These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: 28 Ships Later: Ship and Module Balancing in Odyssey 1.1

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sparkus Volundar
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#61 - 2013-08-29 11:26:37 UTC
Thanks for the hard work.

Nighthawk still needs a 6th mid though. Since that's been mentioned a few time, I will try to put some numbers to it in case that helps/provides a fresh angle.

I like missiles as much as the next man but the fleet RR tanking comparison between the NH and the Vulture is painful.

The Vulture also has a resist bonus, 96% of the NH's base shield HP and a 6th mid for more tank.

Full T2 resists are very nice and it helps that the NH has recieved them but when you effectively drop a tank slot to get a T2 resist bonus (missile Drake/commandship Vulture, 6 mids vs. missile NH, 5 mids), they don't give as much advantage.

Comparison 1 - without gang links or many modules:
- NH with 5 mids, 2 rigs and a DC.
- Vulture with 6 mids, 2 rigs, a DC and an EM hardener in the 6th mid.
- Drake pretending to be a NH (T2 therm hardener and T1 kinetic rig in the extra slots the NH lost).

Drake
30-75-71-65 resists
193 DPS omni-tanked per meta 4 large RR

Nighthawk
30-86-79-65 resists
219 DPS omni-tanked per meta 4 large RR (14% more than Drake)

Vulture
69-86-79-65 resists
302 DPS omni-tanked per meta 4 large RR (57% more than Drake)

14% is a bad increase for the NH since if the Drake was unfitted, it would be +45%. Add one E-War mod and a strong tank and things improve for the NH due to stacking penalties but it's still not great compared to a Vulture as seen below.

Comparison 2 - rebalanced gang links and stronger tanks:
- Flat resists and minimal stacking penalties aimed for.
- All ships have a DC and each leave space for 1 E-War/utility module.

Drake (Invul II, EM Hardner II, Therm Hardner II, T1 EM rig and T1 Kin rig)
81-84-82-81 resists
575 DPS omni-tanked per meta 4 large RR

Nighthawk (Invul II, EM Hardner II, T2 EM rig)
82-92-89-81 resists
745 DPS omni-tanked per meta 4 large RR (30% more than Drake)

Vulture (Invul II, EM Hardner II, EM Hardner II, T1 Exp rig)
87-92-89-85 resists
870 DPS omni-tanked per meta 4 large RR (51% more than Drake)


Obviously the NH will do more damage than a Drake plus have a few other advantages but in a fight with RR, it's only getting about 60% of the advantage of its T2 resists due to having one less mid slot.

Thanks for taking the time to consider this post.

Regards,
Sparks

.
Nabiah
Hoplite Brigade
Ushra'Khan
#62 - 2013-08-29 12:18:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Nabiah
so 4 mid slots where we are meant to use a shield repper that will only give us a limited survivability. We realy want to loose that Vagabond dont we ?
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#63 - 2013-08-29 12:36:39 UTC
I am glad things are finally starting to progress in the right direction - who knows I might actually start playing again when the Strategic Cruisers have been properly balanced... Tier 3 Battlecruisers, T3 ships and blobbing made it very frustrating to keep playing.

I actually started writing a long document of things as I saw it before stopping to play. It does involve my view on T3 ships and capitals together with a few frustrations on other ships.

Here is the link (for devs and people who is looking for inspiration):

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c3c1s7WWEU9Dx_EysFgcrrZnoorpPxCNelS9zY9yM3g/edit?usp=sharing

Anyway keep up the good work with Eve - I believe a huge buff on active tanking and long range weaponry has been necesary for a long time... Now you just have to adjust the game environment to suit players in small groups wanting to use active repairs (more entries to lowsec, stronger sentry guns and bigger systems w/ more belts and bigger rewards for people)

Pinky Denmark
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#64 - 2013-08-29 14:19:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Sergeant Acht Scultz
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
Deimos (6.2/s cap) Absolution (4.5/s cap along will all other command ships lol?)

Please explain,Roll


Extremely strong capacitor regen is part of the package of intended strengths for the HAC class. When we give one class a certain strength we don't generally change every other class to give them the same strength.

The pattern of ships sharing a class and role (for example Attack frigates, or disruption cruisers) having the same peak cap regen but significantly differing cap pool sizes with exceptions as needed has also been in use for well over a year and we're quite happy with it overall. The fact that people are somehow "discovering" it now amuses me greatly :)



Please follow the same logic and scrap command sub from T3's, those are cruiser hulls, CS are Battlecruisers.

Command ships require a huge amount of time to get them, get them all it's just masochism, this command sub is not at it's place at all and T3's could be given another important role for all playing styles in the spec cruiser class.
I don't care loosing 3D training for an ubber cloack dictor a la Sabre, this would be a fantastic tool for solo small entities to disrupt easier larger groups and step on their territory toes, an effective harassment tool able to fit cover ops cloak that's it.

Thx for not reading

EDIT because I can: good job guys

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
SkupojHren
State War Academy
Caldari State
#65 - 2013-08-29 14:35:47 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Little known fact: Miley Cyrus' hit song "We Can't Stop" was entirely based upon the story of CCP's balance team.

Our deepest apologies.


we can`t stop destroying eve?
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#66 - 2013-08-29 16:21:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Again, huge swaths of formerly sub par ships will again see main stream use.

Well done.

I'm sure there will be a 2nd pass made to tweak a few things here and there, as there should be, but the base direction looks pretty sound considering current and future game mechanics.

I am very much looking forward to gang bonuses being handled differently. I know that the current system works as it does to keep server load to a minimum, but a sensible system that takes the bulleye off of specific command ships (or spreads the load around a lot) will be most welcome.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Balanah
Quebec's Underdog League
Quebec United Legions
#67 - 2013-08-29 20:55:05 UTC
Again after this patch, Amarr ships will be more cap dependant than ever. Poor Zealot, not enough tracking and cap thanks to the MWD.

Wormhole animal.
Vorll Minaaran
Centre Of Attention
#68 - 2013-08-31 00:03:32 UTC
Dont know where to put, but this topic seems the most suitable for this typo in the patch notes:

VULTURE:

Role Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules.

Caldari Battlecruiser Bonuses:

4% bonus to all Shield Resistances 1.
0% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range.
TravelBuoy
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#69 - 2013-09-01 16:01:18 UTC
Capqu wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
When are you nerfing links?


i suggest you go look at the link thread a little closer friend


I suggest u just open your eyes and u will see the link nerfs.
Mioelnir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#70 - 2013-09-01 23:40:47 UTC
I really like that we now have a dedicated linkship for dualtanked fleets..... now all we need is a new link variety that only gives a bonus if you have short and long range weapons of at least two different types and sizes fitted.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#71 - 2013-09-02 21:00:28 UTC
seems like the low slot ECCM mods have been sneakily rebalanced without any mention ... just noticed it in patch notes
any word on this CCP?

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Guy en Gravonere
Gravonere Industries
#72 - 2013-09-02 22:54:19 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Vyktor Abyss wrote:
Not happy about many of the changes and feedback given in those threads.

All ignored, like many other valid posters - glad to see CCP still working as intended.


Just because one doesn't agree with every single person's suggestion doesn't mean feedback is being ignored. We take everything posted into consideration. At the end of the day, our jobs are do what's best for the game using our best judgement, and often that means differing from what some specific players want.


When I read some of the posts the rebalancing team has to deal with I'm reminded of an old commercial about herding cats that I believe was originally aired during a superbowl.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_MaJDK3VNE
arria Auscent
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#73 - 2013-09-03 10:11:09 UTC  |  Edited by: arria Auscent
and now the bestower beats the itty5 for hauling
always liked it more

also how long will servers be down for?
Gabber359
0.0 Massive Dynamic
Pandemic Horde
#74 - 2013-09-03 16:14:05 UTC
Minor tweaks to the commodity haulers (that would be nice, please):

-Unable to drag and drop from POCO straight to Commodity Cargo bay
(Epithal, either remove the tiddly cargo bay or make the default drag/drop action straight into the other Bay. Quite annoying when picking up cargo and you don't want to have to actually open the bay. Makes the Cargo Icon next to the center HUD kinda pointless in this regard)

-Unable to Jettison from Commodity Bay
This makes working from a POS tedious. Before you could warp to a pos --> jettison. Now it's warp to a pos --> Move a tiddly amount of PI from Bay to Cargo --> Jettison --> Open Can --> Manually move from Bay to Can

The only thing I fear, is running out of beer !

Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#75 - 2013-09-07 00:02:56 UTC
Biggest problem with all the ship erbalancing is lack of focus on role and use, No one builds ships to do " umm... whatever"
they are built to fill some need.

Define the role and then define the ship.
Also define the race that is building said ship, and make sure that it makes sense within the races direction, Amarrian ships should have better capacitor, Gallente ships should have more drone bay, ETC.

Even within the grand scope of all the individual manufacturers there should be some thought as to the identity of that brand.
It is ok for every race to have the same number of ships, and every class to have the same number of ships, they just should all be different enough to have specific roles. within their racial catagory

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
SpacePhenix
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#76 - 2013-09-12 12:49:01 UTC  |  Edited by: SpacePhenix
How can i get in contact with someone from CCP?
Couse I need to know why you’re destroying the game…
Rented
Hunter Heavy Industries
#77 - 2013-09-13 03:48:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Rented
lol.
SpacePhenix
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#78 - 2013-09-27 12:00:00 UTC
CCP are you going to contact me.... u are destroying the game STOP it.!!!
Lelira Cirim
Doomheim
#79 - 2013-09-29 01:07:49 UTC
It is theirs to destroy.
Someone people often forget.

Do not actively tank my patience.