These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Introducing myself and asking for help with balance!

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#161 - 2013-03-22 08:26:09 UTC
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
Following through with a tracking enhancer nerf would go a long way as well, since Tier3s have made using BCs & Cruisers very difficult to use when the Tier3s are used.


A million times that.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Lunaleil Fournier
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#162 - 2013-03-22 08:38:36 UTC
Grats on the job! Glad you're working on this!

You're going to have to make a decision imho, as it just doesn't make sense to have only 1 EW battleship. Either do the EW line as a whole with current ships (which gets my vote), or change the Scorp to another role until you add in the full EW line for all races. Don't be afraid to change ship roles either way.

BC's of any type should not be an 'alternative' to battleships as tier 3's currently are - we use tier 3's more than we use BS's just because of the mobility factor while maintaining BS damage. That would mean some changes to the BCs, but I do think that Battleships need an EHP buff in general.

I'm a fan of doing the 3 different lines - combat, attack, and support (EW). It just seems to make the most sense.

The obvious combat ships are the Abbadon, Rohk, and Maelstrom.*
The obvious attack ships are the Armageddon, Tempest, Raven. *
And then the EW ships would be the leftovers - Scorp, Typhoon, Apoc, Domi. (ECM, TP, TD, SD)

*I separated the Mega and the Hyp because they are a bit of a special case with no clear distinction and could go either way. The Mega was for a very long time the front line Gallente combat fleet ship, so I'd request for nostalgia sake to put it in the combat line, with the Hyp going to attack.

I agree that the Amarr needs to have a different weapons platform, and I'd suggest the Apoc for that - It's the ship that needs the most work for Amarr, so it's the obvious choice to change weapon platforms.

07
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#163 - 2013-03-22 09:18:12 UTC
Diesel47 wrote:


LOL, I literally laughed out loud at how wrong that is.


Laughing is good for your health, so I'm happy :)

They are still fine, though. Not OP, not underpowered, and fill their own niche. Slight speed nerf and that's it, move on to things that actually need fixing.

.
Valleria Darkmoon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#164 - 2013-03-22 09:23:20 UTC
Liam Inkuras wrote:
Congrats on the job!

Now on to ship balancing, I really like the idea of having 4 EWAR Battleships, we've already got the Scorpion, but the other 3 races are quite left out. The idea I had in mind for the Amarr is to turn the Armageddon into a larger Arbitrator, with a bonus to TD's and Drone damage/hitpoints. It could be given 2 extra mids in exchange for a loss of 1 low, and an extra 225m3 of drone bay. Something like this:

Amarr Battleship skill bonus per level: 7.5% Bonus to Tracking Disruptor Effectiveness. 10% Bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage.

The Dominix performs well as it is, but perhaps we could drop the Hybrid bonus in exchange for remote sensor dampener effectiveness.

Gallente Battleship skill bonus per level: 7.5% Bonus to Remote Sensor Dampener effectiveness per level. 10% Bonus to Drone damage and hitpoints per level.

As the Typhoon is becoming a Torpedo boat (so I have heard) it only seems appropriate to give it a Target Painter effectiveness bonus to help it apply that torp damage to small ships. It could also gain 1 midslot

Minmatar Battleship skill bonus per level: 7.5% Bonus to Target Painter effectiveness. 10% Bonus to Torpedo and Cruise Launcher rate of fire.

Just my 2 isk, and some thoughts that were on my mind.


The thought had occurred to me as well but I really like most of the ships in the battleship lines as they are. In essence I think it would be better to bring in a new battleship for each race, 3 EWAR battleships for Amarr, Gallente, Minmatar and a combat BS of some description for Caldari, not really sure what the Caldari could use in that line just throwing it out there.

The Armageddon, Dominix and Typhoon all are great all round battleships so I'd really hate to lose them as options other than as really big EWAR platforms that I honestly can't see a great deal of use for. That being said, to state my bias outright, I don't participate in massive 0.0 blobs and haven't for so long I don't really know what your fleet comp would even look like anymore, any screen shots I see are zoomed out so far to see all the titans that subcaps aren't even visible. Maybe large alliances have more uses for battleship sized EWAR but I don't see it being used in small gangs, the faster locking time of frigs/cruisers means they carry the e-war and battleships are rarely seen in small gang anymore, they are too slow and often kited to death by linked frigs/cruisers. Even the Armageddon I only bring out rarely these days but it's combination of projection, cap stability, utility high, 8 lows and massive drone bay makes it fantastic in the right situation. The versatility applies to the Dominix and Typhoon as well. While the target painter bonus might work on the Typhoon once it becomes a Torp ship I don't think I'd want to see them all get that treatment.

Honestly though, to get larger ships back into the mix more I get the impression that nerfing links is going to be a big part of it. Large ships just do not benefit from links like smaller ships do (skirmish anyway and tanking links just mean it takes forever for you to die but you're still going down). Links are also so prolific that you can pretty much bank on them being there and given the massive boost they provide I can't say I blame anyone for it. So Kil2, I'm sure you wouldn't strongly object to nerfing links, so all I have to say is: "TO THE GROUND". Bring them on grid, possibly even only effective within a range and slash the base strength (on skirmish particularly).

Reality has an almost infinite capacity to resist oversimplification.
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#165 - 2013-03-22 09:29:32 UTC
Concerning the meta lvl of Attack battle cruiser, Battleships and ships in general, I think there is a problem with some of the general stats.

- Mass
- Scaling

Mass seems only a stat used to nerf a ship, it does nothing for it, in my humble opinion ever stat should have an advantage and a disadvantage, something related to the mass something has.

I find it rather unbalanced that a small frigate can scramble, web and immobilize a battleship with the same ease it immobilizes fellow frigate. Whereas It should be harder to stop the much powerful engine of a battleship.

At this moment speed is one of the most valued stats to have, far more than HP this is why the Attack battle cruisers are so much more popular than the battleships, the ability to survive gates and to stay out of the fight or only at your terms.

Now if mass/powerful engine should have an advantage, like being harder to stop or to slow when at full speed, harder to bump by ships with less mass, somewhere in those lines there would be a reason use a ship that has more mass, as well as a counter for the mass gain when using armor (yes slower but harder to stop.

Now I’m fully aware that this would be quite a change and maybe a need to look at all other ships again, but I think it would have lots of opportunities, it might be a way to rework E-war resistance of titans as well, to the point it’s enormous mass it’s counter against webs and scrambles.

Scaling, A more simple solution is to use a form of scaling on more than defense and weapon systems. If E-war modules would need scaling there would be a gain for larger hulls as well, easier though in my eyes less clean since it will be harder to make a difference between the hulls within the same size category.

It should be something in the line of how warp strength works though size should give you a little warp strength from its self Example, 2 small web is 1 medium and 2 medium 1 large,1 small has full effect on a small ship a medium on a medium ect, ect.

This would also give an usable advantage to size/mass there for a specific advantage to a larger hull, without needing them to easier kill smaller ships or things in that line.
monkfish2345
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#166 - 2013-03-22 10:41:38 UTC
Mike Whiite wrote:
Concerning the meta lvl of Attack battle cruiser, Battleships and ships in general, I think there is a problem with some of the general stats.

- Mass
- Scaling

Mass seems only a stat used to nerf a ship, it does nothing for it, in my humble opinion ever stat should have an advantage and a disadvantage, something related to the mass something has.

I find it rather unbalanced that a small frigate can scramble, web and immobilize a battleship with the same ease it immobilizes fellow frigate. Whereas It should be harder to stop the much powerful engine of a battleship.

At this moment speed is one of the most valued stats to have, far more than HP this is why the Attack battle cruisers are so much more popular than the battleships, the ability to survive gates and to stay out of the fight or only at your terms.

Now if mass/powerful engine should have an advantage, like being harder to stop or to slow when at full speed, harder to bump by ships with less mass, somewhere in those lines there would be a reason use a ship that has more mass, as well as a counter for the mass gain when using armor (yes slower but harder to stop.

Now I’m fully aware that this would be quite a change and maybe a need to look at all other ships again, but I think it would have lots of opportunities, it might be a way to rework E-war resistance of titans as well, to the point it’s enormous mass it’s counter against webs and scrambles.

Scaling, A more simple solution is to use a form of scaling on more than defense and weapon systems. If E-war modules would need scaling there would be a gain for larger hulls as well, easier though in my eyes less clean since it will be harder to make a difference between the hulls within the same size category.

It should be something in the line of how warp strength works though size should give you a little warp strength from its self Example, 2 small web is 1 medium and 2 medium 1 large,1 small has full effect on a small ship a medium on a medium ect, ect.

This would also give an usable advantage to size/mass there for a specific advantage to a larger hull, without needing them to easier kill smaller ships or things in that line.


this is both a horrible idea and off topic.

next you'll be suggesting because big ships have better engines they should need more points from small ships to stop warping?
also mass does help with momentum and the speed a ship can be stopped and how bumpable they are.
but little ships, designed to tackle, should be allowed to tackle.

end of.
Neugeniko
Insight Securities
#167 - 2013-03-22 10:49:41 UTC
The scorpion is a aberration which at BEST shows holes in a desired pattern. Fill those holes with new ships, don't refactor current ships completely just to satisfy some random OCD.

Neug

Indices/Mining Simulator V6.41 UPDATED*

Daily Forge Mineral Sales Summary V1.5

Neug's Prime Industrial Real Estate V1.3
CCP Phantom
C C P
C C P Alliance
#168 - 2013-03-22 10:49:57 UTC
A little late reply here, but nevertheless from heart: Welcome, CCP Rise!

CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer
Zaraxal Nightblade
TYR.
Exodus.
#169 - 2013-03-22 11:01:33 UTC
Welcome CCP Rise!!!

Just dont nerf the Talos <3
Merkal Aubauch
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#170 - 2013-03-22 11:10:02 UTC
Tell me u will nerf ECM...
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#171 - 2013-03-22 11:53:14 UTC
monkfish2345 wrote:
[this is both a horrible idea and off topic.

next you'll be suggesting because big ships have better engines they should need more points from small ships to stop warping?
also mass does help with momentum and the speed a ship can be stopped and how bumpable they are.
but little ships, designed to tackle, should be allowed to tackle.

end of.


1) it's perfectly on topic, it looks at a meta lvl what the big problem is with Attack Battle cruisers in line with Battleships, the lack of ehp on Attack Battle Cruisers is more than enough compensated by their speed and manueverability, the extra EHP on a Battleship is useless it's never able to get to it's destination or able to manuever to best transversal.

2) You're entitled to your opinion, fill them with some arguments to support and it might create something good because what ships disigned for certain purpose should be to do doesn't change -> see point 3

3) as for smaller ships that should use more points to tackle a larger yes, though that doesn't say that little ships designed to tackle shouldn't be able to do so. that is something completly diferent, that is where disign comes in. an interceptor could for instance get a bonus on tackling and or use a larger version of tackling equipment.

4) as mentioned in the initial post it would require to look at all the ships again, though Fozzy already mentioned it would not end after the initial reballance.


aside from large fleets and some PvE, Battles ships are extremly rare, much of this has to do with their inability to travel in relative safety and the ability to controle the combat.

now CCP can go look at the ships induvidialy, but in this case it's a problem that is seen over the entire Battleshipline.

And if you want Attack Battle Cruisers and Battles ships to be an option next to eachother or more than Battleship (PvE/LArge Fleet) Attack Battle Cruise (al other PvP) you should give them more than just more hit points or more damage towards other battleships.

- More Hitpoints only makes it a few seconds longer to die at a gate (and will devaluate mission running futher)
- More damage to other battleships doesn't change a thing either except that it will devaluate mission running as well.

By making Mass a double a edged sword, it will be abit easier for Battleshipes to travel. not a free ride, (as mentioned before Interceptors should have a bonus.)
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#172 - 2013-03-22 11:57:28 UTC
Hey guys thanks for all the feedback - many of you seem smart! (not you prom (jk <3))

I'm going to do some review with the team and then get started on this stuff as soon as possible, its very exciting!

Might help to manage expectations a bit by saying a couple small things ->

  • We are almost certainly not going to do a full set of disruption BS with this pass. BUT it is something thats on the radar, so having some version of them show up down the road is on the table, just dont expect it for summer.

  • Like many of you, we think attack BC are very strong, and will likely see some gentle modification to address that. Don't expect major revamps or changes to basic function. All the work on cruisers has made their position in the meta much more healthy and we will likely just be making minor tweaks.

    • I'll leave a more detailed discussion about BS for later, but all the input is extremely helpful so thanks again.

    Also, thanks for the warm welcome, I think I'm going to like it here =)

    @ccp_rise
    monkfish2345
    School of Applied Knowledge
    Caldari State
    #173 - 2013-03-22 12:24:41 UTC  |  Edited by: monkfish2345
    Mike Whiite wrote:
    monkfish2345 wrote:
    [this is both a horrible idea and off topic.

    next you'll be suggesting because big ships have better engines they should need more points from small ships to stop warping?
    also mass does help with momentum and the speed a ship can be stopped and how bumpable they are.
    but little ships, designed to tackle, should be allowed to tackle.

    end of.


    1) it's perfectly on topic, it looks at a meta lvl what the big problem is with Attack Battle cruisers in line with Battleships, the lack of ehp on Attack Battle Cruisers is more than enough compensated by their speed and manueverability, the extra EHP on a Battleship is useless it's never able to get to it's destination or able to manuever to best transversal.

    2) You're entitled to your opinion, fill them with some arguments to support and it might create something good because what ships disigned for certain purpose should be to do doesn't change -> see point 3

    3) as for smaller ships that should use more points to tackle a larger yes, though that doesn't say that little ships designed to tackle shouldn't be able to do so. that is something completly diferent, that is where disign comes in. an interceptor could for instance get a bonus on tackling and or use a larger version of tackling equipment.

    4) as mentioned in the initial post it would require to look at all the ships again, though Fozzy already mentioned it would not end after the initial reballance.


    aside from large fleets and some PvE, Battles ships are extremly rare, much of this has to do with their inability to travel in relative safety and the ability to controle the combat.

    now CCP can go look at the ships induvidialy, but in this case it's a problem that is seen over the entire Battleshipline.

    And if you want Attack Battle Cruisers and Battles ships to be an option next to eachother or more than Battleship (PvE/LArge Fleet) Attack Battle Cruise (al other PvP) you should give them more than just more hit points or more damage towards other battleships.

    - More Hitpoints only makes it a few seconds longer to die at a gate (and will devaluate mission running futher)
    - More damage to other battleships doesn't change a thing either except that it will devaluate mission running as well.

    By making Mass a double a edged sword, it will be abit easier for Battleshipes to travel. not a free ride, (as mentioned before Interceptors should have a bonus.)


    the reason i said this is not on topic, is because what you are suggesting is a fundamental change to how combat mechanics work rather than re-balancing the ship in the mechanics that are currently in place. changes like this are not going to happen as a part of this re-balance.

    I'm not completely against the idea, but it would throw up a load of balancing issues in itself as well as potential make a lot of ships obsolete in pvp.
    Reppyk
    The Black Shell
    #174 - 2013-03-22 13:19:51 UTC
    Attack Battlecruiser role : +25% sig res weapon (basically the tracking bonus from the talos at @lvl5 would negate this).

    ~problem solved.~ O/

    T1 battleships are mostly fine ; upping the EHP oft the current tier1 BS would be nice.
    Once you got there, a few boats will need some tweaks (like raven's powergrid) and some role modifications (the hyperion).

    I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

    Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !
    Mike Whiite
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #175 - 2013-03-22 13:32:10 UTC
    monkfish2345 wrote:
    the reason i said this is not on topic, is because what you are suggesting is a fundamental change to how combat mechanics work rather than re-balancing the ship in the mechanics that are currently in place. changes like this are not going to happen as a part of this re-balance.

    I'm not completely against the idea, but it would throw up a load of balancing issues in itself as well as potential make a lot of ships obsolete in pvp.


    Fair enough, your responce is appreciated, still think that potentialy it could solve a lot issues currently in the game, although it would be quite some work.

    so let me refraise to, I think the current BS problem, lies more in it's lack of mobility together with their inabillity to properly defend/hurt against smaller targets.

    Buzzy Warstl
    Quantum Flux Foundry
    #176 - 2013-03-22 13:34:37 UTC
    Saw something upthread about adding ewar bonuses to BSes without removing other bonuses, and that lit off an idea:
    Battleships are supposed to be robust platforms, why do they only have 2 skill-based bonuses?

    Giving all the T1 BS 3 skill bonuses would give much more opportunity for differentiating them, allowing for more variety and more robust platforms without merely pumping up the slots and HP.

    http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
    Ravcharas
    Infinite Point
    Pandemic Horde
    #177 - 2013-03-22 13:37:34 UTC
    Buzzy Warstl wrote:
    Saw something upthread about adding ewar bonuses to BSes without removing other bonuses, and that lit off an idea:
    Battleships are supposed to be robust platforms, why do they only have 2 skill-based bonuses?

    Giving all the T1 BS 3 skill bonuses would give much more opportunity for differentiating them, allowing for more variety and more robust platforms without merely pumping up the slots and HP.

    I like this. Give the man a lollipop.
    monkfish2345
    School of Applied Knowledge
    Caldari State
    #178 - 2013-03-22 13:46:24 UTC
    Ravcharas wrote:
    Buzzy Warstl wrote:
    Saw something upthread about adding ewar bonuses to BSes without removing other bonuses, and that lit off an idea:
    Battleships are supposed to be robust platforms, why do they only have 2 skill-based bonuses?

    Giving all the T1 BS 3 skill bonuses would give much more opportunity for differentiating them, allowing for more variety and more robust platforms without merely pumping up the slots and HP.

    I like this. Give the man a lollipop.


    I can see how this might work if it only made sense to fit ships to use 2/3 bonus' so it would mean there would be 2 or 3 quite different viable fits for the ships, but it's likely to be tricky for some ships to do this and keep them balanced.

    especially when you look at the likes of the rokh or abaddon, what 3rd bonus could you give to them that would be relevant without making them OP. This would be the challenge.
    Cal Stantson
    17eme Chasseurs a Cheval
    #179 - 2013-03-22 14:14:19 UTC
    Battleships need an EHP buff, and also a DPS buff, but they need to be a lot less agile. Right now their stats aren't so much better than a Combat BC to actually be worth using. Making them heavier in every sense of the word would do a lot to make them more distinct.
    Buzzy Warstl
    Quantum Flux Foundry
    #180 - 2013-03-22 14:23:58 UTC
    monkfish2345 wrote:
    Ravcharas wrote:
    Buzzy Warstl wrote:
    Saw something upthread about adding ewar bonuses to BSes without removing other bonuses, and that lit off an idea:
    Battleships are supposed to be robust platforms, why do they only have 2 skill-based bonuses?

    Giving all the T1 BS 3 skill bonuses would give much more opportunity for differentiating them, allowing for more variety and more robust platforms without merely pumping up the slots and HP.

    I like this. Give the man a lollipop.


    I can see how this might work if it only made sense to fit ships to use 2/3 bonus' so it would mean there would be 2 or 3 quite different viable fits for the ships, but it's likely to be tricky for some ships to do this and keep them balanced.

    especially when you look at the likes of the rokh or abaddon, what 3rd bonus could you give to them that would be relevant without making them OP. This would be the challenge.

    Sensor bonuses are rare right now, Rokh and Abaddon could make use of capacitor bonuses for endurance without becoming OP in short engagements, trade a turret hardpoint or 2 for a ROF bonus, giving them utility highs at the same effective damage.

    There's lots of ways to do it if you are doing a full rebalance and not just slapping a third bonus on to what's already there.

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