These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Nerfing Caldari?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Endeavour Starfleet
#121 - 2012-01-18 11:01:54 UTC
Melangell wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:


Why did they wait for the CSM to reveal their want of nuking the drake from orbit? Why not make a topic about it if they wanted our thoughts?
.


why did they talk to the group whose job it is to represent the players views first rather than coming straight to the players?

nope you got me there. I can't see any reason a group designed to represent the players views would be consulted in this.

meantime in-between your entitled raging and my inconsequential cheering of changing a boat I am not a fan of for no other reason than that :- there is some really good well thought out commentary on this thread.....


The representing players part is HIGHLY questionable and should be relied on only when you cant understand why you have three threadnaughts on the same page about your BS.

Something of this magnitude should have been a topic. You don't have to fly a bunch of people out there to learn that changing the drake is bad.
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#122 - 2012-01-18 11:22:19 UTC
So it looks like the Drake is going to get a tank nerf and a damage buff. I'm fine with that. However, singling out one ship from Caldari is doing the rest of the races a disservice. Nerf the Drake and the Tengu becomes more popular for PVP. Caldari is unbalanced, not for any single ship, but for the pure fact that many of their ships can have relatively insane tanks that regenerate and their main weaponry, missiles, don't require any cap. While I'm not in favor of changing missiles to utilize cap, I am in favor of a tank nerf that combats the advantages that capless weaponry avails the race over the others compounded by a rechargeable tank.

In essence, Caldari is able to divert all of their cap to even a passive tank that regens. Neuting Caldari, unlike Amarr and Gallente, doesn't pacify the target. They just keep firing. I realize that Minmatar also avails itself of this ability with its capless weaponry but, in general are armor tankers and therefore don't have a built in buff regeneration and so is more balanced.

Don't ban me, bro!
Endeavour Starfleet
#123 - 2012-01-18 11:26:54 UTC
There is no need for a drake nerf. The regen is balanced by moderate DPS. The Naga has great DPS but crap tank.

This is just a bad idea by CCP and the CSM and should be treated as such.
Missljud
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#124 - 2012-01-18 11:29:42 UTC
Well with a buff to missile velocity, will it maybe interfere in the bonuses the Cerberus have... I don't mind nerfing the Drakes eHP but buffing the range on missiles am I not that happy about. However going from 5% kinetic damage to a general damage bonus/buff seems fair to me.
jolas apt
#125 - 2012-01-18 11:41:05 UTC
Mr Kidd wrote:
Nerf the Drake and the Tengu becomes more popular for PVP.


What you said exactly was, nerfing a 30mil hull will make a half billion one more popular for PVP. Do I need to explain where you argument fails?
Endeavour Starfleet
#126 - 2012-01-18 11:43:35 UTC
Missljud wrote:
Well with a buff to missile velocity, will it maybe interfere in the bonuses the Cerberus have... I don't mind nerfing the Drakes eHP but buffing the range on missiles am I not that happy about. However going from 5% kinetic damage to a general damage bonus/buff seems fair to me.


So an extra few megatons from orbit makes things better?

Wow... Just wow Shocked

It does not a resist nerf or a hp nerf or a regen nerf. It needs to be left alone as it is balanced.
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#127 - 2012-01-18 11:47:23 UTC
Phyress wrote:
Tier 3 BCs seem to be some sort of Bizarro-world. My impressions was that the Talos was superior to the Naga already.


ONLY on gates and undocks, eft paper dps nothing more nothing less. Once you undock and go for serious business/fights low/null Talos is just another flying pinata while Naga is by far the one that stays on the field because it has ENOUGH dps to do his job ENOUGH tank and mobility, Talos has DPS nothing else. Ho and 5 drones Lol
Tornado? -unless you bring double web Loki/Rapier (oc everyone has those all the time) the Tornado you just targeted at 20 from the gate will be at 100 before you can shoot you 4th salvo...great concept.

Quote:
ECM: I don't see any changes mentioned yet, just discussion. Hooray for Sensor Damp boost, though!


I'm all for it, little tired of using my Arazu/Lachesis just to pin crap at over 60km (100 all bonus) then look at it, my stupid ship can't even shoot at that distance or will at max (60km+/-) do 200dps hurray! !

The ships themselves are in need of a big job, they have enough mids to push 60k shield EHP with very strong resists, single or double point but still slow.
Now fit it in armour with meh resists (my armour skills are far better than shield thou), now you have a very slow brick, around 35k EHP, still can't spit anything else than 200 uber dps but now has magnificent useless triple damps that you HAVE to put on the same ship if you want them to have some efficiency:
A crap T1 battelship with 80km targeting and 3damps on it will become incapable to target over 15. great, 300+M ship without any faction stuff just to "control" 1 ship...

When all you have to do is pick an ECM (Falcon/Rook/Scorpion and even the T1 frigate can do better job than Damp ships) and control several ships, some will probably be permanently jammed. 300M on this ship I say it's fine.

Quote:
I wouldn't mind a range bonus on the Drake in place of the shield resist bonus. It might open up some fun fits like a SeBo Drake with range rigs which makes 150km warps around the target. Or it could just be a HAM gankboat.


Lvl5 skills already let you shoot HM's at around 115km, it's very very nice considering how far you can shoot with med rails or arty without pimp.
If CCP takes shield resists and +5% kin for speed/rof then why would you use something else than HAM's? -I mean spit ham's at around/over 50km and bonus ROF would just make it gank machine. Who needs tank when you have gank? (give 50km range on Talos with it's dps I don't mind to have 20k EHP)
Leisen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#128 - 2012-01-18 12:10:31 UTC
Guaranteed everyone complaining about ECM isn't fitting ECCM. Wouldn't want to use up a midslot to counter ECM right? Oh wait, isn't there a race that has to sacrifice tackle/prop/utility (read: midslots) for tank? Good thing they don't also have the slowest ships and smallest drone bays in the game!
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#129 - 2012-01-18 12:30:22 UTC
Please keep in mind these notes date back from December, and as such some points may have evolved as we are gathering more data with time.


TALOS VS NAGA:


  • Surprisingly enough, the Talos seems quite popular, and a lot better performance wise than the initial feedback suggested. Even if we have been discussing its relative balance with the Naga, nothing is planned to be changed on either of them for now; in the remote possibility we tweak them, it would most likely be modifications affecting all tier 3 battlecruisers, like a slight speed decrease. But again, tier 3 battlecruisers are not on the top of our balancing list right now.


DRAKE (and to an extent, tier 2 battlecruisers):

There is a reason why it is the most used battlecruiser out there. The problem with the Drake is that it is does everything too well for little cost or sacrifice, while being easy to train for. Thus, and to an extent most of the tier 2 battlecruisers create a certain number of issues that should be addressed:

(Yes, leaving tier 1 battlecruisers out of the discussion because there is no point arguing with the obvious fact they need some attention).


  • Overshadow other tech 1 hulls: the leap in performance between cruiser and tier 2 battlecruiser classes is just too great for too little cost (average slot count, EHP mainly). This, coupled with the gain in damage for having access to more weapon slots, as well as extra fitting power (ever tried squeezing turrets into an Omen and keep a decent fit?), makes the small loss of speed irrelevant when leaving the cruiser class as battlecruisers still remain fairly mobile. That's partly why the Hurricane also is so popular.

  • Overshadows tech 2 counterparts: Heavy Assault Ships and Command Ships are suffering from this situation. This is most apparent with the Nighthawk, but any ship that shares a common role with them is affected. Why take the time to train up and pay for an expensive hull when there is an easy to get into and cheap option available that almost have the same performance?

  • Incorrectly funnel new players: don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP. What's the point of a Bellicose? Exequror? Maller? Moa? They shouldn't be things you just skip on the way to a greater purpose, like a leaf of salad in my 250gr double-layered onion and egg hamburger.

  • Have odd, conflicting, or too much versatile roles: Drake has both a shield resistance and damage bonus, making it quite effective at passive tanking, but doesn't give it a focused purpose. Then you have the Myrmidon, which doesn't really know what it is supposed to do, like some Japanese anime characters don't know which gender they are trying to be: it's a mix of a turret ship without turret bonuses (and often ends up with autocannons fitted, the blasphemy), but also is a drone ship for its drone bonuses, while lacking the bandwidth or bay to support this claim. Some examples to solve this could be to turn the Drake in line with the Caracal and Raven in term of role, as a heavy offensive medium range missile platform, and to turn the Myrmidon into a proper drone ship. That would also help having a consistent, logical progression line between the cruiser and battleship roles as well, if we are careful not having the larger versions override the smaller ones.



But why so serious? Let's put a smile on these faces.

There are a lot of ships that needs to be looked into and were not mentioned here: they evolved, they rebelled and they have a plan™. If all goes well, expect a blog to come out soon™.
St Mio
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#130 - 2012-01-18 12:39:34 UTC
We look forward to aforementioned blog :D
jolas apt
#131 - 2012-01-18 12:39:57 UTC
I won't smile until I get a refund of my heavy missile skill points.
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#132 - 2012-01-18 12:42:50 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Awesome sauce.


Seems like a good plan/vision to me. Hope we get to hear more details soon.
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#133 - 2012-01-18 12:44:01 UTC
As long as you deal with the vast majority of caldari turret ships sucking you can nerf the drake... However if you think the proposed solution is a nerf.... :d

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Biytor
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#134 - 2012-01-18 12:46:37 UTC
SukaNaft wrote:
Just answer this question - if Drake is nerfed, what would you fly instead? NightHawk? ... or crosstrain to fly other races?


Cross train into Winmataer!!! It's the only option
Endeavour Starfleet
#135 - 2012-01-18 12:47:45 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Please keep in mind these notes date back from December, and as such some points may have evolved as we are gathering more data with time.


TALOS VS NAGA:


  • Surprisingly enough, the Talos seems quite popular, and a lot better performance wise than the initial feedback suggested. Even if we have been discussing its relative balance with the Naga, nothing is planned to be changed on either of them for now; in the remote possibility we tweak them, it would most likely be modifications affecting all tier 3 battlecruisers, like a slight speed decrease. But again, tier 3 battlecruisers are not on the top of our balancing list right now.




Nuking craft from orbit not the best idea. Players with axes to grind against craft. New things? I think not. No need to reduce their speed either.

CCP Ytterbium wrote:
DRAKE (and to an extent, tier 2 battlecruisers):

There is a reason why it is the most used battlecruiser out there. The problem with the Drake is that it is does everything too well for little cost or sacrifice, while being easy to train for. Thus, and to an extent most of the tier 2 battlecruisers create a certain number of issues that should be addressed:

(Yes, leaving tier 1 battlecruisers out of the discussion because there is no point arguing with the obvious fact they need some attention).



Wrong...

Easy to train for? You call the months I spent training to use it well Easy? It does not do everything too well in the least. It is a good tank with medium DPS. Perfect for the BC role. People with axes to grind will have you believe they are titans if they could get away with it.

CCP Ytterbium wrote:



  • Overshadow other tech 1 hulls: the leap in performance between cruiser and tier 2 battlecruiser classes is just too great for too little cost (average slot count, EHP mainly). This, coupled with the gain in damage for having access to more weapon slots, as well as extra fitting power (ever tried squeezing turrets into an Omen and keep a decent fit?), makes the small loss of speed irrelevant when leaving the cruiser class as battlecruisers still remain fairly mobile. That's partly why the Hurricane also is so popular.

  • Overshadows tech 2 counterparts: Heavy Assault Ships and Command Ships are suffering from this situation. This is most apparent with the Nighthawk, but any ship that shares a common role with them is affected. Why take the time to train up and pay for an expensive hull when there is an easy to get into and cheap option available that almost have the same performance?

Limited quotes on this forum (Why if its a direct quotes? Why not make it prevent multiple quotes of quotes instead?) So ill have to answer these in one quote.

It does not overshadow other hulls on purpose. It is just that it is the best balanced ship in a sea of unbalanced craft and your Tier 1 BC stuff ought to show that better than anything.

Does not overshadow T2 counterparts. I see them used all the time. Where are you getting this data? The CSM?

CCP Ytterbium wrote:


  • Incorrectly funnel new players: don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP. What's the point of a Bellicose? Exequror? Maller? Moa? They shouldn't be things you just skip on the way to a greater purpose, like a leaf of salad in my 250gr double-layered onion and egg hamburger.

  • Have odd, conflicting, or too much versatile roles: Drake has both a shield resistance and damage bonus, making it quite effective at passive tanking, but doesn't give it a focused purpose. Then you have the Myrmidon, which doesn't really know what it is supposed to do, like some Japanese anime characters don't know which gender they are trying to be: it's a mix of a turret ship without turret bonuses (and often ends up with autocannons fitted, the blasphemy), but also is a drone ship for its drone bonuses, while lacking the bandwidth or bay to support this claim. Some examples to solve this could be to turn the Drake in line with the Caracal and Raven in term of role, as a heavy offensive medium range missile platform, and to turn the Myrmidon into a proper drone ship. That would also help having a consistent, logical progression line between the cruiser and battleship roles as well, if we are careful not having the larger versions override the smaller ones.




    • As for point one you are nuking the drake from orbit instead of giving those craft better roles and buffs that makes them viable? Wut? No thanks fix them instead.

    Odd roles? It is the most balanced craft in game. Make it in line with the Raven? WHAT?! Because a higher end ship is fail you want to unbalance the lower end version because "misery loves company?"


    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    But why so serious? Let's put a smile on these faces.

    There are a lot of ships that needs to be looked into and were not mentioned here: they evolved, they rebelled and they have a plan™. If all goes well, expect a blog to come out soon™.


    You are out to nuke a ship that many have spent month after month training and you want us to smile and not take it seriously. Have you learned nothing from Incarna?

    Please just remove this completely from the dev time. It is nuking the drake from orbit because people are screaming that they can't use their Alpha fleets to kill it in one volley.
    Kingwood
    Gone Krabbing
    #136 - 2012-01-18 12:49:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Kingwood
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:

    TALOS VS NAGA:


    • Surprisingly enough, the Talos seems quite popular, and a lot better performance wise than the initial feedback suggested. Even if we have been discussing its relative balance with the Naga, nothing is planned to be changed on either of them for now; in the remote possibility we tweak them, it would most likely be modifications affecting all tier 3 battlecruisers, like a slight speed decrease. But again, tier 3 battlecruisers are not on the top of our balancing list right now.



    The Talos is much better suited for small gang PvP than the Naga, due to higher speed, DPS, and range, so I'd really like to know how the CSM came up with that. What I would like to know is whether CCP is balancing around small gang PvP (which should be the case) or fleet fights (which should not be) - a Talos buff in whatever form will result in me never flying another ship again; as it is now, it already totally replaced me flying a shield Cane.

    A speed decrease for Tier3 BCs needs to be really carefully done because speed is all these ships have going for them, as they're absolute glass cannons.

    CCP Ytterbium wrote:

    DRAKE (and to an extent, tier 2 battlecruisers):

    There is a reason why it is the most used battlecruiser out there. The problem with the Drake is that it is does everything too well for little cost or sacrifice, while being easy to train for. Thus, and to an extent most of the tier 2 battlecruisers create a certain number of issues that should be addressed:


    • Overshadow other tech 1 hulls: the leap in performance between cruiser and tier 2 battlecruiser classes is just too great for too little cost (average slot count, EHP mainly). This, coupled with the gain in damage for having access to more weapon slots, as well as extra fitting power (ever tried squeezing turrets into an Omen and keep a decent fit?), makes the small loss of speed irrelevant when leaving the cruiser class as battlecruisers still remain fairly mobile. That's partly why the Hurricane also is so popular.

    • Overshadows tech 2 counterparts: Heavy Assault Ships and Command Ships are suffering from this situation. This is most apparent with the Nighthawk, but any ship that shares a common role with them is affected. Why take the time to train up and pay for an expensive hull when there is an easy to get into and cheap option available that almost have the same performance?

    • Incorrectly funnel new players: don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP. What's the point of a Bellicose? Exequror? Maller? Moa? They shouldn't be things you just skip on the way to a greater purpose, like a leaf of salad in my 250gr double-layered onion and egg hamburger.

    • Have odd, conflicting, or too much versatile roles: Drake has both a shield resistance and damage bonus, making it quite effective at passive tanking, but doesn't give it a focused purpose. Then you have the Myrmidon, which doesn't really know what it is supposed to do, like some Japanese anime characters don't know which gender they are trying to be: it's a mix of a turret ship without turret bonuses (and often ends up with autocannons fitted, the blasphemy), but also is a drone ship for its drone bonuses, while lacking the bandwidth or bay to support this claim. Some examples to solve this could be to turn the Drake in line with the Caracal and Raven in term of role, as a heavy offensive medium range missile platform, and to turn the Myrmidon into a proper drone ship. That would also help having a consistent, logical progression line between the cruiser and battleship roles as well, if we are careful not having the larger versions override the smaller ones.



    Agreed, the Drake tank is way too good. However, you should carefully think about the Caldari race as a whole once the Drake is changed. At the moment, Caldari is worth flying precisely because of two ships: Drake and Tengu. (Not going into the Caldari Recon ship issue, that is a separate topic). Caldari ships are not worth flying at all - I don't know why I should fly a Caracal when I can use a Rupture or a Thorax. There's a reason I have all races (almost) max-skilled except for Caldari, and I only skilled Caldari for exactly one ship, the Drake. If you do decide to change the Drake, I'd suggest you give it a proper small gang role (i.e. trade EHP for damage output and maybe a little bit more speed).

    Drone ships need to be looked at because every ship that relies on drones cannot really function as a kiter due to being unable to scoop drones at all times when one might have to warp out (also drone travel time and speed is bad when fighting at point range, esp. if your drones get targeted). This means that ships like the Vexor or Myrm have to be fit as brawlers, which is a bad idea in today's Eve.

    CCP Ytterbium wrote:

    There are a lot of ships that needs to be looked into and were not mentioned here: they evolved, they rebelled and they have a plan™. If all goes well, expect a blog to come out soon™.


    What about shield vs. armor tanking? Shield tanking is almost exclusively used in 0.0 because speed is life, and armor tanking reduces your speed way too much. Couple that with shield tanks having range because they're able to fit tracking enhancers and you'll see why armor tanks are a rarity for people roaming in 0.0.

    I have much more to write but I'm not even sure if CCP even bothers to look at suggestions/problem areas so I'll just outline some I've had in mind for some time.
    Thorn Galen
    Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
    The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
    #137 - 2012-01-18 12:51:16 UTC
    So, what CCP is saying is that the Drake-bake is on.

    So it's either arty's or Tengu's. Wow, so diverse...........Roll

    COO - Bene Gesserit Chapterhouse  CEO - Sanctuary Pact Alliance
    Endeavour Starfleet
    #138 - 2012-01-18 13:01:19 UTC
    jolas apt wrote:
    I won't smile until I get a refund of my heavy missile skill points.


    I would want just about all my missile and shield skills refunded to me in this crap actually go through. Because I know the Tengu is next.
    Jaari Val'Dara
    Grim Sleepers
    #139 - 2012-01-18 13:06:55 UTC
    TLDR: Lets nerf drake, caldari have too much good pvp ships. There's drake, also there's drake on steroids - tengu and then there's..... whatever lets nerf them anyway.
    WisdomLikeSilence
    BurgerkingTM
    #140 - 2012-01-18 13:12:52 UTC
    im 8 years in the game and can fly any race well or at max skills (barirng supercaps) for every combat ship, so it no longer makes any difference to me which race they boost or which they nerf: Im not biased toward any of them.

    Having said that, the Drake is all too prevalent in fleet makeups. It does everything very well, and requires very little isk to purchase.

    If CCP is all about maximising the diversity in the game, then drakes need their enormous tanks downgraded a little.