These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Odyssey] Tech 1 Battleships - Amarr

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1861 - 2013-04-25 00:51:48 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
To reiterate his point for all the tl;dr out there... "If your going to do something, do it right the first time, take pride in your work, and don't make excuses to procrastinate over it."

If you are of a mind to think you can balance a complex system right the first time and never have to later make changes based on things you find out along the way, you probably shouldn't be balancing complex systems.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1862 - 2013-04-25 01:05:41 UTC
Loki Vice wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
[quote=Loki Vice][quote=CCP Kil2] -snip-

WAHT? You drunk really? The geddon has issue of not looking amarr at all now. but its SUPER powerful. Almost all low sec and high sec pvp will see it used.


Guuurl, you cray cray. in highsex pvp happens in stations and on gates -fact- where you don't need a useless 30km neut (plus remember you aren't getting a full wrack of heavies) so a neuting phoon/dominix will actually prove to be more beneficial. and in lowsex? nothing is going to change because of the new geddon it will die in a bag of phallusus, frankly if it stays in its current itteration i look forward to seeing all the bads who think "HURP DURP GEDDON OP" fly it into lowsex and add it to my pile o kills.



U trying to teach how a U MAD guy how high sec PVP is? DUDE! And geddon is strong.. very strong,

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Mobius Reynolds
Facepunch Industries
#1863 - 2013-04-25 01:15:14 UTC
The new 'geddon looks like it'll be a large sized curse...will be interesting to see it in action. And for those of you who say it doesn't look amarr with its stats: The Khanid Kingdom would like to have a word as to whether or not they are part of the faction or not...
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1864 - 2013-04-25 04:55:43 UTC
Mobius Reynolds wrote:
The new 'geddon looks like it'll be a large sized curse...will be interesting to see it in action. And for those of you who say it doesn't look amarr with its stats: The Khanid Kingdom would like to have a word as to whether or not they are part of the faction or not...

They arent.
The US and Canada are both part of America, but only the US is really "america". Just ebcause the two factions are closely tied doesnt mean that one of them has to give a good chunk of its ships to bend over for the other groups doctrine.

Khanid ships have and always will be T2/faction ships, the fact that they are making the T1 geddon like this makes me sad.

i an only hope the navy geddon doesnt get the same treatment, because it was a fun ship to fly.

RIP Amarr BS line.

Hello Team Brown/Yellow battleships.
Apostrof Ahashion
Doomheim
#1865 - 2013-04-25 06:19:29 UTC
It was a great plan splitting all of this in four threads, so no one is actually complaining how Amarr and Gallente attack battleships have less hp, even less armor hp, than Minmatar one, not to mention are still slower. Or how Amarr are the only race without utility high on their gunships.

Seriously when you balance things i expect that ships lose or gain hp based on their performance, race, role. Not just "lets make them have nice even numbers". And even number of slots on ships is ****** up, when you reduce number of turrets and move a high slot to the low slot but increase the bonuses to compensate the ship effectively has more slots than before. And more cap.

All things considered the Amarr is the only race that got nerfed across the board, PvP and PvE (a lot). And they were already the worst race for pve for new players, and when is the last time someone used hellcats?

And changing Armageddon completely only couple of months after you said it is in a good place (Back to the Balancing Future Dev Blog) and wont be changed is a slap in the face to your customers.
Kerdrak
Querry Moon
#1866 - 2013-04-25 07:02:59 UTC
After several days of reading, I have come to the conclusion that what we need is a 4th tech 1 Battleship:
Theia Matova
Dominance Theory
#1867 - 2013-04-25 08:29:55 UTC
Crash Lander wrote:
@CCP Rise
In my post I pointed out how I think the tracking bonus in exchange for the cap bonus is not a good trade:

I think that removing the cap bonus was right thing to do. This is because if we continue to have ship with gun cap use reduction they will never be in balance with other ship. This bonus is endurance bonus and should have no purpose in brawls. I find tracking bonus way more appealing. I tried new apoc in duality and it ran like dream also hitting frigs easily with pulses so no complaining there.

So in overall I believe this is a good change it will help CCP to actually balance either ship cap or lasers so that it will be better for us all.
Onslaughtor
Phoenix Naval Operations
Phoenix Naval Systems
#1868 - 2013-04-25 08:49:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Onslaughtor
As a long time Amarr pilot, I am very pleased with these changes.

Not trolling.

My take

Abaddon

The abaddon is a fleet vessel, used in conjunction with logi it is one of the strongest of its size vessels in the game. While it may hurt the ships armor tank by a total of 8% * after the change, it is still going to be a very strong vessel. If I could ask for any change it would be for the same kind of treatment that the Harbinger got.

* probably less

Apocalypse

The apoc is already a great ship, although previously overshadowed by the damage bonus of the armageddon and abaddon and its smaller tank. The navpoc has proven that the ship works in a heavy form, what we have here is a lighter form that really has not lost nearly any of its tank and has gained one of the most powerful bonuses that a laser ship can have, tracking. After owning a nightmare I can tell you that this level of tracking is a god send. On a armor tanking hull with a optimal ** and tracking bonus this is going to be a great ship, and when you take into acount new modules like the MJD things get intresting very fast.

** for the uninformed a optimal bonus is also a bonus to tracking, because you can use shorter range ammo (ie, better tracking) on targets farther way (ie, less transversal) so in effect this ship get TWO tracking bonuses. Tho this only works for mid to long range. Which is why its still a weak bonus to hybrids, but that's a different story altogether

Armageddon

While a iconic ship and once apon a time the end all in damage, the geddon now tries to share the same role as the other battles ships in its group with nothing new to add. CCP is trying to change this and is giveing this iconic hulls ONE OF THE STRONGEST BONUSES IN THE GAME*** "my opinion". That and with it becoming a drone ship and it being a combat BS (Which means serious lvls of ehp) we are looking at a ship that knows what it wants to be.
This vessel no longer needs guns to do damage, so it can fill its highs with nuets and nos, and can stuff its lows with tank. This ship will be included in every abaddon fleet and will become a staple in capital warfare. Now capable with a MJD this ship can effectively attempt to dismantle/distract enemy logi and bring smaller ships to their knees (the same way the old hurricane used its duel nuets to shake of frigates).
This ship will find a place in almost all realms of pvp and possible in other places due to its drone usage.

*** even more so when its in conjunction with its hull.

Ps. I am sad about one thing, the hull will not longer be cheap and will no-longer feature 8 highs, which means that suicide smart bombs is off the table for me. Because ramming a bombageddon into a lightly tanked fleet waiting on a titan is priceless, true story.




Now that I've said my peace, I do want to point out the changes to large lasers is a nice one, while it could be better I feel that the real problem is that the other weapon systems don't use enough cap, I'm looking at you minmitar and caldari, and this has created a culture that tries to shy away from the skill and planning it takes to use cap hungry vessels.

So moral of the story, I really enjoy your tears but your crying about something being bad when its actually may be to good.
Theia Matova
Dominance Theory
#1869 - 2013-04-25 09:52:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Theia Matova
Very well said @Onslaughtor very well said. Could not put it better together myself.

Ships themselves are ok, those things that Amarr ships themselves need improvement to are:

  • Gun system cap use
    • I think that lasers should be bring more close to other gun system cap use. This could be done in several ways, either raising cap use for all other weapon systems and bringing them closer to lasers (in inclusions balacing every ship cap of course) Or simply bringing laser cap use down.

  • In relation to cap use cap boosters need improvement is several areas
    • 1) Amarr ships have few medium slots, if amarr ship needs to use cap injector for PVP fit 1 injector should be enough. There was earlier post in this thread that pointed out that you would need to have 2 injectors to keep amarr ship running in PVP.
    2) Cap injector charge size, currently if you want to use cap injector you can have very few charges with you. So injector is very few minute solution for cap issue. Cap injectors need change to charges so that we can either carry more of them with us or that one charge lasts more uses. (Perhaps introduce ammo/charge bay to ships? that only can include these charges?)

  • Training time to use cap hungry beasts
    • Since Apoc and Abaddon become laser only boats (no optional launcher slots anymore), importance of capacitor related skills grow. In my own experience to fly Abaddon with 1 launcher with beams (I know its not very good but with mediocore skills beams are better than pulses because optimal range and so on) helping cap use you need at least controlled bursts V, Energy Systems Operation V, Energy Management IV or V. Since we lose the launcher you also lose flexibility that the launcher gives balancing power grid and CPU. I am very worried for new player experience becomes worse with these tier removing. That you can fly the ships faster only cause issue that you will have problem with the support skills related to that particular ship. Making eve very bad experience flying these ships early on.

  • Beam laser system is obsolete
    • I do not see that you are making it any better weapon system with the announced changes. Pulses are way better weapon system. They get almost same damage as beams for almost same range when you fit BS right. I am not sure if Amarrs even need second line of guns. Perhaps pulses should be only weapon system and we simple would change the burn point of lasers with crystals.

    Personal opinion about geddon is that even the changes are good, Geddon hull looks like battleship/gunship and does not look like drone boat. I had rather seen Geddon as lets say "t1" Bhaalgorn / brawler that would not get such bonus to neut range but rather strength making it better brawler, guarding its use of today and giving it also new purpose as neut boat. I see why geddon flyers are angry. And CCP should have consider this more through when introducing this change. If this new Geddon is introduced you should either change the design, or introduce a new amarr hull not to take away anything that exists. I would really much like to see T1 battleship Khanid missile boat that we really miss too.
    LuisWu
    Imperial Shipment
    Amarr Empire
    #1870 - 2013-04-25 11:03:58 UTC
    The more I read the new changes the less I understand them, I strongly recommend to rethink and actually read some of the post written in this thread, which is not the same than appear each 20-30 pages to say that everything its ok.

    F*** This Game
    Jonas Sukarala
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #1871 - 2013-04-25 11:15:24 UTC
    CCP
    consider the navy augoror approach to amarr lasers..
    -stronger bonuses to damage
    -less turrets
    -more utility high's

    it makes sense that the primary cap user and neut user should have more options to use neuts/nos on ships and that they would have figured out that 8 lasers on a battleship isn't wise if a ship wants to keep shooting for more than a couple of minutes.

    Abbadon
    15% damage per level 4% Armour resist
    5 turrets 2 utility highs
    7-4-8
    cap recharge 7.0 secs

    something like this might work for cap on the abbadon and perhaps maller could get similar treatment.

    '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

    Tonto Auri
    Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
    #1872 - 2013-04-25 12:10:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Tonto Auri
    Tyberius Franklin wrote:
    Pelea Ming wrote:
    To reiterate his point for all the tl;dr out there... "If your going to do something, do it right the first time, take pride in your work, and don't make excuses to procrastinate over it."

    If you are of a mind to think you can balance a complex system right the first time and never have to later make changes based on things you find out along the way, you probably shouldn't be balancing complex systems.

    The balance was there for years. It wasn't very good, because some ships were intentionally made underpowered (literally - lacking powergrid to fit anything worthwhile).
    And if YOU have mind to think that
    Quote:
    For justice thunders condemnation
    A better world's in birth!
    No more tradition's chains shall bind us
    Arise, ye slaves, no more in thrall;
    The earth shall rise on new foundations
    We have been naught we shall be all.

    served well in 1917, you're an idiot. I live in this country. And I see, how it is degraded compared to all around.
    And least of all I want to see the same mistake happening in EVE.

    Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
    Gargantoi
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #1873 - 2013-04-25 12:45:38 UTC
    Jonas Sukarala wrote:
    CCP
    consider the navy augoror approach to amarr lasers..
    -stronger bonuses to damage
    -less turrets
    -more utility high's

    it makes sense that the primary cap user and neut user should have more options to use neuts/nos on ships and that they would have figured out that 8 lasers on a battleship isn't wise if a ship wants to keep shooting for more than a couple of minutes.

    Abbadon
    15% damage per level 4% Armour resist
    5 turrets 2 utility highs
    7-4-8
    cap recharge 7.0 secs

    something like this might work for cap on the abbadon and perhaps maller could get similar treatment.



    we dont want abaddon to be a nightmare but i do get your point and i would recomand to ccp to do this ...7-4-8 combo with 6 guns 1 utility 10% bonus to dmg 4% to resist remove 1% resist / lvl add 1 more low slot improve its dmg ...if not hyperion will take a **** on it not to mention that when fighting vs armored tanked ships em is the highest resist ..so dps is already killed
    Avald Midular
    Doomheim
    #1874 - 2013-04-25 13:18:10 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    After our last round of reviews we still feel that Amarr is likely in the best place it can be for Odyssey. We will keep watching closely as everything heads to sisi and if more adjustments are needed we will make them.


    This is the BEST you can do?

    As pointed out and supported by simple napkin math on nearly every page of this thread:

    1) The Amarr are taxed at least 2 fitting mods just to fit a rack of our own line of weapons due to their obscene PG use even with the slight tweaks made. The Oracle (as well as all 3 other races) have zero problems fitting a rack. This is broken.

    2) The Amarr are forced into Scorch even without #1. They get the same cap recharge as EVERY other race's BS line while only receiving a token 4-5% total cap over other race's and Mega-Beams/Tach's use obscene amounts of cap. This has always been a problem with the Abaddon but was tolerated since you could always use the Apoc and save Abaddon for the fleet operations, but now the Apoc is losing that distinction. The Amarr get punished with yet another 3+ module/rig tax to increase our cap regen to not cap-stable, but cap-usable. This is broken.

    3) Due to #1 and #2 Amarr are forced into pulse scorch and .... buffer tanking. Active armor tanking already requires 2 reppers to be on par with shield boosters while requiring significantly more PG like our weapons. Since the Maelstrom shield tanks it receives additional CPU over other BS's yet none of the Amarr BS's receive more PG even though active armor tanking and our weapons use obscene amounts of PG. This is broken.

    I would be interested in CCP Rise's example fit for the Abaddon/Apoc for Lvl 4 mission'ing or solo PvP that doesn't include Scorch, a buffer tank, and less than 2 cap mods.

    This was a good, solid example from the "Large Energy Turret" thread which has also been neglected feedback-wise:

    The Apoc/Abaddon needs two powergrid mods in order to fit a rack of T2 tachyons, a meta 4 MWD, a meta 4 HCB, and a meta 4 1600mm armor plate.
    And even then it needs at least one CPU mod in order to fit two T2 heat sinks, a T2 DC, another meta 4 1600mm plate, a T2 EANM, a SB, and a TC.
    Even then it's pretty much impossible to hit 90k EHP with the Apoc while the Rokh and Maelstrom can fit the equivalent of the above for shield tanking while not being taxed any fitting module slots.

    If this is "the best place" then your process is severely broken.
    Kagura Nikon
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #1875 - 2013-04-25 13:25:34 UTC
    Avald Midular wrote:
    CCP Rise wrote:
    After our last round of reviews we still feel that Amarr is likely in the best place it can be for Odyssey. We will keep watching closely as everything heads to sisi and if more adjustments are needed we will make them.


    This is the BEST you can do?

    As pointed out and supported by simple napkin math on nearly every page of this thread:

    1) The Amarr are taxed at least 2 fitting mods just to fit a rack of our own line of weapons due to their obscene PG use even with the slight tweaks made. The Oracle (as well as all 3 other races) have zero problems fitting a rack. This is broken.

    2) The Amarr are forced into Scorch even without #1. They get the same cap recharge as EVERY other race's BS line while only receiving a token 4-5% total cap over other race's and Mega-Beams/Tach's use obscene amounts of cap. This has always been a problem with the Abaddon but was tolerated since you could always use the Apoc and save Abaddon for the fleet operations, but now the Apoc is losing that distinction. The Amarr get punished with yet another 3+ module/rig tax to increase our cap regen to not cap-stable, but cap-usable. This is broken.

    3) Due to #1 and #2 Amarr are forced into pulse scorch and .... buffer tanking. Active armor tanking already requires 2 reppers to be on par with shield boosters while requiring significantly more PG like our weapons. Since the Maelstrom shield tanks it receives additional CPU over other BS's yet none of the Amarr BS's receive more PG even though active armor tanking and our weapons use obscene amounts of PG. This is broken.

    I would be interested in CCP Rise's example fit for the Abaddon/Apoc for Lvl 4 mission'ing or solo PvP that doesn't include Scorch, a buffer tank, and less than 2 cap mods.

    This was a good, solid example from the "Large Energy Turret" thread which has also been neglected feedback-wise:

    The Apoc/Abaddon needs two powergrid mods in order to fit a rack of T2 tachyons, a meta 4 MWD, a meta 4 HCB, and a meta 4 1600mm armor plate.
    And even then it needs at least one CPU mod in order to fit two T2 heat sinks, a T2 DC, another meta 4 1600mm plate, a T2 EANM, a SB, and a TC.
    Even then it's pretty much impossible to hit 90k EHP with the Apoc while the Rokh and Maelstrom can fit the equivalent of the above for shield tanking while not being taxed any fitting module slots.

    If this is "the best place" then your process is severely broken.



    The thing that makes apoc and abaddon look bad is the stupidity of Attack BC. They can fit 8 1400mm or 8 Tachyons... and that is STUPID. Attack BC need a huge nerf or battleships will enver be useful again.

    "If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
    Bouh Revetoile
    In Wreck we thrust
    #1876 - 2013-04-25 14:36:38 UTC
    Avald Midular wrote:
    I would be interested in CCP Rise's example fit for the Abaddon/Apoc for Lvl 4 mission'ing or solo PvP that doesn't include Scorch, a buffer tank, and less than 2 cap mods.

    Haha ! Your post was "reasonable" up to this line. If you solo pvp in a BS with LR weapons, you really don't need tank anyway. And even minmatar BS use a cap booster to solo pvp.

    Please, don't try to hide your pve arguments behind pvp concerns, and moreover behind small scale pvp concerns.
    Theia Matova
    Dominance Theory
    #1877 - 2013-04-25 14:38:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Theia Matova
    Kagura Nikon wrote:
    The thing that makes apoc and abaddon look bad is the stupidity of Attack BC. They can fit 8 1400mm or 8 Tachyons... and that is STUPID. Attack BC need a huge nerf or battleships will enver be useful again.


    @Kagura, I also feel dislike for attack BCs they give much better hull for certain activities that BS are since BS are sluggish and more costly and yes attack BC can fit guns better. I think this could be however compensated by raising attack BCs to t2 hulls. Increasing their cost. So the higher damage, range and mobility would be justified by cost. ((Yes, I know that most PVPers. Will raise finger for me for suggesting this.))

    However what I do not agree with you is that BS should be able to fit 8 turrets just because some other ship type can. I do feel that BS should actually give more damage out than attack BCs that they gain more use over attack BCs but I would rather have say 6 turret slots and 2 highs for either launchers or simply utility like tractor and salvager. I feel very sad that so few ships have utility highs they are very useful in low sec. This gives some minny hulls unfair advantage over many other ship hulls in this. So I would rather vote for this:

    * less turrets 5-6 max
    a) less cap consumption
    b) less pwg requirements
    * damage/RoF bonus to compensate 'lost' turret slots
    * 2 utility highs (this gives versatily to either fit ewar, support, solo salvager/tractor beam)
    Kagura Nikon
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #1878 - 2013-04-25 14:41:45 UTC
    Theia Matova wrote:
    Kagura Nikon wrote:
    The thing that makes apoc and abaddon look bad is the stupidity of Attack BC. They can fit 8 1400mm or 8 Tachyons... and that is STUPID. Attack BC need a huge nerf or battleships will enver be useful again.


    @Kagura, I also feel dislike for attack BCs they give much better hull for certain activities that BS are since BS are sluggish and more costly and yes attack BC can fit guns better. I think this could be however compensated by raising attack BCs to t2 hulls. Increasing their cost. So the higher damage, range and mobility would be justified by cost. ((Yes, I know that most PVPers. Will raise finger for me for suggesting this.))

    However what I do not agree with you is that BS should be able to fit 8 turrets just because some other ship type can. I do feel that BS should actually give more damage out than attack BCs that they gain more use over attack BCs but I would rather have say 6 turret slots and 2 highs for either launchers or simply utility like tractor and salvager. I feel very sad that so few ships have utility highs they are very useful in low sec. This gives some minny hulls unfair advantage over many other ship hulls in this. So I would rather vote for damage bonus to balance damage output + give 5-6 turrets and leave 2 highs for utility.




    I never said Battleships should easily fit 8 turrets. But BS should not be outgunned by their smaller brtother. And currently they are MASSIVELY outgunned.

    And do not dare to bring PVE into a balance discussion. The game is focused on PVP and balance is paramaunt on PVP, on PVE balance is less than secondary.. its just a frivolity !

    "If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
    Theia Matova
    Dominance Theory
    #1879 - 2013-04-25 15:01:32 UTC
    Kagura Nikon wrote:
    And do not dare to bring PVE into a balance discussion. The game is focused on PVP and balance is paramaunt on PVP, on PVE balance is less than secondary.. its just a frivolity !


    If you are not pirate PVE defines your ability to cover losses. Yes if you are part of big alliance or corp you might have certain other means to cover losses but for many single players PVE is the biggest or only money source.

    This assumption is very vague. Its truth that PVP does stand big meaning in but it doesn't totally shadow PVE. Even you are PVPer you need to gain access jump clone stations (gain rep) and do some other PVE activities to actually come by in PVP. Even the faction mods you fit to gain advantage over others are from PVE source. So you could even claim that PVE extends to PVP. Also EVEs PVP is mostly about ganking either site doers or missions runners or ganking industrials. Which I personally really hate. Yes there should be risk but PVP should not be about ganking weaker ships than you. It should be competition and fair fighting.

    So when you consider that EVE is simply PVP game you are bullshitting yourself the devs and every friend around you. PVE balance is important due to the fact that it determines the speed you can compensate losses.

    Null game is only fraction of the game. I know that many people spend time in low, high and wormholes.
    Kagura Nikon
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #1880 - 2013-04-25 15:14:58 UTC
    Theia Matova wrote:
    Kagura Nikon wrote:
    And do not dare to bring PVE into a balance discussion. The game is focused on PVP and balance is paramaunt on PVP, on PVE balance is less than secondary.. its just a frivolity !


    If you are not pirate PVE defines your ability to cover losses. Yes if you are part of big alliance or corp you might have certain other means to cover losses but for many single players PVE is the biggest or only money source.

    This assumption is very vague. Its truth that PVP does stand big meaning in but it doesn't totally shadow PVE. Even you are PVPer you need to gain access jump clone stations (gain rep) and do some other PVE activities to actually come by in PVP. Even the faction mods you fit to gain advantage over others are from PVE source. So you could even claim that PVE extends to PVP. Also EVEs PVP is mostly about ganking either site doers or missions runners or ganking industrials. Which I personally really hate. Yes there should be risk but PVP should not be about ganking weaker ships than you. It should be competition and fair fighting.

    So when you consider that EVE is simply PVP game you are bullshitting yourself the devs and every friend around you. PVE balance is important due to the fact that it determines the speed you can compensate losses.

    Null game is only fraction of the game. I know that many people spend time in low, high and wormholes.



    You fail to realize what I meant. Of course PVE need to exist. But if you loose 3% on your PVE capability.. you are just loosing a few million isk per hour. If a PVP ship looses 3% of its capabilit.. that may be the difference between survival and catastrofic failure.. between being an useful ship and useless ship.


    PVE has a much broader and relaxed limits for balance. If the raven makes 50M isk per hour on missions and the new typhoon makes 55 M isk per hour.. that will hardly hurt anyone. But If the typhoon is overalll 10% better than the raven. that is horrible for PVP.

    That is why I say balance for PVE is a frivolity. Balance should always worry FIRST on PVP, because there the consequences are amplified.

    "If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"