These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#161 - 2013-02-16 11:30:18 UTC
Mund Richard wrote:
Merouk Baas wrote:
So, how much does nanite paste cost?
How does that compare to the cost of cap booster charges for the ASB?
How much do the blueprints for charges cost? How much do the blueprints for repair paste cost?
What mats are required for making charges, and what mats are required to make nanite paste?
How can you call this "balanced"?

Why are people comparing the AAR's charges to non-navy cap boosters?
(Though it makes sense for the MASB, not for the others, and there is no SASB *jedi handwave*)


This would have been more clear if the AARs had a 9 cycle run when charged, just like the navy filled ASBs do; instead we got 8 cycles for a higher cost even compared to navy cap boosters.

Hate to say so, but I did point this out at the time. Another good idea gone poof What?
Faffywaffy
Fremen Sietch
DarkSide.
#162 - 2013-02-16 12:33:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Faffywaffy
To be true to this image, will CCP also rebalance AT ships? The ones given out in recent years are appropriately powerful, but the older ones have become less and less formidable as EVE evolved. The Mimir, for example, is a known example of a relatively useless AT prize.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#163 - 2013-02-16 12:40:22 UTC
Faffywaffy wrote:
To be true to this image, will CCP also rebalance AT ships? The ones given out in recent years are appropriately powerful, but the older ones have become less and less formidable as EVE evolved. The Mimir, for example, is a known example of a relatively useless AT prize.


Yep we're going to do a pass on them at some point, however I can't say for sure when that will be right now.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
SCRUBS.
#164 - 2013-02-16 13:03:04 UTC
Heh. You would think the "Will CCP rebalance that ship" -> "Yes!" would be a clear enough message so that people would not ask.

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

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}

Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies
Joint Venture Conglomerate
#165 - 2013-02-16 14:25:19 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Faffywaffy wrote:
To be true to this image, will CCP also rebalance AT ships? The ones given out in recent years are appropriately powerful, but the older ones have become less and less formidable as EVE evolved. The Mimir, for example, is a known example of a relatively useless AT prize.


Yep we're going to do a pass on them at some point, however I can't say for sure when that will be right now.

Will it be before or after the shuttle rebalance?

Fear God and Thread Nought

CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#166 - 2013-02-16 14:41:46 UTC
Jackie Fisher wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Faffywaffy wrote:
To be true to this image, will CCP also rebalance AT ships? The ones given out in recent years are appropriately powerful, but the older ones have become less and less formidable as EVE evolved. The Mimir, for example, is a known example of a relatively useless AT prize.


Yep we're going to do a pass on them at some point, however I can't say for sure when that will be right now.

Will it be before or after the shuttle rebalance?


Very likely before :)

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
#167 - 2013-02-16 16:04:18 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Jackie Fisher wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Faffywaffy wrote:
To be true to this image, will CCP also rebalance AT ships? The ones given out in recent years are appropriately powerful, but the older ones have become less and less formidable as EVE evolved. The Mimir, for example, is a known example of a relatively useless AT prize.


Yep we're going to do a pass on them at some point, however I can't say for sure when that will be right now.

Will it be before or after the shuttle rebalance?


Very likely before :)


*sigh*

Still waiting for my shuttles....

I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg

CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused.

Merouk Baas
#168 - 2013-02-16 16:08:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Merouk Baas
Mund Richard wrote:
Why are people comparing the AAR's charges to non-navy cap boosters?


Because, even though the regular cap boosters are quite ineffective due to the sizes involved, the option to pay 1/70th of the cost is there. Where's the civilian nanite repair paste, same repairing power, 33% bigger size, costs 500 ISK to manufacture? Hmm?

Datachips seem to have jumped from 90k to 400k since the announcement.
Nomistrav
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#169 - 2013-02-16 16:31:13 UTC
Merouk Baas wrote:
Mund Richard wrote:
Why are people comparing the AAR's charges to non-navy cap boosters?


Because, even though the regular cap boosters are quite ineffective due to the sizes involved, the option to pay 1/70th of the cost is there. Where's the civilian nanite repair paste, same repairing power, 33% bigger size, costs 500 ISK to manufacture? Hmm?

Datachips seem to have jumped from 90k to 400k since the announcement.


Oh yeah, it's a big problem that I'd really love to see a response on from CCP Fozzie.

Repair Paste costs crazy amounts more and you can't dictate the size of it and beyond that, the AAR is still using capacitor - so that Active Tanking style is still very vulnerable to Cap Warfare whereas the ASB isn't.

To top it off, the Paste is -EXPENSIVE- as a base and with the Large Repairer taking up -8- per use (which when we look at just how fast those things cycle that's a LOT) that's practically hundreds of thousands of isk you're throwing at the problem.

Suffice to say, my Dominix will probably still be using the ASB simply because I can dish out more Drone Damage Amplifiers with less risk involved in my Active Tanking.

"As long as space endures,

as long as sentient beings exist,

until then, may I too remain

and dispel the miseries of the world."

~ Vremaja Idama

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#170 - 2013-02-16 17:22:16 UTC
Fozzie, I'm assuming CCP UsedToBeKil2 will be joining you guys when he arrives, so who else is on the balancing team now?

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

Besbin
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#171 - 2013-02-16 17:41:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Besbin
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Callic Veratar wrote:
Based on the discussions I've seen, I think the next balance pass after Retribution 1.1 will be Summer 1.0 and should contain Battleships, Industrials, Black Ops, Command Ships, and EAF.

A response of "that sounds reasonable" would be great. Lol


All I can confirm is that the ships discussed in Ytterbium's Back to the Balancing Future blog are still expected to be among the earlier sets of ships we work on this year.


Would you care to comment and contrast your excellent communication of forthcoming changes with CCP Greyscale's dismal responses to his changes to shield and armor compensation skills.

Should we expect a Dev Blog from his holiness Greyscale, or would holding our breath just invite unconscienceness.


That change doesn't really require its own dev blog in my opinion, and it's a change I fully support.

The honest truth is that I have no idea why someone back in the day would design the active resistance modules to also have a separate passive effect. It's convoluted and provides very little value.

And considering that we have generally shifted the meta towards a lower number of neuts overs the past few releases, the change helps ensure that capacitor warfare serves a useful role.


Fair enough. But don't you think it at least deserves to be mentioned somewhere before suddenly stealthing it's way onto TQ? For instance in your dev blog on the subject. And what's your take on the usefullness of the shield compensation skill post this change? Given that it's a 45D train to all 4s and half of value of these skills are being stealth nerfed.

P.S. CCP Fozzie rocks for actually answering to our concerns!
Castelo Selva
Forcas armadas
Brave Collective
#172 - 2013-02-16 18:12:20 UTC
Well, well, well... The real problem now is not that “the active hardeners no longer have the passive resist element, and that change are going live to TQ without any official CCP note about it (aka stealth nerf)” but about the usefulness or not of the compensation skills.

For some play base this change do not meaning nothing, but for other player base this change all they play style. So, the real question is if the compensation skills should be reimbursed or not, because it´s a set of lvl 5 skills that become obsolete.

I think that the fair is that should be a one time question at login asking if you want to be reimbursed or not, and this solve all problem. The one who are affected by the usefulness of the skill are reimbursed, and the one who want to keep it are ok either.

And, of course, better communication between CCP and the player base are always welcome (no more stealth nerfs). Remember, I did not said no more changes, but no more unannounced changes, please.

Castelo
Ripard Teg
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#173 - 2013-02-16 18:23:21 UTC
Hi Fozzie,

Great work compiling all the stuff from the F&I thread into one dev-blog, and I commend you for that! Also, thanks for taking player input so seriously during this process. I am still annoyed at my beloved Canes getting nerfed so hard, but at least you provided good explanations at each step why you were doing it. P

I do have some questions about this dev-blog though, as I blogged about yesterday:

  1. Why did you guys publish a graph with no indication of where zero is and no scale? Is the bottom of the graph zero?
  2. As a result, how many more Drakes are there than Feroxes, and how far has Drake and Cane use dropped (in percent) since their respective nerfs?
  3. Will you be providing another updated copy of this graph before the summer release?

I was a big big fan of the former CCP Diagoras and the stats that he published on ship use, number of ships destroyed in PvP versus PvE, and decreasing and increasing use of ships. These same sorts of stats also used to (in the ancient past of two years ago) be published in QENs. Today, the players have do not receive these sorts of stats at all.

aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.

MainDrain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#174 - 2013-02-16 19:33:20 UTC
With the changes being made to the number of launchers the drake can fit is there any plans to revisit the actual ship model? (taking off one harder from each side)
Mund Richard
#175 - 2013-02-16 21:31:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Nomistrav wrote:
Suffice to say, my Dominix will probably still be using the ASB simply because I can dish out more Drone Damage Amplifiers with less risk involved in my Active Tanking.

And that (extra mid for shield tank, 7 lows ready to be filled with goodness) is why the Navy Potato is a work of art, a masterpiece, a true beauty.
For PvE.

"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.

CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#176 - 2013-02-16 22:29:44 UTC
Ripard Teg wrote:
Hi Fozzie,

Great work compiling all the stuff from the F&I thread into one dev-blog, and I commend you for that! Also, thanks for taking player input so seriously during this process. I am still annoyed at my beloved Canes getting nerfed so hard, but at least you provided good explanations at each step why you were doing it. P

I do have some questions about this dev-blog though, as I blogged about yesterday:

  1. Why did you guys publish a graph with no indication of where zero is and no scale? Is the bottom of the graph zero?
  2. As a result, how many more Drakes are there than Feroxes, and how far has Drake and Cane use dropped (in percent) since their respective nerfs?
  3. Will you be providing another updated copy of this graph before the summer release?

I was a big big fan of the former CCP Diagoras and the stats that he published on ship use, number of ships destroyed in PvP versus PvE, and decreasing and increasing use of ships. These same sorts of stats also used to (in the ancient past of two years ago) be published in QENs. Today, the players have do not receive these sorts of stats at all.


Excellent question about the graph, and it is something I should have noted in the blog.
The bottom of the graph is 0, and the scale is linear. I am however going to take a pass on providing exact numbers at this time.

I've been intentionally careful when it comes to distributing statistics that have significant potential economic value. When possible I'm trying to keep any such information to the official forums and dev blogs, and when in doubt I'm leaning on the side of caution. I know that can be frustrating for people who are used to the huge amounts of information that used to be distributed via twitter, and there's nothing wrong with patch speculation aided by cleverly following public CCP communication (that used to be one of my best income sources) but I don't have the time or education that a dedicated researcher like Diagoras could bring to bear on this kind of communication so I'll be fairly conservative in the foreseeable future.

It's very possible that we may provide some updated graphs as the results of our ship balance changes settle over time, but I can't make promises to that effect right now.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Ravcharas
Infinite Point
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#177 - 2013-02-16 22:55:34 UTC
Ravcharas wrote:
Have you considered using a different naming convention for the new armor reps, considering they function differently compared to the ASB's? I'm thinking the word 'ancillary' in both modules implies they are basically the same, when they have a couple of really important differences.

Reiterating this because I think it's important. You could potentially cut down on some confusion and complications without loosing any complexity by naming them differently from their shield counterparts.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#178 - 2013-02-16 23:15:33 UTC
Ravcharas wrote:
Ravcharas wrote:
Have you considered using a different naming convention for the new armor reps, considering they function differently compared to the ASB's? I'm thinking the word 'ancillary' in both modules implies they are basically the same, when they have a couple of really important differences.

Reiterating this because I think it's important. You could potentially cut down on some confusion and complications without loosing any complexity by naming them differently from their shield counterparts.


The key similarity is the use of fuel and the long reload mechanic. I think the use of Ancillary fits well and helps illustrate the gameplay similarities even though they differ in details.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#179 - 2013-02-17 02:53:31 UTC
What about the Pirate frigates/cruisers rebalance?

The Tears Must Flow

Panhead4411
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services
The Possum Lodge
#180 - 2013-02-17 04:32:18 UTC
Finally some official acknowledgement that Armor tanking for small gang pvp was made near obsolete with the half-arsed introduction of the ASB.

However, when active armor tanks get a single module that boosts up to 36% with ZERO penalties, all while still not being able to have even remotely the same burst tank as shield's do...then i'd say its finally balanced. But when you keep seeing all these "armor" ships being flown more effectively with shield tanks, you know something is wrong.

Looks like my Dual Rep, Dual Rigged Armor ships will be stuck with LESS PG than before...awesome buff to armor tanking!

Whats the thinking behind limiting the armor tank burst ability?

Then there is the whole fact medium rails are THE least effective weapon system in the game (minus FOF)...and your solution is to just make the ships that use them geared toward blasters? Are you ever going to fix them or just sudo fix them and then leave the ships that you retooled for blasters as they lay, thus leaving medium rails still hanging out in the wind even if you ever actually fix them.

"We know this weapon is broken, but to fix that, we'll just redesign the ships that were spossed to use them to ignore the problem." Sadly, typical CCP logic.

http://blog.beyondreality.se/shift-click-does-nothing    < Unified Inventory is NOT ready...