These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: No Brakes - Ship and module Balancing in Retribution 1.1

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
#61 - 2013-02-14 18:54:05 UTC
Slight typo in the title

no drakes - ship and module balancing in retribution 1.1

fixed it for you.

Lol
Pasadenasman
Born In Jungle
#62 - 2013-02-14 18:54:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Pasadenasman
A great add overall... but...

First, why AAR will use nanite repair when ASB uses cap booster ? Not exactly the same price on the market...
That's ok each module has a background (capacitor for shield, nanite for armor), but this isn't in line with the reality of the industrial line in eve.

I can see 2 options, make nanite paste easy/fast to product. Or make cap booster harder to produce and in line with a PI design.
Drama incoming in 3...............2.................1.....................

Then, why armor tanker have to skill to reach a "normal" state compare to other shield modules ( 5% less drawback with plates), why not making the same with shield tanking ? (25% sig radius by modules and 5% with skill...)
More Drama incoming in 3...........2............1..........

07
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#63 - 2013-02-14 18:55:28 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
CCP DEV blog wrote:

Armor Repairers

Alongside the change above, we are reducing the base powergrid needs of medium and large armor repair systems. All medium armor repairers will need 20% less powergrid, and all large armor repairers will need 10% less powergrid.



This means that both local & remote ( All ) repairers are getting the powergrid reductions?
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Lili Lu
#64 - 2013-02-14 19:00:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Gelatine wrote:
It's good that armour is getting some overdue love, however would any new player choose to spend months training the many shield skills over armour now? I wouldn't, and to be honest it appears spending nearly six months training up shield skills on some of my characters has been a huge waste of time. With the shield comps losing their passive bonus I can't think of a reason why anyone would train up the shield skills considering they take up months more time to train than training armour does.

Not really balanced is it?


Roll Lol, Gelatine. Shield is still at least equal and really better for both pve and pvp. So yes anyone sane would tell a new player train shield and a shield race first. Just because the shield damage type compensation skills are worth less (notice not onw word but two) now does not change the balance between the tanking types. For instance see the below quote.

DarthNefarius wrote:
Looks like the Ancillary Armor Repairers will be just as worthless as the Reactive Armor Hardeners in Incursions not denting the shield/armour fleet PvE imbalance there which was exacerbated by the Escalation Nerf to Incursions.


Our new armor reppers are indeed not going to be as beneficial as the ASBs continue to be. Some of the changes to fittings on armor reppers and plates and the new mass reduction skill will marginally improve the currently imbalanced situation. But shield will on the whole continue to be better.Straight I'll be preferring shield fits on all my ships for a while to come I think.
Lili Lu
#65 - 2013-02-14 19:02:22 UTC
Lore Varan wrote:
Slight typo in the title

no drakes - ship and module balancing in retribution 1.1

fixed it for you.

Lol

Oh you're a wit that's for sure.

Notice the current usage stats. The Drake has a long way to fall before anyone should cry about it.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#66 - 2013-02-14 19:03:22 UTC
Dev Blog wrote:

I want to make it clear that one of our goals in this rebalancing pass is to somewhat narrow the gap between higher cost and lower cost ships compared to the canyon that existed in the past. We are not planning on buffing the high cost ships to the same degree that we did with the T1 Frigates and Cruisers, as this would simply create direct power creep and leave us right back where we started. We want to reach a place where cheaper ships are more than just something you fly when you start the game, but instead present a viable and interesting option to be chosen by people of many levels of experience. Our vision for cost-balancing is that cost should play a limited part in balancing ships and that obtaining a roughly linear increase in effectiveness should require an exponential increase in cost.


I kinda draw exception to the idea you won't be improving T2 as much as T1. Many of the T1 ships are now just outright superior to their T2 and faction counterparts.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Sky Marshal
State War Academy
Caldari State
#67 - 2013-02-14 19:09:33 UTC
I don't understand why people consider than shield is better than armor. It was and is still the contrary.

You cannot fit scramble/web modules without sacrificing shield tank on most of the Caldari ships, you don't have a buffer who can avoid some hits on your tank unlike armor who can rely a few on their shield, shield resists are always inferior than armor ones even on Caldari ships who rely only on it, etc.

Apart the first weeks after the release of the ASB, and before his first nerf, shield meant ****. And now people whines to boost armor tank ?

Did I miss something ?
Dominic Stone
Force of Will
#68 - 2013-02-14 19:10:04 UTC
It seems pretty clear from the notes on the article that the problem with battlecruisers isn't so much that the Drake and Cane are too powerful, but that all the other battlecruisers are worse than cruisers. Would it not have made more sense to fix what was really and truly broken first, then see how the changes work in comparison?
Lili Lu
#69 - 2013-02-14 19:13:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Sky Marshal wrote:
I don't understand why people consider than shield is better than armor. It was and is still the contrary.

You cannot fit scramble/web modules without sacrificing shield tank on most of the Caldari ships, you don't have a buffer who can avoid some hits on your tank unlike armor who can rely a few on their shield, shield resists are always inferior than armor ones even on Caldari ships who rely only on it, etc.

Apart the first weeks after the release of the ASB, and before his first nerf, shield meant ****. And now people whines to boost armor tank ?

Did I miss something ?

Yes you are missing something.

Dominic Stone wrote:
It seems pretty clear from the notes on the article that the problem with battlecruisers isn't so much that the Drake and Cane are too powerful, but that all the other battlecruisers are worse than cruisers. Would it not have made more sense to fix what was really and truly broken first, then see how the changes work in comparison?


Fozzie and the team have already answered this many times. The power gap between even the newly buffed cruisers and the current tier 2 BCs is too large. So BCs are being rebalanced in a spot hopefully between the current tier 1 and tier 2 BCs. Also, this downgrade on BC power absolves the team from having to buff HACs a large amount, which would necessitate huge buffs to BSs . . .
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#70 - 2013-02-14 19:13:14 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
Lore Varan wrote:
Slight typo in the title

no drakes - ship and module balancing in retribution 1.1

fixed it for you.

Lol

Oh you're a wit that's for sure.

Notice the current usage stats. The Drake has a long way to fall before anyone should cry about it.



The lack of change to the drake means its still OP and will be the most used bc as a result aswell as HAMS having the same range as torpedoes is plain wrong they need a range nerf..... also when TD's affect missiles might also help balance things a little that and the drake will still obsolete the ferox which is hard to understand how fozzie doesn't understand this....?????

'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

Destoya
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#71 - 2013-02-14 19:14:38 UTC
Quote:


I kinda draw exception to the idea you won't be improving T2 as much as T1. Many of the T1 ships are now just outright superior to their T2 and faction counterparts.

-Liang


Can you give some examples of this, not including things like the scythe fleet issue and succubus that are in need of a rebalance already?

Keep in mind that T2 isn't supposed to be better in all respects by any means, just more specialized towards some role.

Faction ships on the other hand are supposed to be general purpose ships that are better than their t1 counterpoints, something I agree isn't necessarily the case, most glaringly in the case of the faction versions of the 4 logi cruisers.
fukier
Gallente Federation
#72 - 2013-02-14 19:14:44 UTC
Sky Marshal wrote:
I don't understand why people consider than shield is better than armor. It was and is still the contrary.

You cannot fit scramble/web modules without sacrificing shield tank on most of the Caldari ships, you don't have a buffer who can avoid some hits on your tank unlike armor who can rely a few on their shield, shield resists are always inferior than armor ones even on Caldari ships who rely only on it, etc.

Apart the first weeks after the release of the ASB, and before his first nerf, shield meant ****. And now people whines to boost armor tank ?

Did I miss something ?


1.
there is dedicated tackle in pvp fleets so havings ponits and webs is not allways usefull

2.
RR is the big winner for reasons why shield is better

3.
you can fit extenders and rigs and not slow down (sig radius bloom is not big enough to count)

though for small gang or solo then yeah armor has its uses but overall its still not as good.

i am still going to be shield tanking my brutix after this boost.
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
fukier
Gallente Federation
#73 - 2013-02-14 19:15:43 UTC
Dominic Stone wrote:
It seems pretty clear from the notes on the article that the problem with battlecruisers isn't so much that the Drake and Cane are too powerful, but that all the other battlecruisers are worse than cruisers. Would it not have made more sense to fix what was really and truly broken first, then see how the changes work in comparison?


no.
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
Cass Lie
State War Academy
Caldari State
#74 - 2013-02-14 19:15:48 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Dev Blog wrote:

I want to make it clear that one of our goals in this rebalancing pass is to somewhat narrow the gap between higher cost and lower cost ships compared to the canyon that existed in the past. We are not planning on buffing the high cost ships to the same degree that we did with the T1 Frigates and Cruisers, as this would simply create direct power creep and leave us right back where we started. We want to reach a place where cheaper ships are more than just something you fly when you start the game, but instead present a viable and interesting option to be chosen by people of many levels of experience. Our vision for cost-balancing is that cost should play a limited part in balancing ships and that obtaining a roughly linear increase in effectiveness should require an exponential increase in cost.


I kinda draw exception to the idea you won't be improving T2 as much as T1. Many of the T1 ships are now just outright superior to their T2 and faction counterparts.

-Liang


That second statement doesn't necessitate the first, key words being as much (on a linear scale). In the past there used to be a huge gap in capabilities (omen x zealot, stabber x vaga etc.). The stated intention is just to relatively lower that gap across the board. Doing that sounds tricky and it most probably will be.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#75 - 2013-02-14 19:21:39 UTC
Sky Marshal wrote:
I don't understand why people consider than shield is better than armor. It was and is still the contrary.

You cannot fit scramble/web modules without sacrificing shield tank on most of the Caldari ships.

[...]

Did I miss something ?


Like the fact that, as a rule, Caldari ships have about as many mids left over after prop and tank as Amarr ships do, and with at least as many low slots to dedicate to damage mods and the ability to fit maximum size guns?

Most of the problem actually lay with active tanking, not shield or armor tanking. CCP's fix, apparently, is to introduce so-called 'ancillary' modules which are actually necessary, and which reduce the older modules to ancillary roles or just obsolete them. Plain old shield boosters are pretty bad, too.

None of them solve the biggest problem with active tanking, which is that, without resist bonuses, the ships that use it don't have the buffer to make logistic support viable. That goes double for armor, because armor reps land at the end of the cycle.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
fukier
Gallente Federation
#76 - 2013-02-14 19:22:50 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
Lili Lu wrote:
Lore Varan wrote:
Slight typo in the title

no drakes - ship and module balancing in retribution 1.1

fixed it for you.

Lol

Oh you're a wit that's for sure.

Notice the current usage stats. The Drake has a long way to fall before anyone should cry about it.



The lack of change to the drake means its still OP and will be the most used bc as a result aswell as HAMS having the same range as torpedoes is plain wrong they need a range nerf..... also when TD's affect missiles might also help balance things a little that and the drake will still obsolete the ferox which is hard to understand how fozzie doesn't understand this....?????


i dunno the lack of dps for non kin damage will hurt the ship for pve thats for sure.

pretty sure the cyclone will be a much better pve ship now.
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#77 - 2013-02-14 19:24:45 UTC
Destoya wrote:
Quote:


I kinda draw exception to the idea you won't be improving T2 as much as T1. Many of the T1 ships are now just outright superior to their T2 and faction counterparts.

-Liang


Can you give some examples of this, not including things like the scythe fleet issue and succubus that are in need of a rebalance already?

Keep in mind that T2 isn't supposed to be better in all respects by any means, just more specialized towards some role.

Faction ships on the other hand are supposed to be general purpose ships that are better than their t1 counterpoints, something I agree isn't necessarily the case, most glaringly in the case of the faction versions of the 4 logi cruisers.


The most glaring examples are the Condor to the Crow and Crusader to the Executioner, but the same argument for made for the Firetail/Slasher. Other examples of things that are almost that bad are the Carcal/Navy Osprey/Navy Caracal/Cerb, Moa/Eagle, Thorax/Navy Ex/Deimos, etc.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
#78 - 2013-02-14 19:25:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Lore Varan
I dont mind the drake been taken down a peg or 2 but to achive a balanced drake requires understanding the problem with it in the first place.

Drakes are not overpowered they are safe and easy.

Insane tank and moderate only firepower compared to other bc make them a low priority target.
Sit in a drake and you will probably be targeted by the enemy fleet last.

Removing some tank is good.
I'd go further and lose a mid slot the current change wont make much of a difference once the obligatory LSE's and hards are in there.

Making the drake even easier with a further kin boost is bad.
50% to kin damage means I load kin and never have to consider what I'm shooting at.

I hate kin bonusses with a passion.
I'd like to see a consistent progression for caldari missiles boats as far as tactics are concerned.

Rainbow damage bonuses that reward a pilot for knowing his enemys weeknesses ( resists ) are the way to go.

Kessie good rainbow bonus.
Corax bad kin locked bonus
Caracal good rainbow bonus.
Drake bad kin locked bonus.
Raven good rainbow bonus.


Please aim for a consistent stratergy for Cal missile boat pilots.

In line with this i think the following changes to Drake make more sense.

Lose the 10% kin bonus.
And have a fairly week 10% faster ammo switch bonus.

go from 6 launchers to 8 ( in line with the graphics )

If the current setup is at lvl 5 bc
100% em , 100% therm , 150% kin , 100% exp

then the new setup would be at any lvl

133% em , 133% them , 133% kin , 133% exp


~tldr

8 launcher
5 mids
PG and CPu to match for a lower tank , more flexible fp drake.

Less safe and Less easy than it is now, but better for solo/small gang for those of us fed up of flying canes.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#79 - 2013-02-14 19:26:27 UTC
fukier wrote:
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
Lili Lu wrote:
Lore Varan wrote:
Slight typo in the title

no drakes - ship and module balancing in retribution 1.1

fixed it for you.

Lol

Oh you're a wit that's for sure.

Notice the current usage stats. The Drake has a long way to fall before anyone should cry about it.



The lack of change to the drake means its still OP and will be the most used bc as a result aswell as HAMS having the same range as torpedoes is plain wrong they need a range nerf..... also when TD's affect missiles might also help balance things a little that and the drake will still obsolete the ferox which is hard to understand how fozzie doesn't understand this....?????


i dunno the lack of dps for non kin damage will hurt the ship for pve thats for sure.

pretty sure the cyclone will be a much better pve ship now.

Well, for PVE most of the time a sustainable and strong tank is more important than firepower.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#80 - 2013-02-14 19:29:08 UTC
Although I don't really fly the Incursus a lot any more, I'm sad to see the 10% bonus go. This bonus made the ship worth having a rep on, and now it's basically a waste of a bonus simply because of a new module. Or rather, a regular small armor repairer is not worth fitting. I hope there are plans to properly balance both regular armor repairers and shield boosters. There is now no longer any reason to fit standard shield boosters or armor repairers, just because of new modules.

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}