These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Odyssey Ship Balancing

First post
Author
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#61 - 2013-06-04 11:30:48 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
Maul555 wrote:
Quote:
Destroyers and Battlecruisers skills are being split in four racial versions and being reimbursed


This is a huge red flag for me. Are you saying that when I log in, I cannot fly any of my battlecruisers or destroyers? I live in a wormhole, and dont have the luxury of just flying by jita whenever I want to fix this... Hell, what happens if someone logged off in a battlecruiser or destroyer?


If you can fly it before the patch you can fly it after the patch.

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/74234 has all the details.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

SMT008
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#62 - 2013-06-04 11:32:23 UTC
It's funny how everyone keeps flipping out.

Fozzie, can you share with us what's next on the rebalancing road ?

Industrials of course, Command ships, HACs, capitals ? That's what I heard.
Maul555
Xen Investments
#63 - 2013-06-04 12:06:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Maul555
Soko99 wrote:
With the whole combat/attack cruiser changes. Has this made it a separate overview setting as well like it did with the battlecruisers? Also will this be the same for battleships as well? (cause that's the most annoying part since there's really no reason why you would have attack ships but not combat ships on your overview so splitting them up in the overview settings is just an annoyance more than anything)


I did not realize that they are officially splitting the categories in the game. IMHO all regular battleships should be in a single battleship category to keep things simple... They are allready split up enough different ways, and I cannot think of a reason I would want to go through extra menus when comparing ships, or any reason why I would want to see only one type of battleship on my overview.
Maul555
Xen Investments
#64 - 2013-06-04 12:07:13 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Maul555 wrote:
Quote:
Destroyers and Battlecruisers skills are being split in four racial versions and being reimbursed


This is a huge red flag for me. Are you saying that when I log in, I cannot fly any of my battlecruisers or destroyers? I live in a wormhole, and dont have the luxury of just flying by jita whenever I want to fix this... Hell, what happens if someone logged off in a battlecruiser or destroyer?


If you can fly it before the patch you can fly it after the patch.

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/74234 has all the details.



Sweet, thx...
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#65 - 2013-06-04 15:27:57 UTC
Vince Snetterton wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
That's 107 ships either added or comprehensively rebalanced in the last year.

Let's see if we can beat that next year.


How about no.

How about you slow down, let the players test these massive sweeping changes, and see what ships you have wrecked , what ships you have made OP, fix those, and THEN look at fixing T2 and pirate ships.

Just because you were in PL does not make you the expert on every ship in the game.

I think you missed the last couple of months of testing that has been done.

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.
#66 - 2013-06-04 15:31:45 UTC
Grace Ishukone wrote:
Personally I hate a lot of the new ship changes.

Sure the ships are more balanced. But they are more BORING - because you can only fit them one way.


Did you guys ever READ the old description of the Maelstrom? It had wonderful character - now you have a more techically efficient pvp projectile battleship, but at the cost of some of the style that made the game so great.

If I want to put cruise missiles on my APOC or Mael ... I should be allowed to. Especially Minmintar ships, which are meant to be the last word in how to bolt bits onto other bits to make a ship.


Rest in Peace the Blasphemy, my Cruise Missle / T2 Beam Laser fit Maelstrom. Never more will your like take to the skies ...
... unless I pay to win by buying PLEX to get the super-duper-pirate cruiser, right?


Seriously, not even kidding. I am slowly seeing EVE become pay-to-win. Stop it, stop it now CCP. Or remove the monthly subscription and move to an honest pay to win model like World of Tanks, rather than the "he who buys PLEX wins" model of ship design we see now.

Pirate ships are all well and good. But if you live in nullsec, you should be able to get the prints and build them in nullsec. Currently, that isn't a credible possibility. Ever wondered why nearly everyone plays in high-sec? You need to run missions to get the "I WIN" ships these days.... and that makes me really sad. EVE is 10 years old, and the designers are going backwards in terms of supporting nullsec-based gameplay with the latest downgrades of t1 ships.

P.s. tried a rifter vs a cynnabal lately? or indeed any t1 cruiser or interceptor vs a cynnable? It's all over before you even start. So how do you win in PvP? Simple, buy PLEX and buy Pirate ships. Welcome to the Pay to win Decade.

It is rare to see so many incorrect assertions in a single post.

Well done.

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

Dliv Toogni
Dliv ME Alone
#67 - 2013-06-05 00:06:40 UTC
I was gutted to see the two launcher slots had been removed from my Apocalypse, and have seen no mentioning of this being in the pipeline, and not mentioned anything about it in the post about the changes done neither, only ..

Quote:
Until now the Apocalypse was renowned as a very comfortable hull due to its large capacitor, further enhanced by the Large Energy Turret Capacitor use reduction provided by one of its bonuses. However, it was judged quite dull by our balancing team, and as a result we have changed this previously mentioned bonus to favor turret tracking instead. For moving into the “Attack Battleship” role, the Apocalypse is also gaining mobility and is about to become a damage projection bully at its designated medium-long engagement range.


.... and the reasoning for the changes, "..judged quite dull by our balancing team..", not needed but because it was thought to be "dull"!!??
Meditril
Hoplite Brigade
Ushra'Khan
#68 - 2013-06-05 14:01:00 UTC
Pyrus Octavius wrote:
Hi Dev's:

The Ancillary Armor Repair module is broken and in need of attention. It is pretty much a useless module unless it is paired with a Armor Repairer, and even with that, having both running requires a Cap Booster to keep them running. The use of Nanite Repair Paste is a nice alternative to using cap boosters, but unlike the Ancillary Shield Booster, doesn't substitute the need for the Ancillary Armor Repair module to use capacitor to function. Lastly, the nanite repair past reload time is atrocious. Will you be addressing any of these concerns?

Thank you.


Are we playing the same game?
The Ancillary Armor Repair module is really awesome, without being overpowered.
Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
#69 - 2013-06-05 15:59:59 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Vince Snetterton wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
That's 107 ships either added or comprehensively rebalanced in the last year.

Let's see if we can beat that next year.


How about no.

How about you slow down, let the players test these massive sweeping changes, and see what ships you have wrecked , what ships you have made OP, fix those, and THEN look at fixing T2 and pirate ships.

Just because you were in PL does not make you the expert on every ship in the game.

I think you missed the last couple of months of testing that has been done.


Well, if Vince means resistance changes by massive sweeping changes, then he is quite right imho.
Vince Snetterton
#70 - 2013-06-06 06:35:52 UTC
Ashlar Vellum wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Vince Snetterton wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
That's 107 ships either added or comprehensively rebalanced in the last year.

Let's see if we can beat that next year.


How about no.

How about you slow down, let the players test these massive sweeping changes, and see what ships you have wrecked , what ships you have made OP, fix those, and THEN look at fixing T2 and pirate ships.

Just because you were in PL does not make you the expert on every ship in the game.

I think you missed the last couple of months of testing that has been done.


Well, if Vince means resistance changes by massive sweeping changes, then he is quite right imho.


By most accounts, over 100 ships have been altered severely (Armageddon) to minor changes, in the past few months on Sisi.
The amount of players on Sisi is tiny, compared the player base in game.

As I understand it, some of the T1 cruiser changes, which were introduced months ago, just got yet another adjustment pass.
Clearly, the testing on Sisi was not nearly good enough, or more likely, was ignored by the people responsible for making all these ship changes. Not until the changes hit TQ was the feedback accepted, or a large enough base played with the ships, did we see another set of revisions to the stats.

To suggest that 2 guys have flown, under all kinds of conditions, all these ships, is ludicrous.
There WILL be more changes to the set of ship changed 3 days ago, once the player base gets a lot of play time with them.

So for the pandemic legion guy to suggest he wants to ram through a ton more changes, on a ton more ships, before the player base gives feedback on the huge new set of ships, is plain nuts.

Imagine this scenario: How do changes to the HAC's get made, if the T1 cruisers, Navy cruisers, and potentially, the faction cruisers are all in state of flux? What is the baseline for the Ishtar when the Navy Vexor is just coming out in a new version, that may be tweaked 3 months from now?

How does one adjust the combat T2 BC's, if the Navy BC's just got released and a set of revisions are required on this set of Navy BC's 2 or 3 months from now?

Frankly, this whole process was botched by CCP. They should have focused on one hull class, likely starting with frigates, and sorted out all the frigates in the game, then moved on to cruisers, then BC, etc.
SehrGute
Hunters of capsuleers
#71 - 2013-06-06 11:54:03 UTC
marauder's, MARAUDER'S!!!! they are dying.
Divi Filus
New Xenocracy
#72 - 2013-06-06 21:07:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Divi Filus
Vince Snetterton wrote:
Ashlar Vellum wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Vince Snetterton wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
That's 107 ships either added or comprehensively rebalanced in the last year.

Let's see if we can beat that next year.


How about no.

How about you slow down, let the players test these massive sweeping changes, and see what ships you have wrecked , what ships you have made OP, fix those, and THEN look at fixing T2 and pirate ships.

Just because you were in PL does not make you the expert on every ship in the game.

I think you missed the last couple of months of testing that has been done.


Well, if Vince means resistance changes by massive sweeping changes, then he is quite right imho.


By most accounts, over 100 ships have been altered severely (Armageddon) to minor changes, in the past few months on Sisi.
The amount of players on Sisi is tiny, compared the player base in game.

As I understand it, some of the T1 cruiser changes, which were introduced months ago, just got yet another adjustment pass.
Clearly, the testing on Sisi was not nearly good enough, or more likely, was ignored by the people responsible for making all these ship changes. Not until the changes hit TQ was the feedback accepted, or a large enough base played with the ships, did we see another set of revisions to the stats.

To suggest that 2 guys have flown, under all kinds of conditions, all these ships, is ludicrous.
There WILL be more changes to the set of ship changed 3 days ago, once the player base gets a lot of play time with them.

So for the pandemic legion guy to suggest he wants to ram through a ton more changes, on a ton more ships, before the player base gives feedback on the huge new set of ships, is plain nuts.

Imagine this scenario: How do changes to the HAC's get made, if the T1 cruisers, Navy cruisers, and potentially, the faction cruisers are all in state of flux? What is the baseline for the Ishtar when the Navy Vexor is just coming out in a new version, that may be tweaked 3 months from now?

How does one adjust the combat T2 BC's, if the Navy BC's just got released and a set of revisions are required on this set of Navy BC's 2 or 3 months from now?

Frankly, this whole process was botched by CCP. They should have focused on one hull class, likely starting with frigates, and sorted out all the frigates in the game, then moved on to cruisers, then BC, etc.


First: have you actually looked at the t1 cruiser adjustment pass, which you cite as proof that CCP are just ignoring player feedback? The four support cruisers received very slight adjustments to sensor strength, scan resolution, and (in one case) lock range. The Omen got a mass adjustment. The only one that saw anything remotely near to a significant change was the Stabber, which got a drone bay and falloff buff. That's it.

Second: to claim that player feedback has been ignored is, itself, to ignore the frequent CCP response in the feedback threads, particularly for the rebalanced battleships. Do you have any idea how often CCP Rise edited the original stickies or posted in the threads to respond to player concerns? The final versions of the Megathron and Hyperion, in particular, are completely different from the original CCP proposal, due entirely to player feedback. Likewise, the Tempest saw its role completely shifted from what CCP initially proposed when they acknowledged player concerns that it fit more in the fast, agile "attack" role than in "combat." And let's not forget that the changes to large laser grid/cap use were a direct response to concerns raised in the Amarr battleship balancing thread. Now, whether you think those changes went far enough is one thing, but you can't say that CCP is just flat-out ignoring feedback.

Third: the fact that "the amount of players on Sisi is tiny, compared to the player base in the game" is entirely the fault of those players who don't pay attention to the test server. The proposed changes have been online on Singularity for well over a month; if someone feels this strongly about rebalancing and yet can't be bothered to playtest them, anything they don't like is at least partially their own fault.

Finally: the rebalanced ships include, so far, all t1 frigates, all t1 destroyers, all t1 cruisers, all t1 battlecruisers, and all t1 battleships, as well as the navy faction frigates, cruisers, and battleships. Of these, changes to the navy ships as well as the attack battlecruisers and the battleships are new to Odyssey; all others have been online since Retribution or before and have, in my opinion, been working just fine: the frigates, destroyers, and cruisers are in a good place; the combat battlecruisers are generally alright as well, though maybe they could do with another minor pass. But that's exactly the point that I think you've missed: rebalancing ships in EVE doesn't end, ever. The t1 cruiser polish pass, far from being evidence of a failure on CCP's part, is a perfect example of the kind of continuous (and, in this case, relatively small) tweaks needed to keep ship balance in a healthy state in a constantly-evolving game.

tl;dr words.
loquacious7
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#73 - 2013-06-08 23:36:57 UTC
Vince Snetterton wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
That's 107 ships either added or comprehensively rebalanced in the last year.

Let's see if we can beat that next year.


How about no.

How about you slow down, let the players test these massive sweeping changes, and see what ships you have wrecked , what ships you have made OP, fix those, and THEN look at fixing T2 and pirate ships.

Just because you were in PL does not make you the expert on every ship in the game.



I think the cap nerf of the Navy Apoc is too much. Mission fitting active tank now requires more cap boosters than some agents reward for the mission. If you have it in a fleet with logi it is ok. Also shaving the shield buffer off of it was a terrible idea, if only in the fact that it is a Navy Issue and should have a better design that a standard issue.
Msgerbs
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2013-06-11 08:14:32 UTC
Dominix feels very boring now. It also feels like the Abaddon has taken over what the dominix used to do.

Actually, through this whole tiericide thing I've felt like in other to avoid stepping on the toes of same-faction ships, you've been stepping all over the faction specialties of other factions, particularly the gallente.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#75 - 2013-06-11 12:43:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Mournful Conciousness
Msgerbs wrote:
Dominix feels very boring now. It also feels like the Abaddon has taken over what the dominix used to do.

Actually, through this whole tiericide thing I've felt like in other to avoid stepping on the toes of same-faction ships, you've been stepping all over the faction specialties of other factions, particularly the gallente.


Totally agree. I planned to buy a new domi for WH pvp yesterday. When it came down to it I could not bring myself to do it. I'll just train amarr bs to 5 and buy a geddon next month instead. it's a better drone ship, end of story.

The Dominix is now a one trick pony - it's a fixed-point sentry drone weapon system and nothing else. This used to be the most fun and versatile ship in the game.

Odyessy killed it, and no-one asked if we wanted it killed.

Deeply disappointed.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".

Xander Det89
T.R.I.A.D
Ushra'Khan
#76 - 2013-06-12 17:08:22 UTC
So is there a plan to actually bring other defense bonuses closer to a resist bonus in larger scale combat? Something that was in theory one of the aims of the resist nerf, but it still was never going to change the fact that more EHP (especially if provided through resists) is plain better than local rep bonuses in the vast majority of combat scenarios.
Amarr Priest
Doomheim
#77 - 2013-06-12 19:12:37 UTC
I am sad as to what was done to the Navy Omen, was one of my favorite cruiser class pvp ships to brawl in when I was in the amarr militia. The ship had great tank and damage for its class. I could go 1 v 1 with even some HAC's and win.

Armor tanked and nano are two things that in my opinion don't mix well. Minmatar ships should still be able to catch it and now its damage is much less which gives you even less survivability. To me the risk is not worth the price of the ship anymore. I do hope CCP looks into how people are and if they are even using the ship to great effect over the next few months and make a decision on reverting which will probably never happen but that's my 2 cents...
loquacious7
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#78 - 2013-06-12 21:35:29 UTC
Xander Det89 wrote:
So is there a plan to actually bring other defense bonuses closer to a resist bonus in larger scale combat? Something that was in theory one of the aims of the resist nerf, but it still was never going to change the fact that more EHP (especially if provided through resists) is plain better than local rep bonuses in the vast majority of combat scenarios.



I thought the same and still do. You do get better reps from T1 ships, but with that said, a well FC's fleet can melt ships faster now. So in hind sight you created easier to kill ships, easier to run out of cap ships and nerfed several dominate PVE BS's. Well done if you goal was to make it even harder for new players to lose ships. That should make you base and new players very happy # soak this in sarcasm for a week and it will still need more.
very displeased with half of what you did. extremely displeased with several ships now.
Xxerana
Nera'zim
#79 - 2013-06-14 06:01:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Xxerana
Amarr Priest wrote:
I am sad as to what was done to the Navy Omen, was one of my favorite cruiser class pvp ships to brawl in when I was in the amarr militia. The ship had great tank and damage for its class. I could go 1 v 1 with even some HAC's and win.

Armor tanked and nano are two things that in my opinion don't mix well. Minmatar ships should still be able to catch it and now its damage is much less which gives you even less survivability. To me the risk is not worth the price of the ship anymore. I do hope CCP looks into how people are and if they are even using the ship to great effect over the next few months and make a decision on reverting which will probably never happen but that's my 2 cents...


This.

This ship took a pretty heavy hit. To say that it will "zip around the battlefield skirmishing with the best of them" with the "new damage bonus" is a bit of a stretch. This ship has lost ~100 DPS with the removal of the 5th turret and RoF bonus, compared to my old fitting, and what the "new"one shows. Paired with lower hitpoints and removal of the capacitor bonus, even though it is a bit faster and has some more drones, doesn't really compensate for the loss of the turret slot and previous bonuses.
Arthur Aihaken
Kenshin Academia.
Kenshin Shogunate.
#80 - 2013-06-14 14:25:38 UTC
Whatever happened with the hull/graphics changes for certain Command Ships? ie: Nighthawk utilizing a Drake hull. I really liked the idea...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.