These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Damage profiles by ship group and weapon type in 2015

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#81 - 2015-12-31 16:31:33 UTC
Nerf drones.

Remove standings and insurance.
DrysonBennington
Eagle's Talon's
#82 - 2015-12-31 17:22:43 UTC
In reality the Cruiser Class of Combat Ship is the most versatile ship class. The class has the ability to mount offensive weapons and drones that is operated correctly would be able to take out a BC with ease. The defensive capabilities of the Cruiser are versatile as well making cruiser the best choice for PvPer's given its low cost to purchase and too fit.
DrysonBennington
Eagle's Talon's
#83 - 2015-12-31 17:26:36 UTC
Click Chart, Open in Browser and then Click to Enlarge. Easy enough to see then.
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
#84 - 2016-01-01 01:23:25 UTC
This chart is proof that CCP has been taken over by a Rothschild conspiracy to ruin our eyesight. :(

Do not run. We are your friends.
Diana Kim
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#85 - 2016-01-01 09:53:22 UTC
Mara Pahrdi wrote:
Nerf drones.

Nerf drones.

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#86 - 2016-01-01 12:14:09 UTC
Diana Kim wrote:
Mara Pahrdi wrote:
Nerf drones.

Nerf drones.


Nerf drones.
Helene Fidard
CTRL-Q
#87 - 2016-01-02 00:06:17 UTC
top 3:
Cruiser, Drones
HAC, Drones
Cruiser, Missiles

even I didn't realize the Orthrus was that popular

Hey! I don't know about you

but I'm joining CTRL-Q
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#88 - 2016-01-02 22:01:26 UTC
Yang Aurilen wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
How about PvE damage?


One AFKtar fit to rule them all? So drones at 20 bil damage while the other systems are at 1 bil?


Well, PvE damage is way, way larger than PvP damage, so in terms of "this weapon system is OP" or "nerf that", PvE must be the first thing to consider. If a weapons system is used a lot for PvP, nerfing it will hit PvErs for something that's not their fault.
Admiral Demona Black
Lions Den
#89 - 2016-01-03 11:08:17 UTC
Well fairly new at this game but like cruisers but .


Love all different types :)
Shade Alidiana
PROSPERO Corporation
#90 - 2016-01-03 16:13:58 UTC
Idk if anyone mentioned it, but drone damage being overwhelming is completely reasonable, because almost anything brings a couple of those, unlike other weapon types
Pestilen Ratte
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2016-01-03 23:57:44 UTC
Before we rush to nerf drones.......

What are we trying to do?

There seems to be an unspoken article of faith: if only we can balance the ships and make them equal, we will start getting a better combat experience.

I don't think that is valid, although it is attractive.

Eve is a team game, and the variety is supposed to allow supporting roles and specialist roles.

A dual web Comet, for example, can push 300 dps cold, but it can't fit a point as well. But a dual web comet PLUS a firetail with long point is an extremely effective little frigate pair.

It is the same for logistics, ewar and all the things: in a team fleet environment, it all kinda makes sense.

The great and enduring tragedy of Eve, of course, is that fleet battles are a myth for 99% of players.

The "N+1" blob meta is just too strong. The game has no mechanics to allow balanced fleet sizes to engage each other.

This is weird, because the game DOES have mechanics that restrict ship sizes. We call them faction warfare plexes, and nobody seems to have died from them, despite the grave violence done to the purity of the "sandbox".

But in all of Eve, blobbing is the golden rule. No game mechanics prevent anyone from simply blobbing their enemy and cheering because they had a bigger blob. I'm not talking about big blobs here. 2 v 1 or 3 v 1 is also blobbing.

THAT, friends and neighbours, is the real cancer in this game. It is why Eve is dying, and it is also why the Battleship/Battlecruiser meta is dead.

Why the heck would you spend all that ISK buying and fitting a big ship, just to lose it in a blob?

Because you will lose it in a blob.

I get tired of watching militia channel, and seeing the "leading FW corps" post killmail after killmail of their gate camps blob kills. They think they are doing well, but it is a real cancer on the game. None of them are risking anything, nobody they are fighting wanted the fight.

CCP have refused to enable balanced sized fleet fights since forever. It is an interesting question, as to why. Whether it is because they pander to large groups like the goons who thrive on simply hurting other people, and who have no honour, or whether it is because nobody at the firm understands how to get balance done right, is a good question.

People generally say "if you want a fair fight, you can duel". I have even had players tell me that I should spend my time arranging fair fleet fights if I want them.

In all seriousness, that has been said to me. A paying customer should circumvent the game role play to "create content" with other players.

It is a joke, and a bad one.

CCP need to fix the blob meta, and fast. There are twenty ways from Sunday to do it. If their leadership lack vision, it is time to start sacking leaders until vision presents itself.

There is way too much about this game that is second rate, and worst of all the fundamental game mechanics are a big part of the second rate culture.

Stop fixing ships, stop fixing structures.

Start fixing blobs.
Jill Xelitras
Xeltec services
#92 - 2016-01-04 01:06:06 UTC
Pestilen Ratte wrote:
Before we rush to nerf drones.......

What are we trying to do?

There seems to be an unspoken article of faith: if only we can balance the ships and make them equal, we will start getting a better combat experience.

I don't think that is valid, although it is attractive.

Eve is a team game, and the variety is supposed to allow supporting roles and specialist roles.

A dual web Comet, for example, can push 300 dps cold, but it can't fit a point as well. But a dual web comet PLUS a firetail with long point is an extremely effective little frigate pair.

It is the same for logistics, ewar and all the things: in a team fleet environment, it all kinda makes sense.

The great and enduring tragedy of Eve, of course, is that fleet battles are a myth for 99% of players.

The "N+1" blob meta is just too strong. The game has no mechanics to allow balanced fleet sizes to engage each other.

This is weird, because the game DOES have mechanics that restrict ship sizes. We call them faction warfare plexes, and nobody seems to have died from them, despite the grave violence done to the purity of the "sandbox".

But in all of Eve, blobbing is the golden rule. No game mechanics prevent anyone from simply blobbing their enemy and cheering because they had a bigger blob. I'm not talking about big blobs here. 2 v 1 or 3 v 1 is also blobbing.

THAT, friends and neighbours, is the real cancer in this game. It is why Eve is dying, and it is also why the Battleship/Battlecruiser meta is dead.

Why the heck would you spend all that ISK buying and fitting a big ship, just to lose it in a blob?

Because you will lose it in a blob.

I get tired of watching militia channel, and seeing the "leading FW corps" post killmail after killmail of their gate camps blob kills. They think they are doing well, but it is a real cancer on the game. None of them are risking anything, nobody they are fighting wanted the fight.

CCP have refused to enable balanced sized fleet fights since forever. It is an interesting question, as to why. Whether it is because they pander to large groups like the goons who thrive on simply hurting other people, and who have no honour, or whether it is because nobody at the firm understands how to get balance done right, is a good question.

People generally say "if you want a fair fight, you can duel". I have even had players tell me that I should spend my time arranging fair fleet fights if I want them.

In all seriousness, that has been said to me. A paying customer should circumvent the game role play to "create content" with other players.

It is a joke, and a bad one.

CCP need to fix the blob meta, and fast. There are twenty ways from Sunday to do it. If their leadership lack vision, it is time to start sacking leaders until vision presents itself.

There is way too much about this game that is second rate, and worst of all the fundamental game mechanics are a big part of the second rate culture.

Stop fixing ships, stop fixing structures.

Start fixing blobs.



I agree with your sentiment about corps just using their killboard K/D ratio as a measure of success. There is indeed no skill in winning 20vs1 fights. Luckily there still are corps which have other priorities.

Where I don't agree though is trying to get a mechanic in place that gets you balanced numbers on each side. That is bull... and here is why:

EvE is about social relationships and economic success. This is not obvious at first glance, but it is the essence of what EvE is about.

1) You can't have combat without first spending ISK. Combat always starts with your economic capabilities.

2) When you lose your ship, you experience an economic setback. When you win you get a chance at economic gain through the looting mechanic.

3) When you're out of money you often have to retire from combat for a while and make some ISK. You can either retire to a safer zone or fall back on an alt.

4) When you can force your enemy to spend more time making ISK than fighting you in space, you'll have an easier time fighting him. But if he is better at making ISK than fighting you, he may decide to hire mercenaries to fight for him.

5) If you're neither better at fighting nor better at making ISK, you may still try to persuade people to fight with you. That's where your social skills come in.

6) Maybe you're not a fighter at all. How do you convince people that you're a succesfull corporation and a good group to join. The answer is again social and economic skills. You proove that you're a fun group, that you have allies or other means of defense and that you're economically succesfull.

Generally speaking, if you get blobbed as an individual or as a group:

1) your information gathering and analysis was likely insufficient (bad intel)

if you get blobbed on a regular basis, you can add these bullet points to the list:

2) your social game was lacking as you didn't have allies / friends

3) your economic situation was bad or will degrade soon

Without the N+1 as some people call it (sigh), there wouldn't be escalating conflicts leading to larger fleet engagements. Without the N+1 there wouldn't be a need to get mercenaries or allies. EvE wouldn't have the epic moments that we know.

Also on a side note: Let's assume there was a system forcing fights to be 10vs10 players. You have 11 corpmates online ... whom do you tell to stay docked or go play something else ?

Don't anger the forum gods.

ISD Buldath:

> I Saw, I came, I Frowned, I locked, I posted, and I left.
Max Fubarticus
Raging Main
Bullets Bombs and Blondes
#93 - 2016-01-05 11:46:05 UTC
As nice as the chart is...
It would be of more use if the data set displayed the same information in a "before" and "after" fashion that reflects the changes ( nerfs / buffs ) to ships groups and weapons over the course of the year as related to each change ( ie; Before Scylla, after Scylla ).
We are attempting to gauge the effectiveness of each and every change made are we not? With that said, another factor to consider is "bang for the buck" that cruisers provide over other classes of ship. Versatile, inexpensive, sp friendly, etc.

Max

Civil discourse is uniquely human. After all, when is the last time a pride of lions and a herd of water buffalo negotiated SOV over a watering hole? Never. Someone either gets their ass kicked or eaten. At the end of the day someone holds SOV.
Anon Fry
Doomheim
#94 - 2016-01-05 16:21:48 UTC
Took me a minute to figure out how to read this...for a second i thought this was damage dealt to X ship by another ship using Y weapon class and pretty much everyone else was as bad at bombing as me. *sigh*
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#95 - 2016-01-05 16:32:23 UTC
can we please have the data from last year posted here too, for ease of comparison? I can't find it!

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Pestilen Ratte
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#96 - 2016-01-06 14:28:40 UTC
Jill Xelitras wrote:


Without the N+1 as some people call it (sigh), there wouldn't be escalating conflicts leading to larger fleet engagements. Without the N+1 there wouldn't be a need to get mercenaries or allies. EvE wouldn't have the epic moments that we know.

Also on a side note: Let's assume there was a system forcing fights to be 10vs10 players. You have 11 corpmates online ... whom do you tell to stay docked or go play something else ?


To answer the second question first, I would limit the tonnage and let the players determine numbers and mix of fleet. But I would have tech 1 + navy and tech 2 separated, as two different types of mission.

In any case, this mechanic already exists. Blops do this.

With regard to the N+1 mechanic create awesome content, well so does Haley's comet. Once in a while.

But this is not an either or choice, and there is no reason the bears and bear dependent alliances can't go about their grand escalations in their own way.

My suggestion is aimed to cater, in addition, to time poor folks who just want to fight in the militia.

If we could log on, meet up in a formation area, and get zapped out to a squad battle as the next squad in the enemy militia were ready, all within minutes....... then it would be worth the trip back through whatever space, just because we would have had the battle.

Eve doesn't have to be one thing or the other.

The current failure to cater for matched squad sized combat in a reasonable time should not be rationalized as though such mechanics prevent the rest of Eve doing its thing as before.

People fighting in combat fleets and having fun, in a reasonable time frame, might even generate enough revenue to keep the rest of the game alive.
Jill Xelitras
Xeltec services
#97 - 2016-01-06 14:45:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Jill Xelitras
Pestilen Ratte wrote:

My suggestion is aimed to cater, in addition, to time poor folks who just want to fight in the militia.

If we could log on, meet up in a formation area, and get zapped out to a squad battle as the next squad in the enemy militia were ready, all within minutes....... then it would be worth the trip back through whatever space, just because we would have had the battle.

Eve doesn't have to be one thing or the other.

The current failure to cater for matched squad sized combat in a reasonable time should not be rationalized as though such mechanics prevent the rest of Eve doing its thing as before.

People fighting in combat fleets and having fun, in a reasonable time frame, might even generate enough revenue to keep the rest of the game alive.


Fair enough.

Red vs Blue (RvB) was a step in that direction and entirely organized by players. There were also a couple of tournaments organized by players.

A lot can be done by players themselves. (I was a track marshall for the sub-warp racing venture).

edit: I reread your original post and saw that others have told you basically the same thing. I apologize for repeating and I hope that you understand that I'm not mean spirited. I just feel that CCP offers a sandbox. More tools for us to use would be great, but more restrictive rules not so much. If we were able to set up combat with your proposed ideas, that would be nice. But if you want CCP to choose how many ships and what types are allowed in a PvP scenario, than that's no sandbox anymore.

Don't anger the forum gods.

ISD Buldath:

> I Saw, I came, I Frowned, I locked, I posted, and I left.
Lars Fitz-Patrick
Fonking Bros Holding
#98 - 2016-01-06 23:23:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Lars Fitz-Patrick
Personally, I would really love to see the data for each individual weapon system and the races for each hull class.

Grouping Railguns (a very long range system) with Blasters (the shortest range system) doesn't really shed any light on a rebalance issue here. The 2 may as well not be linked, especially as they are primarily used by different Races. We all know that medium Rails had their time in the spotlight, but I'm curious to see the numbers for the other half of the hybrid category.

Edit:
Jasper Sinclair wrote:
I was a bit surprised to see the Proteus as the #1 strategic cruiser.

I'm pretty sure that the Rail Tengu makes up a large part of this category. This is my point exactly, we can't see the real numbers.

The same can be said for projectiles too, as I suspect Artillery makes up a large part of the numbers for Projectiles, and we all know AC's are rather dire at the moment.

I would also be interested to see the numbers for drone damage if you ignore all ships without drone bonuses. The difference may be small, but it still evens things out a little bit.
Alexis Nightwish
#99 - 2016-01-07 09:11:36 UTC
I want to know how much of that 5b cruiser drone damage was from the Gila. How much from the Ishtar? The VNI? The Vexor?

CCP do you have any intention of releasing the actual numbers, by hull? Or are the real numbers much more embarrassing? I ask because this agglomeration provides no information of value.

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers
Kamahl Daikun
State War Academy
Caldari State
#100 - 2016-01-07 09:43:15 UTC
Shade Alidiana wrote:
Idk if anyone mentioned it, but drone damage being overwhelming is completely reasonable, because almost anything brings a couple of those, unlike other weapon types


Pretty much this.
I don't know about you people but I don't typically fly Gal for fleet comps. Even though Amarr is in a bad place, it's usually my first choice for anything aside from solo and PvE. Regardless of what I fly, if it has a drone bay, I'm putting drones in it. First thing to do when engaging? Start locking, pick range, deploy drones.

Realistically, if your ship has a drone bay, you're putting drones in it and using them. The drone damage figure is obviously inflated because there are dozens of ships non-bonus'd for drones that still use drones. If the figure was isolated to drones launched by ship-types bonus'd for drones, it'd be a lot smaller.


As for drones on bonus'd ships, I'm not so sure that nerfing them is the problem. If anything, I'd tweak the ship to bring it a bit more inline with other ships while also buffing others (Hint: Amarr).

Gets real old to see "Nerf drones" everywhere but very few posts about "Buff Amarr", especially in this thread. Too many fitting problems with Amarr ships right now. I won't even mention HML/HAM problems.
For Cruiser sized hulls, Drones are one of the best, if not the best, damage types to choose from. That's the big problem.