These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[118.6] Capital Balancing

First post First post First post
Author
Morgaine Mighthammer
Rational Chaos Inc.
Brave Collective
#121 - 2016-06-10 15:36:26 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Carriers & Fighters
  • Long Range Heavy Fighters (Ametat, Termite, Antaeus, Gungnir) bomb ability now correctly scales with squadron size.
  • Warp Scramblers now stop Fighter MWDs and MJDs mid-cycle.
  • Networked Sensor Array bonus to Scan Resolution now has a stacking penalty with sensor boosters.
  • Networked Sensor Array bonus to Scan Resolution reduced to 500% (from 900%)
  • Networked Sensor Array no longer gives a bonus to number of locked targets.
  • Networked Sensor Array sensor strength bonuses now also apply to the Carrier's fighter squadrons.
  • Fighters now have orbit ranges more appropriate to their weapons system (you can see this in Show Info)

can we split the difference on the NSA? give it a 750% bonus to scan res, and dis-allow the use of sebo's while it's active. i mean come on, by itself it's not that broken, just the ability to boost it even higher with sebos. take away that ability, and oh look! it's not broken anymore!

CCP Larrikin wrote:

Dreadnoughts
  • Naglfar now has 3 turret hard-points (and an extra high slot) and has lost its role bonus of +50% damage.
  • Naglfar has an additional +60 CPU

Why? for the love of all things eve why? what is wrong with having only 2 guns on the nag? we have been asking this since we discovered the change on sisi, and have gotten nothing from you guys, why does the nag need this change?

if you wont reconsider the change, can you at the very least give it some damn powergrid? as a lot of folks in here have already pointed out, the addition of a 3rd turret completely kills the ability to fit anything even resembling a tnak while having guns. PLEASE fix this if you are so set on giving the nag a 3rd gun for whatever your unknown reason is.

CCP Larrikin wrote:

Miscellaneous
  • All Capital Shield Extenders now provide 10% less shield HP.


wow really? we cant even get into one major capital engagement and you're already nerfing the shield caps? why?

CCP Larrikin wrote:

There are more changes planned. We will be looking at HAW Tracking (more info here) and Light Fighter application / alpha.

so we face a possible nerf to dreads right after getting the new toys? why? who's bitching that loud that you hear them but the rest of us dont?

i have been loving what you guys are doing lately ccp, but right now i am just confused as to why you are doing this stuff and not giving any explanation on why you are doing it, and doing it to ships that didn't need it in the first place. some explanation please.
Pyroxeres
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#122 - 2016-06-10 15:37:26 UTC
would it not make sense to increase the ecm resistance provided by triage and bastion to a higher value (and/or coupled with a reduction to the effective length of a jam) instead of providing flat immunity?

this would make ecm have a smaller impact on the ships, but having a posibility of it happening would not completely lock (ha) the whole game element of ecm out against these targets.
This would, in my opinion, be a better and more streamlined change for the consistency of game elements.
Mr Hyde113
#123 - 2016-06-10 15:38:40 UTC
:)
Sister Bliss
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#124 - 2016-06-10 15:50:28 UTC
Pyroxeres wrote:
would it not make sense to increase the ecm resistance provided by triage and bastion to a higher value (and/or coupled with a reduction to the effective length of a jam) instead of providing flat immunity?

this would make ecm have a smaller impact on the ships, but having a posibility of it happening would not completely lock (ha) the whole game element of ecm out against these targets.
This would, in my opinion, be a better and more streamlined change for the consistency of game elements.


Indeed, that was the whole intent of having a game parameter which could be configurable and adjusted to balance gameplay around. Why it is being removed completely is a mystery. Why is this being removed? Can we have an answer please CCP
NaK'Lin
7-2 Ronin
#125 - 2016-06-10 15:53:05 UTC
Sister Bliss wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Hi M8s,

With the 118.6 release, we're making some tweaks to a bunch of capital gameplay. We would love your feedback!


As a first piece of feedback, I really urge you and CCP as a whole to invest in a professional approach to managing change with your customers. We have for years been consistently treated with disdain when it comes to communications and the constant wave of threadnoughts is not always a sign of healthy debate but more so anger and frustration from your customers.

Can I request that any time you introduce any change which impacts us, can you:
a) articulate the change in detail
b) explain your reasoning for the change (we do not have to agree but an opportunity to voice our feedback is fine)
c) articulate how this is going to impact the player
d) explain how you will measure the impact of this change and what you see as a successful outcome

In most examples (and herein) you only address point a) which is never enough. It may sound like a lot of additional work to provide the remaining detail I am suggesting and asking for but it pays dividends. All the ranting and supposition on why these changes are being made (you're a terrible game designer, mad, in the pocket of XL alliance, etc ...) go away and ppl can only debate the point.

We accept that there will be change especially after new features, but I think a little more consideration to your customer base is warranted especially when these changes can impact us significantly.

Let's look at an example:

Quote:
]All Capital Shield Extenders now provide 10% less shield HP


^
Why are you making this change? You have not explained any rational reason for this significant change. It's not surprising people are jumping to conclusions about your reason for doing so.

What is the impact on players? I have not personally seen any evidence or suggestion that shield capitals are overly tanked (if you provide the detail and rationale we can understand).Many players, corps, alliances may have invested in shield capitals which is not only a significant amount of ISK but also significant effort. With this change there is a risk that all their effort is completely wasted and they have lost their investments if it turns out that shield caps are going to be garbage compared to armor caps (*if). There are hypothesis that this is going to be offset by implants etc but why do we have to guess and hedge our bets?

How will you measure the impact of this change? Impossible to answer this one unless you hope players will refrain from flying shield capitals because of whatever reason we are not party to.

Now apply the above to the other change statements (triage and siege immunity to preserve the whining upper classes, the desire to needlessly nerf the Naglf into the ground or inability to perform basic arithmetic) in the patch notes please and give us the level of detail we should hopefully have in the first instance.

I can guarantee your customer satisfaction will increase and the time you need to spend on managing these threads will decrease if you invested more in some change management best practice.

Off topic but can you investigate and balance:

1. Armor T3 (quite why they have been left in such a dominating position for years despite the stated design goal is a mystery to me).
2. Svipuls
3. Titan HAW



SO MUCH THIS. I just didn't have the patience to put it in words.
Thank you for now I don't feel like I am the only one who is bothered by this anymore.

The whole point is we are having discussions and stupid decisions to make and all around nothing because no clear information on reasoning given by CCP ovre the years of patching.
This is were rage threadnoughts come from.

Your post is excellent and we can only dream of such an SOP from CCP.
Valkin Mordirc
#126 - 2016-06-10 16:02:26 UTC
Sister Bliss wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Hi M8s,

With the 118.6 release, we're making some tweaks to a bunch of capital gameplay. We would love your feedback!


As a first piece of feedback, I really urge you and CCP as a whole to invest in a professional approach to managing change with your customers. We have for years been consistently treated with disdain when it comes to communications and the constant wave of threadnoughts is not always a sign of healthy debate but more so anger and frustration from your customers.

Can I request that any time you introduce any change which impacts us, can you:
a) articulate the change in detail
b) explain your reasoning for the change (we do not have to agree but an opportunity to voice our feedback is fine)
c) articulate how this is going to impact the player
d) explain how you will measure the impact of this change and what you see as a successful outcome

In most examples (and herein) you only address point a) which is never enough. It may sound like a lot of additional work to provide the remaining detail I am suggesting and asking for but it pays dividends. All the ranting and supposition on why these changes are being made (you're a terrible game designer, mad, in the pocket of XL alliance, etc ...) go away and ppl can only debate the point.

We accept that there will be change especially after new features, but I think a little more consideration to your customer base is warranted especially when these changes can impact us significantly.

Let's look at an example:

Quote:
]All Capital Shield Extenders now provide 10% less shield HP


^
Why are you making this change? You have not explained any rational reason for this significant change. It's not surprising people are jumping to conclusions about your reason for doing so.

What is the impact on players? I have not personally seen any evidence or suggestion that shield capitals are overly tanked (if you provide the detail and rationale we can understand).Many players, corps, alliances may have invested in shield capitals which is not only a significant amount of ISK but also significant effort. With this change there is a risk that all their effort is completely wasted and they have lost their investments if it turns out that shield caps are going to be garbage compared to armor caps (*if). There are hypothesis that this is going to be offset by implants etc but why do we have to guess and hedge our bets?

How will you measure the impact of this change? Impossible to answer this one unless you hope players will refrain from flying shield capitals because of whatever reason we are not party to.

Now apply the above to the other change statements (triage and siege immunity to preserve the whining upper classes, the desire to needlessly nerf the Naglf into the ground or inability to perform basic arithmetic) in the patch notes please and give us the level of detail we should hopefully have in the first instance.

I can guarantee your customer satisfaction will increase and the time you need to spend on managing these threads will decrease if you invested more in some change management best practice.

Off topic but can you investigate and balance:

1. Armor T3 (quite why they have been left in such a dominating position for years despite the stated design goal is a mystery to me).
2. Svipuls
3. Titan HAW




^

All of this, I really hate asking WHY, Like why are you nerfing just the defensive sub to the Tengu? Why are you nerfing ALL Medium Rails? Why must I ask Why?

Also,

Roq balance,
Links Balance,
Highsec Balance
Lowsec/FW Balance


And just to maybe send the point home,

THE ACTUAL T3 Balance that's been asked for. For as long as this character has been around, which is 2013, I have heard nothing but people asking for T3's to be balanced out.

And the only thing that's been done, has been a Defensive nerf to the Tengu.

On the plus side, you did get Ishtar's in line, Orthrus were nerfed to a happy spot,


But honestly, with all the new things coming out. You guys are pushing to much new. And not fixing what needs to be fixed.


#DeleteTheWeak
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#127 - 2016-06-10 16:05:31 UTC
Sister Bliss wrote:
I can guarantee your customer satisfaction will increase and the time you need to spend on managing these threads will decrease if you invested more in some change management best practice.

Please, have my babies! Ehm... I mean, is Init recruiting?
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#128 - 2016-06-10 16:09:25 UTC  |  Edited by: TrouserDeagle
so are we just giving up on having ewar vs capitals? the high resistance with a stacking penalty is no good, it makes the ewar do nothing but get on a killmail, and total immunity makes a bunch of ships pointless. yeah we're all mad at how overpowered ecm is, but you don't fix it by giving capitals immunity

and if the nsa is for killing fighters with, could you make it so you cannot lock ships while it's active?

edit: wtf you guys aren't fixing light fighters? it has been how many weeks? this is far more important than anything in this thread
Sister Bliss
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#129 - 2016-06-10 16:18:38 UTC
Valkin Mordirc wrote:

THE ACTUAL T3 Balance that's been asked for. For as long as this character has been around, which is 2013, I have heard nothing but people asking for T3's to be balanced out.

And the only thing that's been done, has been a Defensive nerf to the Tengu.


Exactly. And I would go so far as to say it's not that it's even being asked for, but that imo its desperately needed.

I tried to raise this point during the first few weeks of the capital focus group to say that CCP not only needs to look at capitals but also to make sure there is a working environment for them to operate within, because if the environment is broken then it doesn't matter how good capitals are (or any individual ship class is).

We reached the point where you could quite happily fly only T3 and Capitals over everything else. The function of battleships were wholly obsoleted by T3 except under scenarios where you could control certain parameters and only then a narrow selection of BS such as Machariels or Rattlesnakes were usable.

If feels that rather than fixing the env, we are moving backwards even moreso to a point where T3 + HAW Caps and Supers/Dreads is all you really need or would wish for.
Mostlyharmlesss
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#130 - 2016-06-10 16:18:57 UTC
I seem to recall a certain CCP employee being adament about immunities going away and being told that it was a bad idea.

Glad to see you ignoring what certain members of the capital focus group told you would happen (And actually happened, surprise!) considering you've gone back on at least 3 things that you were warned about by one person alone.

CCP, never change.

Follow me on Twitter for the latest regarding GoonSwarm Federation and our recruitment drives!

Sister Bliss
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#131 - 2016-06-10 16:20:30 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Sister Bliss wrote:
I can guarantee your customer satisfaction will increase and the time you need to spend on managing these threads will decrease if you invested more in some change management best practice.

Please, have my babies! Ehm... I mean, is Init recruiting?


Yes but be aware:

1. We are the bad guys
2. We have no players who influence CCP game design
SeVenNight Deng
Tai-Chi
Northern Coalition.
#132 - 2016-06-10 16:26:09 UTC
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=214280&find=unread

Give me the reason why the PG of Nag is gone. This shows you guys pay little time to try the fits and consider this change. That is just ******* ********
Seraph IX Basarab
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#133 - 2016-06-10 16:26:26 UTC
Did void bombs really need a nerf? I can understand wanting the skill in question to play a factor but yeah...
FasTraGe
Ostmark
#134 - 2016-06-10 16:56:59 UTC
How about some extra PG to go along with that extra turret slot on the nag?
Cade Windstalker
#135 - 2016-06-10 16:57:46 UTC
SeVenNight Deng wrote:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=214280&find=unread

Give me the reason why the PG of Nag is gone. This shows you guys pay little time to try the fits and consider this change. That is just ******* ********


Probably because the ship originally lost only slightly more than the PG requirement of a single Capital turret. At the very least it's unlikely that it needs the full 144k PG back from when it had to fit 2 Citadel launchers.
Alexey Rumyancev
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#136 - 2016-06-10 17:10:05 UTC
RIP in
P-E-P-P-E-R-O-N-I-S
capshield extenders
Ripard Teg
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#137 - 2016-06-10 17:10:23 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Q: The Naglfar won't have enough Power Grid to fit 3 guns (especialy with Artillery!)!
A: The changes to the Naglfar's model and number of turret hardpoints are already on Sisi and we didn't want to leave this without any comment from CCP. However, we haven't quite finished our fitting balance tweaks to the Nag. We're probably going to hit this problem from both sides, with a reduction to the PG requirement of XL Artillery and a small increase to the Naglfar's PG.

Please do more than this. The Nag is badly PG-constrained today. In its most popular auto-cannon fit, it can only fit one capital plate, zero capital neuts, and zero Capital Capacitor Boosters. It will be more than 40,000 grid short of being able to fit a third auto-cannon. And that's with T1 or CONCORD guns. With T2 guns, the deficit increases to something close to 60,000. 80,000 if, Heaven forbid, you want a T2 plate.

Reminder: this is the auto-cannon fit. The arty fit becomes completely untenable.

If you're going to require a third gun, Nag grid needs to go up by +80k grid at least.

aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.

Cpt Patrick Archer
Crystalline.
Fraternity.
#138 - 2016-06-10 17:10:43 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Q&A

Q: Why are you nerfing Capital Shield Extenders?
A: The balance between shield and armor is a complicated issue. Shield gets some passive regen, repairs on the start of the cycle and the ability to fit both damage and tank at the same time. While armor often has a higher buffer and greater accesability to EWar modules while fitting tank.
We believe that for capitals the balance is just a little too strong toward shields.



Why not buff armor instead?

The apostle for instance dies extremely fast.
Cade Windstalker
#139 - 2016-06-10 17:14:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Sister Bliss wrote:
Valkin Mordirc wrote:

THE ACTUAL T3 Balance that's been asked for. For as long as this character has been around, which is 2013, I have heard nothing but people asking for T3's to be balanced out.

And the only thing that's been done, has been a Defensive nerf to the Tengu.


Exactly. And I would go so far as to say it's not that it's even being asked for, but that imo its desperately needed.

I tried to raise this point during the first few weeks of the capital focus group to say that CCP not only needs to look at capitals but also to make sure there is a working environment for them to operate within, because if the environment is broken then it doesn't matter how good capitals are (or any individual ship class is).

We reached the point where you could quite happily fly only T3 and Capitals over everything else. The function of battleships were wholly obsoleted by T3 except under scenarios where you could control certain parameters and only then a narrow selection of BS such as Machariels or Rattlesnakes were usable.

If feels that rather than fixing the env, we are moving backwards even moreso to a point where T3 + HAW Caps and Supers/Dreads is all you really need or would wish for.



It's almost like since CCP started this big tiericide and re-balance thing way back in 2012 the Tier 3s and the Capital ships are almost the only classes that haven't gone through the re-balance process. T3s got a stop-gap pass a while back but that was *explicitly* a stop-gap, not a full balance pass.

EDIT: Case and point, CCP already responded with a clarification on the 10% shield change. I kind of doubt you're happy with it, but it's there and it's enough for me.

Capitals got passed off until last because they just took so long and needed such a big change. T3s have been passed over for so long because the changes they're going to need are pretty huge too *and* all the T2 Cruisers they've done until now needed to be place and in a good spot so they have something to balance against. There's also a good argument to be made for Citadels and the T3 Destroyers being prerequisites for a T3 re-balance as well. T3 Dessies as a prototype and Citadels as a quality of life thing for Wormholes so they can more easily refit T3s.



More generally, and addressing that huge wall of text at least in part, it feels like you're giving players way too much credit and CCP not enough. They're generally *really* communicative for a Games company, especially around balance issues. Quite often reasonings are spelled out explicitly, but sometimes the actual goals and expected impact of a change either A. can't be elaborated without leaking data the players really shouldn't have access to or B. because the answer is basically "Thing X is over-performing and we're hoping this will bring it back into line, but we're not really 100% sure what the far-ranging consequences of this will be."

On the player's side I think it's being *really* generous to think that spelling things out explicitly will arrest pointless arguing. Historically the only thing it's really caused on that front is more arguing over whether or not the facts and reasoning are actually sound. I'm not saying that this makes more information a bad thing, but I think it's really kind of disingenuous to say that it's this magical thing that's going to make debate around here better, when historically more information just means more to argue over.

Also your general view seems to be that PvP, and how many people are using something in PvP, is all that matters when there are a ton of different ways that various ships are used throughout the game and CCP has to take all of them into account when making changes.
Omfala Brinalle
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#140 - 2016-06-10 17:17:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Omfala Brinalle
Всем привет! Я являюсь пилотом PvP carrier, поэтому я в курсе проблемы с "кемпищами гайками кар".
Хочу сказать, что миф о неуязвимости кар очень субьективный и кара очень хорошо контрится малым количеством кораблей за небольшие деньги.

На данный момент существуют 2 типа пилотов карриеров:

1.Это пилоты которые любят постоять на гайке на сканрезной каре, их кары очень дешевые не больше 2.5ккк, они хорошо убиваются рукастыми пилотами. Но сильно убивают обычное ПвП на сабкапитальных кораблях. Сканрез у них реально надо резать, но...

2. Тип пилотов использующие хот-дроп кары за 5-6ккк в которых не ставяться сенсор бустеры и обычно ставиться клока... И если рассмотреть типичную ситуацию когда на ганг саб-капитальных кораблей в количестве 10 штук общей стоимостью 1ккк проваливаются 4 кары со стоимостью 20-22ккк , думать что это вне баланса глупо, т.к. это обычный блоб.

На моём nidhogur сейчас 600 сканрез + сканрез файтеров и добавлять в фит сенсор бустер не вариант...

Я считаю что патч вернул в игру много ПвП пилотов, а так же начали использовать кары для PvP намного чаще и из этого следует что SuperCapы начали тоже намного чаще использовать, что является большим плюсом для игры и супера не пылятся на логин скрине как раньше...

Итог: порезав сканрез в 2 раза ССП ничего не добьется, как убивали кары на гайках так и будут убивать, но таким образом ССП пилят свой же сук на котором сидят. А ведь просто можно порезать сенсор бустеры при включенном сенсор аррей, это оставит довольным и пилотов кар и пилотов саб-капиталов, при этом уменьшив количество сканрез кар на гейтах ибо 2.500 сканрез не дело, а и мои 300 сканреза после этого патча не вариант.



Sorry for the bad translation, but I tried as best I could.

Hello! I am PvP carrier pilot, so I am aware of the problem with the "cemp car".
I want to say that the myth of invulnerability car is very subjective and very good kill her small staff of ships for little money.

Currently there are 2 types of pilots Carrier:

1.This pilots who love to stand on the nut on insta-lock penalty, they cost money 2.5kkk, easily killed. But much killing in the usual PvP conventional ships. Insta-lock they really should be cut, but ...

2. Type of pilots using hot-drop price for 5-6kkk that not putting the sensor boosters and usually put shred ... And if we consider the typical situation when a gang sub-capital ships in the amount of 10 pieces total cost 1kkk fail 4 cars with the cost 20-22kkk, thinking that it is the balance of silly, because this is the usual blob.

On my nidhogur is now 600 scanres + sсanres fighters and added to fit the booster sensor is not an option ...

I believe that the patch back in the game a lot of PvP pilots, as well as began to use cars for PvP a lot more and it follows from this that started SuperCapy also much more likely to be used, which is a big plus for the game and super not gather dust on the screenshot login as before .. .

Bottom line: cutting lock 2 times ССP will not achieve anything like killing penalties on killed and will kill at gate, but so is your ССP sawing the branch on which sit. [B] And we need to nerf sensor boosters when included the sensor Arrey [/ b], it will leave satisfied and pilot car and pilot sub-capital, thus reducing the number of skanrez car at the Gate for 2,500 scanres not the case, and my 300 scanres after this patch is not an option.

P.S.Other people have the same opinion ....