These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#201 - 2013-02-18 11:16:10 UTC
Thanks or the Post Fozzie.

As I mentioned in Battlecruiser Reballence thread, I'm a little worried the Drake will loose it's appeal aside for Blob warfare.

but'we'll see what the future brings.I hope there is a tool, that also shows the how a ship is used.

Anyway, although not always agreeing, thanks for the work you guys doing.
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#202 - 2013-02-18 11:47:04 UTC
Great post - It's weird to se you keep pulling the skill change always to "the next patch" though...
A shame tier 3 battleruisers will still be around until summer in their existing form but I guess I knew that hehe

Good writing and happy patching when time comes

Pinky
Mund Richard
#203 - 2013-02-18 11:47:05 UTC
Mike Whiite wrote:
As I mentioned in Battlecruiser Reballence thread, I'm a little worried the Drake will loose it's appeal aside for Blob warfare.

HAM Drake doesn't look bad even for smallscale imho:
1) it has 6 mids, unlike any other BC for a sturdier tank with full tackle, and your choice if buffer/active, not bonus-forced.
2) on a scram+webbed BC, it will consistently do full damage with the most destructive ammo it has available (Brutix manages more dps gank fit, but only at sub-scram ranges, and with a weaker tank).

I suppose it needs help to catch something first, but then...
Dunno, will have to wait and see how it turns 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.
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#204 - 2013-02-18 12:38:01 UTC  |  Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
love how some of the changes to modules in the latest release of the Patch Notes have been filed under UNCATEGORISED half way down the page when theyre clearly without a shadow of a doubt changes to modules and therefore should be in the Modules section!

is there something ur changing that we all use that you'd rather we glossed over, thinking that stuff in the uncategorised section is not of interest to most players?

how do you justify lumping the changes to passive resists of ALL active shield and armor hardeners in with typo's and localisation issues?


its reminiscent of the old work ethic CCP used to have that got u guys into soooo much hot water not too long ago!
as a customer of yours this feel underhanded and worries me.
darius mclever
#205 - 2013-02-18 12:47:51 UTC  |  Edited by: darius mclever
so the patch notes now mention ... blockade runners will also be able to fit covert cynos gen ... could we get a 2nd high slot for all blockade runners in this case? right now only minmatar could really use the covert cyno gen without giving up the cloak.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#206 - 2013-02-18 12:55:13 UTC
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
love how some of the changes to modules in the latest release of the Patch Notes have been filed under UNCATEGORISED half way down the page when theyre clearly without a shadow of a doubt changes to modules and therefore should be in the Modules section!

is there something ur changing that we all use that you'd rather we glossed over, thinking that stuff in the uncategorised section is not of interest to most players?

how do you justify lumping the changes to passive resists of ALL active shield and armor hardeners in with typo's and localisation issues?


its reminiscent of the old work ethic CCP used to have that got u guys into soooo much hot water not too long ago!
as a customer of yours this feel underhanded and worries me.


Because they are the result of an uncategorised bug I imagine. As the bug was the cause of the change.
Rather than part of module balancing efforts.
Mund Richard
#207 - 2013-02-18 13:06:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Because they are the result of an uncategorised bug I imagine. As the bug was the cause of the change.
Rather than part of module balancing efforts.
edit:
ok, now it makes sense (+with Fozzie planning to have it moved).

"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
#208 - 2013-02-18 13:10:41 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
Those notes ending up in the Uncategorized section is indeed an automatic response to a flag set on the bug report that got us talking about the issue internally.

It really should go in the Modules section, like you said. So I'll poke the community guys and see if it can get it moved.

:Edit: And it's now fixed thanks to CCP Eterne's rapid response.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#209 - 2013-02-18 13:26:35 UTC
thanks Fozzie for poking the right people and Eterne for getting his hands dirty and fixing the patch notes =)

<3
Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#210 - 2013-02-18 13:30:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Warde Guildencrantz
Captain Africa wrote:


Doode , you realize that to fit a ship and get the max out of it takes dedication , time and money....I just get the feeling you are penalizing Vets that can fit ships to the max by removing ship slots...I mean take the cane for example, to have a descent tank , gank and those two neuts , you really have to have a F***k load of sp in the right places.

If a newb gets ganged by a more superior player ...the first thing HE WILLL SHOUT IS , ....its OP! I don’t want to create the impression I’m crying bucket loads of tears, cause I am ... but really keep the slots on the ships and just reward players that’s willing to put the miles into ships ...to have a **** hot drake or caine.

I mean implement a skill that opens up a slot when trained to lev 5 or something ....or a combination of skills like the race cruiser skill to 5 land maybe elite certificates in core skills.

I think everyone would love to be able to choose a ship they like and say I’m going to train 6 more months or a year to make this my preferred tool of destruction....and customize the ship according to players abilities...that my friend is something called law of the jungle...you cant go against that lol


It really feels like the ships are losing their individuality and overall appeal and btw so does the races they are all becoming the same. I mean take the shield tanking vs armor tanking scenario...Since I started playing Eve my "elders" told me :


Remember effort = reward


dual neut cane was too versatile, as was the drake. Those ships were the most nerfed BCs while the others stayed relatively similar or were buffed. It's not about SP, it's about each ship's PvP value. Also, veteran players have an advantage of skills, while new players can compete by specializing. This is how it should stay, there will never be cases where veteran players can have more slots on their ship than noobs, the gap would be too high for fairness in PvP.

I do however agree that you should be able to train for a while to be great with a specific ship. That was the idea of T2 ships. I agree however that a construct for tracking how much you have used a certain ship and scaling your proficiency with the ship based on that would be cool. (For T1 battlecruisers, thats supposed to be the battlecruisers skill).

What you are essentially asking for though is a skill for each ship, which I don't see how it would work out very well. Maybe if the skill was levelled by PvP experience for each ship and not through SP it would be more sensible, but that would be difficult to track without cheating.

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us
Haifisch Zahne
Hraka Manufacture GmbH
#211 - 2013-02-18 16:20:07 UTC
Sorry, I am still not clear on this "If you could fly it before" business. Yes, I know it is not part of this patch.

So, is it that I must be able to get into and fly the **ship** before the changes. Then, I can still fly it after even if I don't have the prerequisites anymore?

Or, is it that after the changes, if I have a **skill**, I will keep the skill.

The difference is important when it comes to say, Command Ships. There is currently no racial Command Ships skill. (And Please Let There Never Be For Each Specialized Ship, Like Was Wrongly Done With Destroyers And Battlecruisers.)

So, if I have the **skill** Command Ships, but not Caldari Cruiser V before the changes, would I be able to train Caldari Cruisers V after the changes and get into a Nighthawk, for example? Or, am I somehow automagically locked out until I meet all the new prerequisites?

Also, it has been said that one will be able to continue training skills after the changes even if one doesn't have all the prerequisites. But, what if the skill is only injected and not trained? What if the skill is lost due to pod killing without insurance? Is it injected and still trainable even if at level "0"?
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#212 - 2013-02-18 16:44:45 UTC
Haifisch Zahne wrote:
Sorry, I am still not clear on this "If you could fly it before" business. Yes, I know it is not part of this patch.

So, is it that I must be able to get into and fly the **ship** before the changes. Then, I can still fly it after even if I don't have the prerequisites anymore?


Yes.

If you have Command Ships trained before the patch, you will be able to fly (and now, train) Command Ships after the patch. Prerequisites will only count when you try to inject the skill.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#213 - 2013-02-18 21:34:13 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
Patch notes wrote:

•Powergrid use of all Large Armor Repairer modules has been decreased by 10%.
•Powergrid use of all Medium Armor Repairer modules has been decreased by 20%.


Does this all prefix mean REMOTE Large repairers too Big smile
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'
Mund Richard
#214 - 2013-02-18 21:47:22 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Patch notes wrote:

•Powergrid use of all Large Armor Repairer modules has been decreased by 10%.
•Powergrid use of all Medium Armor Repairer modules has been decreased by 20%.
Does this all prefix mean REMOTE Large repairers too Big smile

Log on the test server and see?Roll

But fairly sure I recall it being only local rep, just how rigs were only swapping drawbacks for local active tank.

"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.
Haifisch Zahne
Hraka Manufacture GmbH
#215 - 2013-02-18 22:46:43 UTC
Please continue reading my original post. You missed the whole point.


Dersen Lowery wrote:
Haifisch Zahne wrote:
Sorry, I am still not clear on this "If you could fly it before" business. Yes, I know it is not part of this patch.

So, is it that I must be able to get into and fly the **ship** before the changes. Then, I can still fly it after even if I don't have the prerequisites anymore?


Yes.

If you have Command Ships trained before the patch, you will be able to fly (and now, train) Command Ships after the patch. Prerequisites will only count when you try to inject the skill.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#216 - 2013-02-18 23:10:14 UTC
Haifisch Zahne wrote:
Please continue reading my original post. You missed the whole point.

Looking at the rest of your post:
Haifisch Zahne wrote:

Or, is it that after the changes, if I have a **skill**, I will keep the skill.

The difference is important when it comes to say, Command Ships. There is currently no racial Command Ships skill. (And Please Let There Never Be For Each Specialized Ship, Like Was Wrongly Done With Destroyers And Battlecruisers.)

They have said they have no intention of splitting the T2 skills, so not looking at that possibility at least for a while. Going to disagree here about the BC and dessy changes being wrong as they are not specializations, but entirely different hulls with uniqueness enough to be in their own class, but moving on:
Haifisch Zahne wrote:

So, if I have the **skill** Command Ships, but not Caldari Cruiser V before the changes, would I be able to train Caldari Cruisers V after the changes and get into a Nighthawk, for example? Or, am I somehow automagically locked out until I meet all the new prerequisites?

If I had to venture a guess based upon the rules of this change as presented thus far, cruiser V is no longer relevant after the change, that we know. Since it isn't relevant later and doesn't keep you from injecting command ships now you could possibly bypass both the cruiser and new leadership prerequisites in theory.
Haifisch Zahne wrote:

Also, it has been said that one will be able to continue training skills after the changes even if one doesn't have all the prerequisites. But, what if the skill is only injected and not trained? What if the skill is lost due to pod killing without insurance? Is it injected and still trainable even if at level "0"?

I think you stated the answer to this question in your post: " it has been said that one will be able to continue training skills after the changes even if one doesn't have all the prerequisites." Not sure why this would matter when training from 0-1 or 1-whatever, but even then since higher ranked and leveled skills are prioritized for SP loss upon podding with an insufficient clone it's more likely you would loose your racial BC V (and probably most of your other skills) long before command ships 1, making it a bit of a non issue.
Amber Solaire
COMA Holdings
Cosmic Maniacs
#217 - 2013-02-18 23:59:07 UTC
The Drake missile bonus for Kinetic is nice, but it nerfs other missile types, as now one less launcher

Fix that

Drake should get a small bonus for other damage types at least
Wacktopia
Fleet-Up.com
Keep It Simple Software Group
#218 - 2013-02-19 01:34:24 UTC
Keep nerfing that drake. Or buff the rest. Fed up of drakes.

Either that or make medium hybrids have some kind of buff on BC hulls. Medium hybrids are ok on cruisers but they just suck so much ass on BCs compared to the alternatives.

Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together -  Fleet-Up.com
Ziranda Hakuli
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#219 - 2013-02-19 08:30:38 UTC
I like many of the changes. Some not so much.

But one thing i like to point out that the Ancillary Armor Repairer uses Nanite Paste. you do realize that this stuff is quite expensive by far more then cap charges that Ancillary shield Booster uses.

I feel that the armor pilots will look at it. play with the new shiny. realize they are better off with the regular armor repper. Nanite paste runs around 34k give or take. cap charges for a 400 is roughly 4.5k give or take.

Armor tank pilots have had rough for years and looking at the changes i rather keep some of the old and pick from the new what i want. Guess i have to see what really hits in this patch.
Urgg Boolean
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#220 - 2013-02-19 15:05:34 UTC
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:
Captain Africa wrote:


... stuff ... , there will never be cases where veteran players can have more slots on their ship than noobs, the gap would be too high for fairness in PvP.

... more stuff ...

I do agree that extra slots for vets is absurd. However:

This line of logic defies the EvE philosophy :: if you are in a fair fight, you are doing it wrong :: HTFU or GTFO ...

It has never been about fairness. As long as I have played EvE, it has been about ROFLSTOMPing your enemies with superior numbers. To use "fairness" as a justification for anything seems off base. Or maybe I missed your point...