These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
#761 - 2012-11-09 13:40:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Claire Raynor
Gypsio III wrote:
Lord Eremet wrote:


*Rohk - Does people really use it in PVP, seriously?


Nah



"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.

•Hurricane: counting CCP Fozzie’s adjustment to its fitting, the cruiser boost should reduce its over-the-top versatility, especially if battlecruisers slot layout is altered to 17 as mentioned above."

Really interesting Kill Board Stats. But the Dev blog suggests the Drake is OK - But the Hurricane is "Over the Top". When the Drake is the number 1 PvP ship by almost 60%.

Are missiles - "Being looked into by CCP Fozzie" - being improved or nerfed? - I thought they needed improved? What's the fix here then?

And where are we likely to lose the Module Slot on the Drake and the Hurricane?
Hard King
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#762 - 2012-11-09 13:47:46 UTC
regarding skills :

with my current skills i can fly every cruiser in the game.

lets assume:

gallente frig: 4
caldari frig: 4
minmatar frig: 4
amarr frig : 4

gallente cruiser:4
caldari cruiser :4
minmatar curiser : 4
amarr cruiser : 4

destroyers : 1

so after the changes i will still be able to fly every cruiser which means i will have magicaly trained every racial destroyer skill to 4 ?
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
#763 - 2012-11-09 14:08:43 UTC
Pattern Clarc wrote:
Your current plan for the Ferox is doomed. Short range shield brawlling is the key here.

Brutix should have a utiliy high and active armour tanking bonuses should diaf. Otherwise, please proceed.


This. With the loss of 5% shield bonus, Caldari won't have a close range battlecruiser anymore, the drake is already used at medium range in most fits and is also losing its tanking bonuses.

This will leave T2 Cruisers, T3 SC and Battleships as the only realistic option for use at close range with logistics.

"The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans 

Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#764 - 2012-11-09 14:09:43 UTC
Hard King wrote:
regarding skills :

with my current skills i can fly every cruiser in the game.

lets assume:

gallente frig: 4
caldari frig: 4
minmatar frig: 4
amarr frig : 4

gallente cruiser:4
caldari cruiser :4
minmatar curiser : 4
amarr cruiser : 4

destroyers : 1

so after the changes i will still be able to fly every cruiser which means i will have magicaly trained every racial destroyer skill to 4 ?

No. Skill requirements are bypassed according to every comment made by CCP developers since this was announced.

With that skill layout you would end up with [Racial] Destroyer 1 for every race.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs

Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#765 - 2012-11-09 14:58:56 UTC
Moonaura wrote:
Pattern Clarc wrote:
Your current plan for the Ferox is doomed. Short range shield brawlling is the key here.

Brutix should have a utiliy high and active armour tanking bonuses should diaf. Otherwise, please proceed.


This. With the loss of 5% shield bonus, Caldari won't have a close range battlecruiser anymore, the drake is already used at medium range in most fits and is also losing its tanking bonuses.

This will leave T2 Cruisers, T3 SC and Battleships as the only realistic option for use at close range with logistics.



I'd much rather see the brutix as well as the astarte retain a buffed 10% per level active bonus instead of just copy pasting bonuses seen on almost all other ships. IMO this "role" system is normalizing ships far far far too much between classes and in the end is just removing variation. I'd rather see active tanking fixed instead of just turning every ship into another copy paste fleet ship.
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#766 - 2012-11-09 15:05:01 UTC
Claire Raynor wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
Lord Eremet wrote:


*Rohk - Does people really use it in PVP, seriously?


Nah



"...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....



Already the drakes have atleast +20% HP advantage than any BC and they want to nerf the missiles. Bravo!!!
What we expecting from CCP ? They have problem with Drakes, they nerfing all missile boats becuse missile nerf. ROTFL

Harbinger with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~16000 armor (hard to fitting, need smaller med guns). 65k EHP
Brutix with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~16300 armor (hard to fitting, need smaller med guns). 61k EHP
Hurricane with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~16800 armor. 59k EHP
Drakes with 2x shield extenders +3x CDFE rigs has ~21400 shield (fitteable to HAM) 96.5K EHP
Blastil
Aideron Robotics
#767 - 2012-11-09 15:05:55 UTC
Quote:
First, let’s have a look at the disruption line, which only has one ship so far


never has two words been more subtle, yet so impactful to my soul...
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
#768 - 2012-11-09 15:21:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Claire Raynor
I was wrong
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#769 - 2012-11-09 15:58:59 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
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.


Drone command links there could be 3 distinct links that add the following:
-adds orbit velocity
-adds tracking boost
-adds shield and armour resistances

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

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#770 - 2012-11-09 15:59:36 UTC
h4kun4 wrote:
Suggestion for the Offgrid POS-Parked Command Ships:

Make all Warfare Link Modules unusable inside POS-Shield (Except Mining Links, the belt is not ne place for a Rorqual)
Standing ouside on a Safe is slightly more Dangerous than inside a POS, in warp you cant boost, so you have to burn around in the Middle of nowhere but being scaned down is still possible.

Second Suggestion:
if its possible with the grid mechanics, make it AoE to 1 AU...


This only on Grid workin is horrible for PvE boosters:
1. My Alt gets money, therefore my Mates hate me^^
2. When the AI is Changed, my alt is useless, because tanking enough in PvE and Boosting is quite hard (Get inside a Maze with a Boosting ship and new AI = Dead boosting ship) Ok, when you take logistics with you, you may survive^^
3. Incursion Boosters, God damnit my Mates will hate me for getting double money^^


Sounds like a great incentive for the other pilots to train up a boosting alt. Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#771 - 2012-11-09 16:25:23 UTC
Ribikoka wrote:
Drakes with 2x shield extenders +3x CDFE rigs has ~21400 shield (fitteable to HAM) 96.5K EHP


Your Drake is overtanked. If you really want to compare that to something compare it to dual plate Prophecy.

Replace one of the LSEs with something more useful like a target painter.
Radius Prime
Tax Evading Ass.
#772 - 2012-11-09 16:40:58 UTC
Does this mean that capital sitters will get ALL the new prerequired skills for capital ships maxed for free??????

Reopen the EVE gate so we can invade Serenity. Goons can go first.

Tzel Mayon
Perkone
Caldari State
#773 - 2012-11-09 16:51:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Tzel Mayon
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Caldari Battlecruiser V, and Minmatar Battlecruiser V


Hello ... Someone else asked the same exact question I am about to ask, on this thread about this topic... but it has been unanswered by CCP:

In the future will Faction Cruiser IV, (or Faction Cruiser III), be required for faction Battlecruiser I, and if so, will people automatically be given Faction Cruiser IV, if they already have Faction Cruiser III, and Battlecruisers I?

If this is the case, will people who have Faction Cruiser IV and Battlecruisers I be reimbursed for this training time, since other people will be getting it for free??

Thanks!!!
Il Feytid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#774 - 2012-11-09 16:53:01 UTC
CCP said like a million times now; that if you can fly it before the patch, you can fly it after. Why do people keep asking over and over and over and over.... Ugh
Tzel Mayon
Perkone
Caldari State
#775 - 2012-11-09 17:02:40 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
CCP said like a million times now; that if you can fly it before the patch, you can fly it after. Why do people keep asking over and over and over and over.... Ugh


The question is not if you can fly it after... Please reread.

The question is if the requirement for Faction Battlecruiser I will be Faction Cruiser III, or Faction Cruiser IV... And if so, will people be given Faction Cruiser IV for free. And if that is the case, will people who already have faction cruiser IV be reimbursed for that skill, since others will be getting it for free.

Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
#776 - 2012-11-09 17:15:25 UTC
Given this blog and the lack of new blue tags in the cruiser/destroyer feedback threads. Does this mean that the listed stats for those ships are now locked in for Dec 4th and feedback is no longer desired?
Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
Parasitic Legion.
#777 - 2012-11-09 17:33:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
Tzel Mayon wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
CCP said like a million times now; that if you can fly it before the patch, you can fly it after. Why do people keep asking over and over and over and over.... Ugh


The question is not if you can fly it after... Please reread.

The question is if the requirement for Faction Battlecruiser I will be Faction Cruiser III, or Faction Cruiser IV... And if so, will people be given Faction Cruiser IV for free. And if that is the case, will people who already have faction cruiser IV be reimbursed for that skill, since others will be getting it for free.


The answer you are looking for is, if you have racial cruisers 3 and battle cruisers 1 then post change you will have racial cruisers 3 and racial battle cruisers 1. If you wanted to train a new racial battle cruiser you would need racial cruisers 4 and racial battle cruisers 1

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

Lord Calus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#778 - 2012-11-09 17:56:37 UTC
I am still not seeing any dev post explaining how they plan to bring armour tanking back in line with shield tanking.

As it stands, and by dev admission, the problem with anything under capships is the tanking difference. So what is a theoretical plan?

All of the theorycrafting and hoping and dreaming will not account for anything until we get something besides a vague admission that there is a problem.

So, Raivi, what IS the problem?
How are you going to attempt to fix it?
When can we expect the fix?
Why are ships being iterated upon before the underlying mechanics of the tank + weapon systems?
Was the release of the ASB the single worst idea in quite a while?
How did that make it through playtest and QA?
Why has it taken nearly a near to be addressed?
Why do you love matari ships so much?
When will amarr ships get a useful 3rd bonus?
Can I quit asking questions now?
Ravcharas
Infinite Point
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#779 - 2012-11-09 18:00:21 UTC
Tzel Mayon wrote:

If this is the case, will people who have Faction Cruiser IV and Battlecruisers I be reimbursed for this training time, since other people will be getting it for free??

Why should you be reimbursed for your training time? You haven't lost anything.
Radius Prime
Tax Evading Ass.
#780 - 2012-11-09 18:06:32 UTC
Ravcharas wrote:
Tzel Mayon wrote:

If this is the case, will people who have Faction Cruiser IV and Battlecruisers I be reimbursed for this training time, since other people will be getting it for free??

Why should you be reimbursed for your training time? You haven't lost anything.


You lose compared to the others. Hence why I asked the question about capital sitters. If they get the new prereq skills for free they would become full fledged capital pilots instead of sitters overnight. Sucks for people who did put the time in to train those support skills on their capital toon.

Reopen the EVE gate so we can invade Serenity. Goons can go first.