EVE Information Portal

A lot of people raged against this not too long ago.

I actually don't mind the change back, but the community backlash was pretty significant.

This was prior to the ISboxer changes.

The battleships need a way to absorb some of the bomb damage. Bc's somewhat.

Tweaks are needed.

Did I read the devblog right?

Mynna says weapon system is balanced, ships aren't.

Fozzie aknowledges, and decides to nerf weapon system because its simpler.

What?

Good changes, this will definitely be a patch nobody can claim lacked content.

That said, we'll see what this does to Ishters. Fingers crossed we can finally fly something else (I'm looking at you Napocs, I didnt train large energy turret 5 for nothing!)

They literally nerf the rails because of tengu usage. Eagle use remains minor, and Vultures... Never saw a Vulture fleet, have you? (given the skill requirements around Vultures, I don't see any problem with their balance...)

They were THAT CLOSE to balancing the offensive subsystems, since they touched defensive subsystems, which would have solved the problem just fine. Instead they nerf the whole weapon system.

I'm sorry for the balance team but it really looks like lazyness in my eyes.

Clearly Skynet is a risk free use of fighters and needs to be nerfed (as announced in the o7 Show today).

However, a uncomfortable development question comes up I believe: (as posed in Slack #csm)

"But what is unclear to me is why the addition to removing warp from fighters if they are already not going to be able to be assigned?"

If there is a clear reason CCP has for removing warp entirely from fighters, then please just be upfront and clear about it; otherwise, the perception is left of lazy fixes that simply relegate an iconic piece of EVE Online into obsolescence.

My thought is that the ability for fighters to warp after targets should remain - but an exception should be added that if a Carrier warps off grid, or enters warp at all, the fighters become "Abandoned"; and upon re-connection will auto return to the Carrier in the same system.

This will prevent Carrier groups warping in at a tactical on grid, dropping fighters and then leaving grid to Skynet at a POS (where anyone to think to do so).


That's my input, as I think CCP's announced nerf that also removes warp from fighters and turns them into giant lumbering drones is a over-reaching and misguided attempt to fix Skynet (which needs to be dealt with); but this is too broad, without clear enumeration by CCP as why this extra step is needed.

@ CCP rise,

What about armor platforms using rails . Thoraxes , Deimoses , Proteuses . The armor platforms dont run a triple Mag stab fits like the shield ( caldari ) counterparts .

Its very disappointing that rails on armor platforms will not stand upto beams ( another armor platform ) .

You are taking back 50 % of the changes that u did in odyssey. the balance to the increase in damage was the reduction in tracking ( -15% ) . So now with less tracking and less ROF . The armor platforms will be affected a lot more than the shield platforms.

Rails are used by 2 races on a very different platform . Considering only one race for the nerf is a very sad .

I'm ok with no battleship buff, as long as the T3 nerfs continue, and if you fix dread blapping and logistics.

So how exactly did the shuttles damage... anything ?!

Well done for showing an intelligent and surgical approach to the matter, CCPgames is changing from it old ways

Honestly, I think a lot of CCPs balance issues are born out of laziness. Ships and weapons needs to be balanced at the same time and the simple solution is to have "profiles" for an entire class of things.

Aka something like this (these numbers are not meant to be representative of actual gameplay, just examples)

Frigs
Range:
Min Max
~2km ~10km

Damage
~20dps ~150dps

EHP
~1000 ~6000

Do that for all classes and make sure that the variation falls within the values that you set. In the end this back and forth is going to continue until you decide to balance the game as a whole around all possible choices. Laziness only creates more work in the future.

Edit: Also I find it telling that you're basing your balancing choices solely around charts and graphs without actually digging into what those charts and graphs mean for the game.