:
Right caught that part but my question was aimed at the destroyer skills getting split into racial skills and whether or not they are coming with the Dec. 4th patch.
…and the answer is: when everything is done.

It was pretty much the first thing said in the blog; it was the first thing clarified by the devs in this thread; and it's been clarified on numerous occasions since.
Liol Wongsta
The Arrow Project
#699 - 2012-11-08 19:49:48 UTC
Bubanni wrote:


For people who use hard to probe t3 links, I personly think the each link should increase the signature by 10% per link, perhaps decrease strenght of Sensor strenght by 5-10% at the same time (this is a huge nerf to safespot links, as even a modest prober would be able to find them then while their links are active, also it makes sense that the links would increase the signature as it sends out "stuff" into space)



Much too elegant and sensible a solution to be taken seriously by CCP. Combined with the suggestion of no boosts within 10km of a pos shield (I'd actually argue 30km), it'd make off grid boosting actually dangerous.

10% sig increase per link (15% for t2 links) would make my 8 x t2 link Claymore stupidly easy to scan down and kill, but not actually reduce the usefulness of a ship / fit I spent quite a bit of time training for.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#700 - 2012-11-08 19:50:37 UTC
Sexy Cakes wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Sexy Cakes wrote:
Are the racial destroyer skills getting put in on Dec. 4th or with the battlecruiser stuff?

When everything is done.


Right caught that part but my question was aimed at the destroyer skills getting split into racial skills and whether or not they are coming with the Dec. 4th patch.


We'll do the destroyer and battlecruiser skills in one batch, after the BC and BS rebalance is done.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie