These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Each rebalance seems to require a future rebalance
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jegrey Dozer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2015-03-02 00:00:17 UTC
If you ever balance a game so that it's as simple as Rock-Paper-Scissors, the game will be boring and stagnant.

Overpowered elements in a game are necessary to drive experimentation and fun.
WarFireV
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2015-03-02 00:40:02 UTC
Rowdy Gates wrote:
Kitty Bear wrote:
and this is a problem because ?



I would say because if the goal is balance, then taking more time to get it right the first time would be better; and if the goal is really (CCP does say this is partially the goal) giving yet additional advantage to those who are already ahead, those resources could be better spent, unless the overall good of the game is secondary.



Were you around during the before time? The time before CCP finally put in place devs(Fozzy and Rise) whose job it is to work on ship balance?

It toke YEARS for any kind of ship balance to happen, years! If something has to be changed in two different expansions then so be it. It will still be better then what CCP was doing before.
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#23 - 2015-03-02 02:44:28 UTC
The facts are, we play to win.

It's the reason why we fly Tech 3s instead of Arty Vagabonds.
Are arty vagabonds fittable? Yes.
Could you win a fleet fight with them? Sure.
Are there better options? Yes.

It's the 3rd one that matters. Lots of fittings and fleet doctrines in EVE can work, but they are outshined by things that are better than them. And this is fine. Vagabonds are a solo or small gang PVPer's best friend, but they don't work well arty fit in a fleet.

I used to FC in an alliance (pre BS rebalance) where we flew torp ravens with basilisks.
Are they fittable? Yes.
Could you win a fight with them? Sure. We won quite a few.
Are there better options? Yes - the Proteus fleets of DnD showed that to us multiple times.

We will always end up gravitating towards the best, even if it's only better by 1%, because we want to win against the others who bring the best.

Things are only impossible until they are not.
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#24 - 2015-03-02 02:59:09 UTC
WarFireV wrote:
Were you around during the before time? The time before CCP finally put in place devs(Fozzy and Rise) whose job it is to work on ship balance?

It toke YEARS for any kind of ship balance to happen, years! If something has to be changed in two different expansions then so be it. It will still be better then what CCP was doing before.


not to mention that patches only hit every 6 months. Oh yea and when they did any balance work they used a sledge hammer. that said there was still some good with that, as it sometimes gave players enough time to come up with alternative strategies to counter things.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
Pok Nibin
Doomheim
#25 - 2015-03-02 05:21:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Pok Nibin
Sibyyl wrote:

EVE is a living system where human players optimize and exploit the rules to their advantage.

Rebalancing will only end when EVE players stop thinking.

This sounds real good, but it doesn't pass close scrutiny. It does pass for "heroic generality." Part of the problem is trying to keep vocal minorities happy instead of developing a cogent product using one's own professional knowledge, skills, insights and especially creativity. You can't please everybody, so please yourself.

If they want players to develop the game, put us on the payroll. Otherwise, I'm playing CCP's EVE not "players'" who really have a lot to learn about a lot of things before they deign attempt to perfect someone else's creation. Of course, this logic is lost on those living the Age of Entitlement.

A lot less, "gimme" and a lot more "look what we made" is in order.

The right to free speech doesn't automatically carry with it the right to be taken seriously.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2015-03-02 07:05:30 UTC
Pok Nibin wrote:
Sibyyl wrote:

EVE is a living system where human players optimize and exploit the rules to their advantage.

Rebalancing will only end when EVE players stop thinking.

This sounds real good, but it doesn't pass close scrutiny. It does pass for "heroic generality." Part of the problem is trying to keep vocal minorities happy instead of developing a cogent product using one's own professional knowledge, skills, insights and especially creativity. You can't please everybody, so please yourself.

If they want players to develop the game, put us on the payroll. Otherwise, I'm playing CCP's EVE not "players'" who really have a lot to learn about a lot of things before they deign attempt to perfect someone else's creation. Of course, this logic is lost on those living the Age of Entitlement.

A lot less, "gimme" and a lot more "look what we made" is in order.


You are talking about the imperfect application of rebalancing. Yes, CCP does make mistakes like all humans might, and more often than not they've done well. There are engineering decisions, business decisions, personal decisions. The sort of jaded complain-fest about CCP and EVE, which some players engage in, is not something I find interesting or constructive.

As far as the "vocal" minority goes, we are talking about them because they are vocal. The silent majority can get shut out of many decisions mainly because they can't be bothered to speak up. Then there's the whole question of whether the silent majority should be catered to at all..

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#27 - 2015-03-02 07:11:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
If my job was adjusting EVE, I would make sure there was always something to be adjusted. Just saying.


Sib, none of us should be catered to. We've already proved we're gluttons for punishment and uncomfortable game design.

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Commander Spurty
#28 - 2015-03-02 17:47:27 UTC
OP doesn't know what 'FOTM' means I guess.

I miss my cruise missile launching, Frigate slaying stealth bomber!

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
Josef Djugashvilis
#29 - 2015-03-02 17:56:54 UTC
In the end, all ships in each class will have the same stats.

The ships will just have different shapes and colours to enable folk to feel that they are not playing Eve Vanilla Online.

This is not a signature.
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries
VOID Intergalactic Forces
#30 - 2015-03-02 18:10:20 UTC
Serene Repose wrote:
Yeah, they raise the goal. Then, they lower it. Then, they move the foul line closer. Then, they move it back further. Then, they get rid of it altogether. Then, they bring it back witth an extra. Actually, it's entertaining all by itself. I don't think it can be said they're all over the map yet. But, they're getting there.

One day, they'll leave the road completely. Cool

Maybe devs shouldn't play their own games like they have a personal interest in the outcome...did I say that? Cool


That last line, the devs play enough to be in events and don't really see what or how players take the changes.
Every time they "balance" something they unbalance something and it becomes the new fad.

"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries
VOID Intergalactic Forces
#31 - 2015-03-02 18:11:51 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
In the end, all ships in each class will have the same stats.

The ships will just have different shapes and colours to enable folk to feel that they are not playing Eve Vanilla Online.

Oh you played the first homeworld and C&C red alert? lol

"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
Whittorical Quandary
Amarrian Infinity
#32 - 2015-03-03 04:37:36 UTC
One thing with online games and MMO's is that with the human element in play, I'm not even sure if it would be possible to completely "balance" the game. As players are always figuring out some way to break or create new gameplay styles that can be creative or even borderline exploits that eventually become core gameplay.

I think why you can find alot more content and storyline in other single player games (for the time developed) is that a huge amount of resources go toward trying to balance and optimize player interactions which are constantly changing and adapting.

WoW is still being balanced, unbalanced etc, along with any other active pvp game i can think of. If anyone knows a multiplayer game that is completely balanced, share.

Just a change of 1 number can have dire implications for the EveVerse. XD

"The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you never know if they are genuine."

— Abraham Lincoln
Pok Nibin
Doomheim
#33 - 2015-03-03 05:33:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Pok Nibin
Sibyyl wrote:
Pok Nibin wrote:
Sibyyl wrote:

EVE is a living system where human players optimize and exploit the rules to their advantage.

Rebalancing will only end when EVE players stop thinking.

This sounds real good, but it doesn't pass close scrutiny. It does pass for "heroic generality." Part of the problem is trying to keep vocal minorities happy instead of developing a cogent product using one's own professional knowledge, skills, insights and especially creativity. You can't please everybody, so please yourself.

If they want players to develop the game, put us on the payroll. Otherwise, I'm playing CCP's EVE not "players'" who really have a lot to learn about a lot of things before they deign attempt to perfect someone else's creation. Of course, this logic is lost on those living the Age of Entitlement.

A lot less, "gimme" and a lot more "look what we made" is in order.


You are talking about the imperfect application of rebalancing. Yes, CCP does make mistakes like all humans might, and more often than not they've done well. There are engineering decisions, business decisions, personal decisions. The sort of jaded complain-fest about CCP and EVE, which some players engage in, is not something I find interesting or constructive.

As far as the "vocal" minority goes, we are talking about them because they are vocal. The silent majority can get shut out of many decisions mainly because they can't be bothered to speak up. Then there's the whole question of whether the silent majority should be catered to at all..

Well, no. I'm talking about who you listen to. I'm an artist. If somebody tells me to put some red in a painting, that just ain't gonna happen. In fact, I'd pretty much dissolve any connection with anyone who would say such a thing...to an artist. I paint my painting. In the same vein CCP should build their game. If someone likes my painting, they can buy it. If they don't. Don't. Same for CCP. If we like their creation, we buy it. If we don't, we don't.

I am not interested in buying something the customers pressured the creator to "build". Everybody I've ever stood in line with at the DMV was a total idiot...same with the grocery store check out. I don't want to infer anything about the average intelligence of the gaming community...but I DO know they think they're a lot smarter than they really are.

No. I trust CCP. They managed to get a whole lot up and running. They don't need US to tell them how it's done. In fact, the only time I've seen them get in trouble is when they DO listen to us.

What do you get when you make a horse by committee?

A camel. Smile

The right to free speech doesn't automatically carry with it the right to be taken seriously.
knobber Jobbler
State War Academy
Caldari State
#34 - 2015-03-03 06:34:00 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:

EVE is a living system where human players optimize and exploit the rules to their advantage.

Rebalancing will only end when EVE players stop thinking.



It would help is Rise didn't balance ships for small gang PvP only. Either he does this deliberately or doesn't know how to balance for fleets. Want evidence of this, look at the announced balance pass, it's targeting the wrong things on the right ships.
Nami Kumamato
Perkone
Caldari State
#35 - 2015-03-03 09:22:05 UTC
Rowdy Gates wrote:
I want to state upfront that although I have been in this game a couple years, I hesitate to post this criticism because I simply am not qualified to know that it is fairly on target for sure. I do feel it presents a fair perspective from the newer and less fully experienced player.

I do read the patch and related notes from CCP, and my observation is based on them, and not the forums.

It really seems questionable whether the rebalancing/changes done by CCP has been, and is presently, based on enough objective data. By this I mean I question whether CCP is doing enough to make sure all the changes it seems to constantly be making are truly based on sufficient and correct data, rather than emphasizing haste to make changes over and above making sure it will get it right, rather than have to waste yet more resources on correcting what it corrected, rather than targeting those resources to things that really need attention.

In one patch they will balance or rebalance something like medium rails only to then have to correct that action in a future rebalance. I mention this particular one because it is the most recent. If you read the most recent developer post about this - see http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/balance-changes-coming-in-scylla you will see a chart posted to show how over-powered CCP made medium rails and to support the change to now nerf them back in line.

In that same chart you can see how overpowered heavy missiles once were, and how now they seem to be the weakest. Medium rails are not an isolated example. If you need an example about things other than weapons consider all the resources that went into industry teams....

I believe CCP is trying to get things right, and eventually will, but is going about it in too rushed a manner. I wonder if it has fallen victim to the philosophy that more change is inherently better than less change. I wonder if it feels unless there is constant change, players will lose interest in its game.

I respectfully suggest that CCP should consider being more restrained in making changes to the game, which is already one of the more complicated and challenging to learn games, without having to deal with change for the sake of change.



Well basically you have around 20 dudes trying to outsmart 30000 dudes who are trying to outsmart each other...


Fornicate The Constabulary !
Elenahina
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2015-03-03 13:41:12 UTC
Rowdy Gates wrote:


It also means that achieving true balance is a myth


And now has the student become the master.

Acheiveing "perfect" balance (whatever that means) is a laudable goal, but one that is doomed to never be met. Partly because of the very open nature of Eve Online, and partly because the players are really good at finding ways to use things the devs did not intend, thus throwing off the balance. It's not like a single player game where you can balance everything up front, and call it good. Balacing an MMO, especially an open sandbox, is a never ending process - and the more modules and ships they add, the more permutations there are to account for.

If you have the expectationt hat one day CCP will say "There, it's done.", I have some very, very bad news for you.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
The Newface
Doomheim
#37 - 2015-03-03 13:54:35 UTC  |  Edited by: The Newface
Also remember statistics are the cause of all evil (well almost)

It can throw you off completely if you are not very careful. Let me paint an example.

Let’s assume there where a very popular ship in EVE, great tank and speed. Let’s assume this ship could use missiles that are considered bad and hybrids that are pretty good.
This ship is so good that more and more player train to fly it, the big null groups create official doctrines where they are used. Lets call it.. Tango.

There are other ships like this in the game, the Potato is also pretty popular, good tank, ok speed and useful other abilities. This ship can also use hybrids.

The Lego on the other hand can not use hybrids, it can only use lasers and the already assumed not to good missiles. It’s still a good ship.

Finally we have the Local, the local is a bit flimsy but have useful secondary abilities. It can also use missiles but again no one really does and projectile turrets.

So in this very simple example of the EVE world, how do you think the usage of weapons would look if you look at damage done or kills?
The most popular ship due to other reasons use hybrids, the second most popular ship also use hybrids (in the same class) so even if we assume they were used the exact same amount (they would not be, again for reasons not related to hybrids) the weapon damage done would look like this

Hybrids ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lasers -------------------------
Projectile -------------------------
Missiles

So looking at statistics, hybrids MUST be nerfed.
(ps I challenge that, I don't think hybrids needed to be changed on a whole)
Reiisha
#38 - 2015-03-03 14:24:14 UTC
Dominique Vasilkovsky wrote:
It is impossible for one or two devs to calculate every possible combination for each ship. As a result they will simply have to tweak the most popular combinations and boost the least used one's. The game has never been as well balanced over all as it is now.


Quoted for emphasis.

Every single weapon has been overpowered or completely useless at some point in the past. At the moment it seems pretty balanced for the first time in a long while.

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...
Syrilian
Doomheim
#39 - 2015-03-03 14:38:25 UTC
Serene Repose wrote:
Yeah, they raise the goal. Then, they lower it. Then, they move the foul line closer. Then, they move it back further. Then, they get rid of it altogether. Then, they bring it back witth an extra. Actually, it's entertaining all by itself. I don't think it can be said they're all over the map yet. But, they're getting there.

]


You say this like it is a bad thing. It's a sandbox game. The whole point of the game is to experiment. It only makes sense for the developers to want to do the same and to change the variables in our "experiment."
Jenshae Chiroptera
#40 - 2015-03-03 15:30:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Dominique Vasilkovsky wrote:
It is impossible for one or two devs to calculate every possible combination for each ship. As a result they will simply have to tweak the most popular combinations and boost the least used one's. The game has never been as well balanced over all as it is now.
I liked how the Bowhead needed the players to design it in the feedback threat but at least that dev heard them.

T3 Destroyers .... having them before T3 Battlecruisers ... before fleshing out Battleships and tweaking them ....Ugh
That T3 Ds are so ridiculously over powered ...

I think it is possible to make "fitting" programs that run through most sane optimal fits, then any ship changes can be seen and compared.

CCP needs better code tools for balancing.



They took a step in the right direction by looking at the roles that hulls are best at taking up. My prime example at the moment is this:

(Artillery vs Rails)

Loki has more speed tank than Tengu (751 vs 632 m/s)
Loki wants to avoid webs. (Speed tank)
Loki has shorter optimal range than Tengu (19km vs 35km)
Loki has less sustained damage. (260 vs 412 DPS)
Tengu has larger resist and buffer tank than Loki (200K eHP vs 123K eHP)
Tengu has less volley. (1994 vs 1359 )

Loki need to get closer to apply a quick volley hit, hope they kill, not get webbed, not get tackled, wants to be 19km away at most, while avoiding far faster tackle ships that they wouldn't be able to hit.

So, ** IF ** you were balancing only these two ships against each other. Then you would probably want to improve the optimal range of artilleries, drop the volley to 1700 or so and raise the DPS to about 340 and give them a slightly better tracking to pick off approaching tackle.


P.S. I think %s get in the way of balancing. They can be rather exponential. There should be harder numbers and limits, setting boundaries of min and max performance.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.