These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Take a Moment to Review the Battleship Changes for the Next Coming Patch...

Author
Jace Errata
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#21 - 2013-04-09 13:29:16 UTC
I Love Boobies wrote:
Please note the forum section those changes are posted in. Ideas and Features. Meaning it's what they want to do, are asking for feedback, and want to know what people think. Doesn't mean you should get your panties in a bunch about it yet because they are not set into concrete. Relax... breathe...

Honestly I doubt they'll change the plans. Everything from UnInv to cap V3 has received "tough, you're getting it this way lol" responses to criticism.

*cough* Anyway. I'm not sure I like this whole "each ship has a specific niche" thing. IMO ships should be able to do more than one thing well, otherwise there's not really much point in being able to fit them differently.





Also for ****'s sake stop calling that ship line "combat". It's a redundant name, especially since you've already got one called "attack". Something like "heavy" would be much better.

tweeten

One day they woke me up so I could live forever

It's such a shame the same will never happen to you

Jame Jarl Retief
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#22 - 2013-04-09 13:39:45 UTC
They seem to be wishy-washy and all over the place without any consistency when it comes to ship balancing.

Consider the change of the Dominix. OK, ignore that out of the entire Gallente lineup, Dominix was one of the very few ships that actually worked well, was versatile and didn't really NEED changing. But anyway, they turned it into a dedicated drone boat with no more turret bonuses? Fine, excellent. But what about the smaller "drone boats" like the Algos and the Vexor? Why aren't they dedicated drone boats without turret bonuses? Why do those ships remain split weapon systems, while Dominix goes full-drone? Where's the consistency?

Sloppy balancing is sloppy, that's all I'm going to say.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#23 - 2013-04-09 13:57:48 UTC
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:
They seem to be wishy-washy and all over the place without any consistency when it comes to ship balancing.

Consider the change of the Dominix. OK, ignore that out of the entire Gallente lineup, Dominix was one of the very few ships that actually worked well, was versatile and didn't really NEED changing. But anyway, they turned it into a dedicated drone boat with no more turret bonuses? Fine, excellent. But what about the smaller "drone boats" like the Algos and the Vexor? Why aren't they dedicated drone boats without turret bonuses? Why do those ships remain split weapon systems, while Dominix goes full-drone? Where's the consistency?

Sloppy balancing is sloppy, that's all I'm going to say.


Different ships are different, just because they are in the same "line" doesn't mean they have to be identical. I don't see any sloppy ness, ships need to be balanced with intheir class, not against smaller or larger ships. A all drone bonues Vexor or Algos might be over powered because of their small size and speed, where as an all drone domi (relying on sentries) is not.

i very happy about the changes, the new Domi will be an improvement for me as I don't ever use guns on a domi (I use the ship as a swiss army knife with remote reppers and such), and the New 'Phoon will be nicer now for PVE.
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#24 - 2013-04-09 14:08:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Rebecha Pucontis
The new Tempest is just horrible. Massively increasing its sig and reducing its speed simply is making it into a poor mans maelstrom. Every role it was once good has now been superseded by other ships, the one thing it had left going for it was its low signature and speed, now that has gone, I don't see what other role it will be good for.
Lili Lu
#25 - 2013-04-09 14:13:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
I Love Boobies wrote:
Please note the forum section those changes are posted in. Ideas and Features. Meaning it's what they want to do, are asking for feedback, and want to know what people think. Doesn't mean you should get your bras in a bunch about it yet because they are not set into concrete. Relax... breathe...

fixed to be more boobie focused P

As per the quote, these things are somewhat fluid and might be changed. The balancing team is open to feedback. Just don't whine like the oft heard "**** you ccp you hate my beloved (insert race here, usually seems caldari centric pilots love this particular whine) ships". Be specific and suggest alternatives. That way everyone can see how reasoned your position is, or how unreasoned it is.

For instance, asking for a role bonus for your particular ship or race (amarr chauvinists often fall into this flaw) that no other ships in the class will get is not reasonable. Or asking for things that are way outside or contrary to the particular backstory of the race such as speed and mobility to go with already having great ranged damage application and tank (caldari chauvinists love this flaw too). If you are going to ask for a change against history or backstory distribute such across the races using a ship role argument. For instance there is no reason for tanking bonuses on blockade runners, because these ships want speed, agility, and cargo space. Do this so it does not become just another obvious buff my particular ship or race plea, coming from someone with no experience of other races or weapons systems. To do such is to engage in the grass is always greener for those other folks so fertilize my lawn flawed argument that unfortunately we see too much of on these forums.
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#26 - 2013-04-09 14:26:41 UTC
as a fW player i havnt seen a BS since inferno so it can only be a good change! :D

adapt or die.... (crying about it)

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.

Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#27 - 2013-04-09 14:27:57 UTC
Jace Errata wrote:

Honestly I doubt they'll change the plans. Everything from UnInv to cap V3 has received "tough, you're getting it this way lol" responses to criticism.



you say that but they have realized some stupid stuff before and changed it, remember the talos with a 90% web?

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.

Budrick3
Moira.
#28 - 2013-04-09 14:30:24 UTC
Random Majere wrote:
It would be interesting if we could be able to make a selection between different "versions" of the same hull. For example, when "unpackaging" your Megathron, a pop up menu could appear and enable you to select between versions 1, 2 or 3 (at no additional cost). These versions could have different bonuses, different number of H, M and L slots. Differences in CPU, powergrid, and so on. People who love a particular race would then have the luxury to fly their favourite ships, in more types of situations.

Ship re-balances such as this would have less negative impacts on the players who love to fly and fit T1 battleships the way they always used to. This would also enable you CCP to either remove, modify or even add a new "version" of the same hull.

Think about it CCP.


That is a really cool idea. Props to you. Sort of like a T3 without as many options. I like it.
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Affirmative.
#29 - 2013-04-09 14:32:06 UTC
Looks at the page counts for the 4 Threads
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=223610&find=unread - Gallente - 37
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=223607&find=unread - Amarr -21
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=223611&find=unread - Minmatar - 9
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=223608&find=unread - Caldari - 8

Seems that there is more to discuss on that Gallente and Amarr BS Balancing that the other 2 races combined :)
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#30 - 2013-04-09 14:35:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Budrick3 wrote:
Whether you agree / disagree or are oblivious to the new "balancing" changes for Battleships in the next patch, you owe it to yourself to voice your opinion at the following thread.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=topics&f=270

Some changes are good, some you have to wonder who in their right mind would propose such a terrible idea.

*Cough Hyperion change in particular.

In my personal opinion, I find it very ironic that the previous patch seemed to boost t1 cruisers so much. It was an awesome patch, and provided PVP at a fun and affordable level. But this patch seems that CCP is just dying to nerf Battleships by removing bonuses to resistances, and switching around fitting slots in some upsetting and drastic ways.

Battleships are supposed to be beefy brawlers, not watered down from their current state. So once again, voice your opinion at your race's thread.


No bonuses to resistances were removed.

The only change along that line was ships that had a resistance bonus got a slight nerf from 5% per level to 4% per level... an obvious move to try and balance the advantages of resistance bonuses (mainly due to remote reps being so effective) vs active tanks.

This only affects a couple of ships, and if I remember correctly was the only change those particular ships got.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#31 - 2013-04-09 14:40:54 UTC
Zenos Ebeth wrote:
Quote:

The armageddon:
Amarr Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+10% to Drone damage and Hit Points (replaced large energy turret rate of fire)
+10% Energy Neutralizer and Energy Vampire range (replaced large energy turret cap use)


Alas , armageddon , i kwew thee well.

Seriously , why did you do that ccp ? Now if i need a brawling BS i'm going to have to buy the much more expensive abbadon ? i hope you guys are going to keep tabs on the popularity of the ship before and after the patch , because i think it will change drastically.

If the changes go through as currently proposed the Armageddon will be the preferred close range brawler... and not just for Amarr pilots. Smile

There are strong concerns that it is going to end up very overpowered. I am not the type to look at long range neuts and immediatley start forecasting that the ship will now be immune to being tackled and most kiting ships, but there are plenty of people that feel that way.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
#32 - 2013-04-09 14:43:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Thor Kerrigan
I saw the changes for each race. I like the direction CCP is going with this but like they said, all these changes are still in prototype mode. Remember when the tengu was about to get a 20% DPS nerf along with a 30% range nerf? These threads are there for us to go discuss them.

Some of you should seriously reconsider what they think is "constructive feedback".

Also, remember that CCP stated faction battleships are going to be there to fill missing gaps.

Expect some changes to get toned up/down a bit, and then a second time when they balance faction battleships.
Doc Severide
Doomheim
#33 - 2013-04-09 15:00:40 UTC
Crap, just Crap... If it works Nerf it. This game has become Nerf Online...
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#34 - 2013-04-09 15:03:53 UTC
I have created a thread in F&I discussion forum for those Minmatar pilots concerned about the current changes. From the Minmatar proposal thread the consensus seems to be that the Tempest would be much better suited to the fast attack projectile BS role, and the Typhoon more the heavy hitting armored brick with a large drone bay.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=223874&find=unread

There are some basic proposal there and they will be updated from further feedback received in the thread. Hopefully it may be of some use to CCP rise.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#35 - 2013-04-09 15:05:16 UTC
Random Majere wrote:
It would be interesting if we could be able to make a selection between different "versions" of the same hull. For example, when "unpackaging" your Megathron, a pop up menu could appear and enable you to select between versions 1, 2 or 3 (at no additional cost). These versions could have different bonuses, different number of H, M and L slots. Differences in CPU, powergrid, and so on. People who love a particular race would then have the luxury to fly their favourite ships, in more types of situations.

Ship re-balances such as this would have less negative impacts on the players who love to fly and fit T1 battleships the way they always used to. This would also enable you CCP to either remove, modify or even add a new "version" of the same hull.

Think about it CCP.



I like the idea of having racial specific subsystems such as the strategic cruisers use, but applied to all ships in game.

That way your skills matter in what you fly without having to retrain an entire racial line up just to fly 1 specific hull for maybe a week/month/somewhereinthefuture.

That Bhaalgorn have a good bonus to lasers AND neuts, but only want it to be a neuting beast? Load the neut sub system!

Don't want that Armageddon you love to be changed to fully be dependent on drones? Load that laser subsystem!

Of course, all that would come at a premium, changing a 120m hull into a 500mil ship...

But damned if you don't get the options for staying true to your bloodline.

Hell, offer a negative to non racial so you don't see Abaddons using ecm.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#36 - 2013-04-09 15:07:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Thor Kerrigan wrote:
I saw the changes for each race. I like the direction CCP is going with this but like they said, all these changes are still in prototype mode. Remember when the tengu was about to get a 20% DPS nerf along with a 30% range nerf? These threads are there for us to go discuss them.

Some of you should seriously reconsider what they think is "constructive feedback".

Also, remember that CCP stated faction battleships are going to be there to fill missing gaps.

Expect some changes to get toned up/down a bit, and then a second time when they balance faction battleships.

Exactly, and also keep in mind that Navy versions will likely NOT simply be beefed up versions of the T1 hulls. Which makes sense as that method usually only succeeded in obsoleting the T1 base hull, and they are trying to avoid that as much as possible. So as you said, faction variants are highly likely to plug in any perceived holes in ship capabilities.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#37 - 2013-04-09 15:08:01 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Budrick3 wrote:
Whether you agree / disagree or are oblivious to the new "balancing" changes for Battleships in the next patch, you owe it to yourself to voice your opinion at the following thread.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=topics&f=270

Some changes are good, some you have to wonder who in their right mind would propose such a terrible idea.

*Cough Hyperion change in particular.

In my personal opinion, I find it very ironic that the previous patch seemed to boost t1 cruisers so much. It was an awesome patch, and provided PVP at a fun and affordable level. But this patch seems that CCP is just dying to nerf Battleships by removing bonuses to resistances, and switching around fitting slots in some upsetting and drastic ways.

Battleships are supposed to be beefy brawlers, not watered down from their current state. So once again, voice your opinion at your race's thread.


No bonuses to resistances were removed.

The only change along that line was ships that had a resistance bonus got a slight nerf from 5% per level to 4% per level... an obvious move to try and balance the advantages of resistance bonuses (mainly due to remote reps being so effective) vs active tanks.

This only affects a couple of ships, and if I remember correctly was the only change those particular ships got.



And to the only ships that don't have a faction/T2 variant I believe as well.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#38 - 2013-04-09 15:10:10 UTC
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:
I have created a thread in F&I discussion forum for those Minmatar pilots concerned about the current changes. From the Minmatar proposal thread the consensus seems to be that the Tempest would be much better suited to the fast attack projectile BS role, and the Typhoon more the heavy hitting armored brick with a large drone bay.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=223874&find=unread

There are some basic proposal there and they will be updated from further feedback received in the thread. Hopefully it may be of some use to CCP rise.

I'll check that out. There will likely be a lot of controversy as although the Tempest was often used at close range, the Typhoon has always been the faster and more nimble hull.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Haulie Berry
#39 - 2013-04-09 15:19:48 UTC
Well, having reviewed the posts, I am now certain that the battleships are being changed and that this means the sky is falling and/or Eve is dying.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#40 - 2013-04-09 15:21:29 UTC
Jace Errata wrote:
I Love Boobies wrote:
Please note the forum section those changes are posted in. Ideas and Features. Meaning it's what they want to do, are asking for feedback, and want to know what people think. Doesn't mean you should get your panties in a bunch about it yet because they are not set into concrete. Relax... breathe...

Honestly I doubt they'll change the plans. Everything from UnInv to cap V3 has received "tough, you're getting it this way lol" responses to criticism.

It's funny that you should say this considering what happened with the Heavy Missile rebalance (as in, the rebalance that was proposed was changed several times based off player feedback into something more players could agree on).

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Previous page123Next page