These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Balance Changes Coming In Scylla

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Logan Revelore
Symbiotic Systems
#201 - 2015-03-08 12:33:02 UTC
Chaos Primal wrote:
You want more people out in low/null sec right? Yes? Then please double the bounties or 1/2 the npc's hit points, SOMETHING to make getting out there more financially possible. As things stand I could move to null yeah sure, no problem, cept I can't afford anything to fly while I'm out there and will likely lose it after 5 minutes of use anyway.


This wouldn't fix things for you. It would just cause prices on ships and modules to rise as people have more cash between their hands.

The market works according to supply and demand. The average player can afford to live in EVE, but there are outliers, you might be an outlier if you can't afford to live in EVE.
Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#202 - 2015-03-10 21:48:15 UTC
Why not just make the T3 cruisers like the T3 Destroyers? Get rid of subsystems altogether and reimburse the skill points.
Zekora Rally
U2EZ
#203 - 2015-03-11 18:07:58 UTC
Blake Thunderchild wrote:
Very unhappy about the nerf on rail guns and the Proteus, only true counter to a navy Navy apocalypse fleet.

Navy apocalypse fleets will now be untouchable other than with a capital fleet engagements.

In High sec War Dec's they will be unstoppable with a good logi chain.

A least buff some of the other battle ships to counter the Navy apocalypse or balance the Navy Apocalypse . The range bonus on them is ridiculous with short range weapons.


Since there is a double nerf of the Proteus with its tank and rail guns then at least consider dropping the training time penalty. or no one will fly them.

It will become the laughing stock of the game like the drake after it was nerfed.


I also suggest we nerf mining lasers since the miners and care-bears keep wanting to nerf pvp weapons so bad.

A reduction of mining yields would drive up prices and add more risk in the game.

CCP could take a holistic approach to balancing rather than cherry picking and what looks to be appeasing pressure groups.

Balancing is fine as long as it is balanced and we are not left with some having huge advantages over others.

A proteus really has no business dealing that amount of damage while retaining similar tank and offering far more mobility.
Elenahina
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#204 - 2015-03-11 19:00:03 UTC
Esceem wrote:
If this balancing thingie would finally come to an end I would be so happy... *sigh*

I have some terrible news for you...

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Karsha Amerel
Psy Corp.
#205 - 2015-03-23 09:54:15 UTC
I don't really want to distract from the main aim of this post, but the PvP damage graph is really bad. The issue is that larger ships tend to do more damage and fights tend to get dragged out for longer, which means there is more repping and hence they do even more damage over the duration of the fight. If you accounted for this, then BSs and BCs (to a lesser extent) are going to drop down the list.

Sorry about the long post.

Anyway, I have been thinking about ways to make BS better and I think it can be done without improving their stats. One way could be to buff large modules and make more modules that compliment a large ship doctrine. I think the micro-jump drive was an excellent way to improve the hull by adding a new module, rather than a strict buff.

BSs are slow, have a large amount of EHP and have good damage projection. I think the proposed Sov mechanics are going to give a lot of room for maneuver warfare, which favours the smaller ships, but I think there is still room for tanky, slow, high damage fleets, and BSs should be better at this than any subcapital fleet, but they need the tools to do it. One of the problems with BSs is that T3 cruisers have similar tank, less but still decent damage and project, and so much mobility that they really overshadow BSs. While some might argue that the T3 should be nurfed, I think the BS should get a little something something to really make them the nuggety bulwark on the grid.

There are a few ways to do this and perhaps this is madness, but I thought I would suggest it at least. One module that most ships can use, but only seriously used on the BS is the smart bomb. The reason is that the large smart bomb has an area of effect that is actually useful, and I wonder if an area of effect doctrine might be good for BSs. Now, what I mean is area of effect reps and area of effect cap transfer. Perhaps this type of module would be too server intensive, but I think it would definitely make mass BS tactics incredibly tanky in mass numbers, but not actually buff a lone BS.

The range of the module could be used as a method of balance, and would also mean that it becomes less effective as ships move to pursue an enemy or drift apart from each other due to bad discipline. The way I foresee this working is that you would have to have the order of 6 ships within perfect spacing before you start to break even over local reps and cap transfer, but the more BSs you have in close range of each other, the better it gets.

You could even have the FC in the centre of the rep ball, so they get the most repping, the ships of the outside of the ball get the least repping and would also require repping from logistics when faced with focused fire. Logistics ships would not need to cap chain since they can mooch off the area of effect cap boost. It would mean that light ships that are damaged could fly through the rep ball and get incidental reps (both friendly and hostile) or give bumping ships out of the rep ball if they were feeling brave. This would also provide some defense against bombers, because unless the bombers can bring enough bombs to alpha the BS fleet, the BS fleet could be back at full health before another run could finish them off (maybe, it would need some serious looking at for balance).

Fast fleets can fly away, but the BS fleet would be the perfect fleet to break a choke point or at least clear a choke point of tackle ships, so that your own side could get faster ships through and go zap some objectives.

Another idea would be projected smart bombs (perhaps one per ship so it does not get too out of hand). Projected smart bombs would not really be a problem for the BS AE repping fleets, but it would easily drive off the fast fleets that rely on logistics, and since the objective is to control the grid, these ships would definitely do it. It would also mess up all those dirty drone users. Filthy!

Perhaps this idea could be exploited, but I think with some fine tuning it could give a purpose back to BS fleets without buff the hell out of them. Powerful, but slow, just like it should be.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#206 - 2015-03-23 14:17:06 UTC
Despite the reduction of the sentry damage bonus, I still predict Ishtars to cause massive ship-spinning Eve-wide.

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Xenuria
#207 - 2015-03-23 17:14:28 UTC
Why rebalance the T3 subsystems but not fix the way in which NPC EWAR affects them?

CSM 12 Candidate
Sissy Fuzz
Sissy Fuzz Communications
#208 - 2015-03-23 23:05:47 UTC
"The Ishtar has been slightly rebalanced. "10% bonus to Drone hit points and damage" becomes "10% bonus to Light, Medium, and Heavy Drone hit points and damage, 5% bonus to Sentry Drone hit points and damage"."

This is a 16% nerf on sentry DPS and as such nothing like a "slight" nerf. And it is another blow to the exploration community. A little perspective:

Let's talk for a moment about how you practically destroyed exploration as a game style - was de facto the only "deep" niche left for solo players - when you effectively took exploration out of it and made it into grinding, which is what it is today.

Swarmed by so many players that it is now common to enter a system to see two or three sets of Sisters probes in space. This not only in hi- but also low-sec, much due to the press-button-to-explore mechanics now in place and one of the outstanding result of your rather immature analysis that by making things two-dimensional and LOLeasy to access, you are adding to the player experience. Not the case. What you are doing is installing cookie-cutter play style templates instead. You call it diversity and opportunity but it is, in fact, player experience spread thin and bland from lack of potential and depth. The average number of players on Tranq hasn't exactly exploded since the dumb-it-down-and-more-colors dogma caught on. But from what we learned at the 2015 Fanfest this is still the gospell. Everything layed out on a silver platter right there, for god's sake no barriers whatsoever. Well, I don't believe one second that you are "retaining" anyone this way, and what used to be the exploration community is not happy, that's for sure.

Back to the Ishar: The only way of getting a little bit of the exploration feel back is to go to lesser populated outskirts of EVE and play. Out there, of course, the "exploration" mechanics are still dumbed down and no challenge whatsoever, but there is still the challenge of staying alive. Which comes in two flavours: Avoiding or being able to kill Twisted/Pirate capsuleers on the prowl (bless 'em), and being able to actually do the complexes you find there. And the Ishtar was one of a very small number of hulls (maybe the only one, right?) that offered the combination of DPS and mobility to pull this off. The ship has no tank when fit for reasonable DPS but by using distance, sentries, one could actually complete a complex in a fair amount of time (time * exposure = risk , so not trivial) and not die. Well, not so much anymore.

CCP, it has been said a lot of times before, and I appreciate that you are in denial about it and that you have found what seems to be a surefire way of designing the optimal game, statistics and the mathematical equilibrium. No devblog without an effin graph these days. But nobody cares about your pathological rebalancing programme (especially when you try to be charming about it "blood on the nerf bat") except for a handful of math nerds, who happen to be playing EVE from a spreadsheet instead of designing it from one. But I recognise that rebalancing for the sake of spreadsheet karma is in perfect line with the overall effort to remove all depth and potential in game by making everybody equal and omnipotent.

I'll find a way, though. I am criticising your design philosophy and compulsive "rebalancing" here, not whining.
Jake Reece
Blueprint Haus
Blades of Grass
#209 - 2015-03-24 13:22:56 UTC
Dedbforucme wrote:
Getting rid of Skynet basically ruins the point of flying any super carriers because nobody wants to risk almost 23+bilion isk (600+ dollars) by having their super carriers on the field meaning that those who currently can fly and use them who spent years training to do so are now useless and the training time to use them and make them worth while is now wasted. Also having them orbit close to a safe POS while attacking a system just send a battle ship or 2 out to their POS and just force the Super carriers in there, and then they can't assign fighters unless they want to get blown up, just scan down the POS it is that easy.

In addition fighters not being able to have your fighters warp makes carriers essentially not worth using for PVE either and are just glorified extra large battleships with extra large drones, because if you are in null/low sec using them to make isk and a neutral or hostile come into system and you need warp to a safe location to not die you don't have time to recall them and that is 250-300mil worth assests you are leaving behind.



I agree - total nerf for long time playing and skilling players with NOTHING in return
Ellariona
B52 Bombers
#210 - 2015-03-30 16:51:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Ellariona
War Kitten wrote:
The "awesome graph of PVP damage by class" needs some explanation of the various colors.

I'm also not convinced that total PVP damage, which is dominated by large fleet engagements, is a good metric for balancing ships that now suck at small-gang warfare due to lost mobility.


This!!!!! Total damage done is an awful metric. The big blocks might as well pick and choose what ship gets nerfed or buffed next, by simply overly using them or not at all.

Also, don't fix what ain't broken. I feel like something shady is messing with the EVE-CCP atmosphere. Keep loving that DEVxUSER fabric, don't just sell out please, this would be devastating to a lot of people.


Karsha Amerel wrote:
Another idea would be projected smart bombs (perhaps one per ship so it does not get too out of hand). Projected smart bombs would not really be a problem for the BS AE repping fleets, but it would easily drive off the fast fleets that rely on logistics, and since the objective is to control the grid, these ships would definitely do it. It would also mess up all those dirty drone users. Filthy!
+1 for projected smartboms! Just like remote reps, but projected AOE damage! Then smaller ships, with support from a few BSs, can actually think about countering drone fleets, especially with sentries, fighters and fighter bombers.