These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
WheatGrass
#961 - 2012-12-13 06:52:05 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
....somehow missed the MULTIPLE times they said that these changes would not come with retribution but soon after....
Thank you, Grath Telkin, for taking the time to reply.

Since the forum search tool failed me, as well as others, I scanned through all 48 pages to find the following answers -straight from the horse's mouth. :-)

In post #33, Dev Fozzie stated, "Want to make this clear to everyone, the stuff in this blog is not coming on the 4th with Retribution. This blog covers some of what we are going to be working on in the beginning of next year."
Then in post #223 he stated, "I'll come right out and say the skill changes will not come on December 4th with Retribution but that you should still seriously consider taking them into account when you pick your next skills."

Hind sight tells me that December 4th 2012 was definitely not the same as "next year". :-)

Thank you, CCP Fozzie, for the heads up. Yes, I've been training the pertinent skills on two accounts. I have no idea what I'm going to do with all of those shiny new ships. I practically quit using destroyers when the Noctis came out. It's good to have options though. It will also be nice to resume the regular training program.
PavlikX
Scan Stakan
HOLD MY PROBS
#962 - 2012-12-15 12:24:33 UTC
After retribution it's obvious that entire class of BSs (t2 included) must be reworked or better say, generally buffed.
thebarry
7-2 Ronin
#963 - 2013-01-07 08:42:54 UTC  |  Edited by: thebarry
Just wanted to chime in about on-grid boosting: I hope you are much more careful in considering this as it could have some ReallyBad consequences. As it stands, a small gang can have one person dualboxing a t3 booster alt and a pvp char, and that gang will receive the same boosts as any other large fleet. If you go through with on-grid boosting this will essentially mean the blob will always have better boosts than any small gang, since no small gang is going to sacrifice an on-grid char for boosting. So not only will your small gang be outnumbered, they will be outnumbered by ships that are faster and tankier who have better point range as well. This will also cause issues with various fleet formats like arty ruptures for example(no one is going to put a claymore on grid to boost their artyrup gang). The t3 nerf is pretty harsh in and of itself, bringing a 5% boost down to 2% is a 60% reduction in the boost amount from the ship skill, altho the overall reduction is much more modest due to the fact that several other things also impact the total boost amount, most notably the mindlink. Which brings up another point: with mindlinks at 200m or so per, no one in 0.0 is going to put a leadership alt into a cheap bc to boost their gang, since so much of the boost comes from the mindlink that you really need it, and the mindlink is so expensive.

As an alternative, why not just deny the activation of boosting modules from inside poses, and then make it much easier to scan down fleet boosters, either through a sig radius increase from the modules or just by making scanning ships down much easier in general. This might add content by making scanning skill much more important during a big fleet fight, while not hitting small gangs with a pretty nasty nerfbat they really, really don't need in the first place.

Personally I'd prefer removing boosting completely over making it on-grid-only, and I say that as someone who has one perfect booster and another in training Big smile
Spyres
Falsify Holdings
#964 - 2013-01-07 09:12:12 UTC
Nerfing T3 boosters would seem to be a minor issue compared to the major game breaking issues of SovGrind but anyway... my only issue with T3 boosters is that they are so much easier to train for and effective than command ships. Make fleet command ships more tanky and it becomes far easier to swallow a nerf on the T3 booster.
thebarry
7-2 Ronin
#965 - 2013-01-07 09:22:59 UTC
Spyres wrote:
Nerfing T3 boosters would seem to be a minor issue compared to the major game breaking issues of SovGrind but anyway... my only issue with T3 boosters is that they are so much easier to train for and effective than command ships. Make fleet command ships more tanky and it becomes far easier to swallow a nerf on the T3 booster.


Haha, true enough about sov grind...and yes I agree about the t3 vs command ships: CS should obviously be better than t3, that was always a silly idea to have t3 boosts better than the ships that were actually designed for boosting, and took much longer to train for as well. IMO the CS should have the 3 racial bonuses(and a bigger bonus) and t3 should have 2, and I don't like the idea that all the bonus % should be the same since this basically eliminates the need for certain ships. For example, if tengu gets all the same racial and % bonuses as a loki it will make the loki useless since the tengu has much better fitting for boosting.
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#966 - 2013-01-07 12:00:14 UTC
thebarry wrote:
Spyres wrote:
Nerfing T3 boosters would seem to be a minor issue compared to the major game breaking issues of SovGrind but anyway... my only issue with T3 boosters is that they are so much easier to train for and effective than command ships. Make fleet command ships more tanky and it becomes far easier to swallow a nerf on the T3 booster.


Haha, true enough about sov grind...and yes I agree about the t3 vs command ships: CS should obviously be better than t3, that was always a silly idea to have t3 boosts better than the ships that were actually designed for boosting, and took much longer to train for as well. IMO the CS should have the 3 racial bonuses(and a bigger bonus) and t3 should have 2, and I don't like the idea that all the bonus % should be the same since this basically eliminates the need for certain ships. For example, if tengu gets all the same racial and % bonuses as a loki it will make the loki useless since the tengu has much better fitting for boosting.


+1
I guess too.
But the gallentean Command Ships is still unuseable because bad bonuses.
I think that would be the good solution if the scramble bonuses would be removed from minmatar skirmish fleet bonuses and put to gallentean bonus.
And thats would be not just the good solution but the logical solution too.
The minmatars ships needed to keep farther range their enemies with his fast ships and longer fire range. The gallentean ships needed to keep short range their enemies for their short range firepower.
Already the gallente commandships is crap and just very few pilots use them.
Most pilots use proteuses rather than Eos or Astarte.
XxRTEKxX
256th Shadow Wing
Phantom-Recon
#967 - 2013-01-07 18:49:29 UTC
"Made for front-line duty" talking in regards to the Ferox.......then it doesn't need to be a sniper. It needs its bonus to shield resistances to survive on the front lines. Instead of putting a hybrid damage bonus in place of resistance bonus, please put it in place of its current range bonus. Most people use blasters if not auto cannons on the Ferox. It would be a better ship with damage/defense bonus. At least in my opinion. I love flying Ferox. Its a fun ship to fly. Remove its shield bonus and it will be too weak to even have a chance to apply damage.

If you're going to call it combat ship for front line duty then make it such, CCP don't **** it up and make it a week front line sniper that dies fast, kills slow, and is a waste to fly.
Mund Richard
#968 - 2013-01-09 20:53:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
CCP Fozzie wrote:
HydroSan wrote:

Basically Gallente sucks because the game mechanics suck. Can we just get fixes to active tanking and drones? Drone UI needs to be completely redone.


Those are going to be a different dev blog

Come to think of it, that comment (#50) was made over a month/900+posts/46 pages ago, did I miss anything?

"We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Stacking penalty for NPC EWAR then? Lock range under 9km from over 100 in a BS is not fun. Nor is two NPC web drones making me crawl 10m/s. PvP SW-900 x5: 75m/s.
NeoShocker
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#969 - 2013-01-10 05:19:09 UTC
I still object the 3/3 bonus. I want 5/3 bonus, the 5 is the respective race of that boat. Vulture 5% shield, 3% information warfare.
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#970 - 2013-01-12 06:00:47 UTC
You are still not taking into consideration the huge negative impacts of the skill line changes:

1) Clone upgrade issues after patch where players who had the correct clone will no longer have them. This will particularly affect pilots who logged in space or far away from cloning facilities.

2) Players who stopped training skills to avoid higher cost clones.

3) Skill point loss as a result of either of the above and the negative consequences of higher clone cost in general.


This has a huge negative impact on quite a few players and is really a slap in the face to a lot of us who are going to take on 8-10 million more skill points overnight b/c you guys didn't think through this huge negative. I'm particularly concerned with the fact that you didn't even bother mentioning any of it in the blog.
Mund Richard
#971 - 2013-01-12 12:48:31 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
1) Clone upgrade issues after patch where players who had the correct clone will no longer have them. This will particularly affect pilots who logged in space or far away from cloning facilities.

Well, now that we know it will happen right as the spring/summer expansion hits, at least you can prepare for that.

Still a hassle, thanks for pointing it out.

"We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Stacking penalty for NPC EWAR then? Lock range under 9km from over 100 in a BS is not fun. Nor is two NPC web drones making me crawl 10m/s. PvP SW-900 x5: 75m/s.
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#972 - 2013-01-13 00:38:27 UTC
Mund Richard wrote:
I'm Down wrote:
1) Clone upgrade issues after patch where players who had the correct clone will no longer have them. This will particularly affect pilots who logged in space or far away from cloning facilities.

Well, now that we know it will happen right as the spring/summer expansion hits, at least you can prepare for that.

Still a hassle, thanks for pointing it out.


It's not a hassle, it's a recipe for disaster
Deckard's Dream
ELECTRIC SHEEP CLOTHING CO.
#973 - 2013-01-15 04:35:37 UTC
Deckard's Dream wrote:
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

And since questions keep coming up I'll clarify some skill stuff again:

Assuming you have the (insert race here) Cruiser skill to 3, the level of (insert race here) Battlecruiser you get after the change will be the same as your Battlecruiser level before the change, not your Cruiser level.

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


Smug out? ... Getting specific, is March 16th 2013 inside the smug window? ... training them now instead of waiting for my next remap will cost me 6 days and change :(
Any chance for bonus remaps at xmas? ;)


well now fozie im pissed .. burnt a remap b/c you were so smugged out ... now it's not until summer huh? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2442879#post2442879
wah wah wah
Cyaron wars
Academia RED HOT Corporation
#974 - 2013-01-18 07:24:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Cyaron wars
Hello, I've read dev blog about CS rebalance and I really liked it. But there is one thing bothering me - Informational warfare.
Eve today is using 3 type of bonuses in full force while u cannot find Informational WF used in fleet fights or gang. Eos is more used as solo PVP ship or anything else but Infor WF booster. Have you ever thought of changing attributes of said gang links or changing things that they actually boost. Let's take warp disruptor and web, if I am not mistaking these 2 modules are also EWAR mods. Perhaps it would be nice to move those mods under informational WF links? Also energy neutralizers and NOS. Informational WF could boost range and amount of capacitor drained by those mods. Basically let's make damn Eos worth of something. No matter how you will rebalance ships in future, if Eos will not get a role on field and in large fleets it will still remain one of the most useless ships in game.

Now off grid bonuses:

Perhaps you can just give damn thing a range? Like it works for RR, if ship is not in range then it doesn't get bonuses. So let's say gang links are affecting ships that are in 1000 KM radius. This will draw gang bonuses out of safe POS and bound them to float close to fleet. Limiting stuff to grid might be a bad idea, sometimes grid is bugged to hell. I remember sitting 20km from CFC tengu fleet but was unable to see them on overview coz grid was bugged.
Sedstr
#975 - 2013-01-19 11:40:59 UTC
Can we get pirate command ships please.

...
Whitehound
#976 - 2013-02-01 13:18:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
I am a bit worried about drone boats becoming over-powered.

I find the proposed changes inappropriate, because I only see them addressing the issues around drones on the surface, but not addressing the underlying issues, which are:

  • Crude, ancient user interface. The flexibility of the UI to ship modules is incomparable to the one of drones and is a major disadvantage to drone users.
  • Drones cannot be transferred from cargo bays into drone bays and drone boats need to dock in order to replace drones, which puts them at a disadvantage in 0.0 and makes them almost useless in wormhole space where it has no stations.

If those two issues could get address then it would increase the popularity of drone boats drastically in all areas of EVE from PvE to PvP, from high-sec to WH space, and without making them over-powered.

However, giving drone boats more drone DPS will make them over-powered in some situations and once the above issues get addressed will droneboats fall out of balance, making another change necessary and players will have to adjust to yet another change.

I suggest to address the underlying issues first, then see what it does and only then increase the drone DPS if it is then still needed for bringing drone boats in line with the other ships.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#977 - 2013-02-01 13:43:34 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
  • Crude, ancient user interface. The flexibility of the UI to ship modules is incomparable to the one of drones and is a major disadvantage to drone users.
  • Drones cannot be transferred from cargo bays into drone bays and drone boats need to dock in order to replace drones, which puts them at a disadvantage in 0.0 and makes them almost useless in wormhole space where it has no stations.
While I totally agree about the interface...
But refitting issue is not an issue in a WH - you can use SMA or even Orca in order to do that.
Whitehound
#978 - 2013-02-01 13:52:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Sinzor Aumer wrote:
While I totally agree about the interface...
But refitting issue is not an issue in a WH - you can use SMA or even Orca in order to do that.

And who has got those at hand? Only those who occupy the space do, giving the owners more power to one specific ship type, and puts intruders at a disadvantage. Not to mention solo PvP in general is getting the same disadvantage from this.

If you then give more DPS to droneboats could these become over-powered when in the hands of WH owners. Why would this be necessary when other ship types are unaffected and in balance?

Edit1:
Another area where the new DPS of droneboats already seems to be coming into play is ganking, where the Vexor might become the next best low-cost ship after the Catalyst. So the increased DPS is already showing its effect in an area of the game, which is unpopular, and making it a stealth boost to ganking. Is this good?

Edit2:
I then have read from one player who claims to have worked out how to use a drone boat against the new NPC AI and how he can do missions afk. If this is true and it spreads then the increased DPS would be beneficial to a few afk mission runners, too. Is this good?

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Whitehound
#979 - 2013-02-06 10:33:30 UTC
A third reason (to the two above) for why drone boats might become over-powered is the lack of implants for drone users. Many pilots would want these even when such implants do not increase the DPS, but things like hit points, control range, firing range and speed.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Dazram Two
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#980 - 2013-02-09 05:48:11 UTC
What about HACs?

Most HACs are crap these days. Only a select few are worth undocking and even those are meh.