These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

So, is anyone actually reading the feedback on AF balancing?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#1 - 2012-01-20 08:13:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Merin Ryskin
50 pages of discussion (and a lot of disagreement with the changes for various reasons), zero dev comments, and AF balance is in the patch on the 24th. Has anyone even bothered to keep up with our feedback, or are we getting the exact changes that were first proposed no matter how much time we wasted on testing them?


PS: it's much better to have to cancel the changes and break your promise than to make poor balance decisions because you don't have any more time. Take them out of the patch and do it right.
St Mio
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2012-01-20 08:31:04 UTC
I noticed that they have been tweaking the bonuses since the initial proposal.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#3 - 2012-01-20 08:37:28 UTC
Can't get onto the test server and check it right now, so can you (or anyone) tell us what they are now?

(And it's still poor communication to ignore the thread on them and just silently change stuff.)
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2012-01-20 09:40:45 UTC
St Mio wrote:
I noticed that they have been tweaking the bonuses since the initial proposal.


They have? What was changed?
Mors Sanctitatis
Death of Virtue
#5 - 2012-01-20 16:58:53 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
50 pages of discussion (and a lot of disagreement with the changes for various reasons), zero dev comments, and AF balance is in the patch on the 24th. Has anyone even bothered to keep up with our feedback, or are we getting the exact changes that were first proposed no matter how much time we wasted on testing them?


PS: it's much better to have to cancel the changes and break your promise than to make poor balance decisions because you don't have any more time. Take them out of the patch and do it right.



This!!!

Intelligence shouldn't be free.   Mining, reloaded.   ADDICTED.

Archare
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2012-01-20 17:23:41 UTC
I'm still waiting for a responce in the hybrid thread :P
Othran
Route One
#7 - 2012-01-20 17:24:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Othran
I think they're done. Patch is Tuesday so end of discussion.

Time to see how they work on TQ.

Edit - and screw delaying anything, this has been ongoing for nearly 3 years now.
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2012-01-20 18:06:53 UTC
Yes, the have been iterating the changes on the test server. They're working well.

Othran wrote:
Edit - and screw delaying anything, this has been ongoing for nearly 3 years now.

4+ years, the last AF specific change iirc was in late 2007.

https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT
Othran
Route One
#9 - 2012-01-20 18:52:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Othran
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:

Othran wrote:
Edit - and screw delaying anything, this has been ongoing for nearly 3 years now.

4+ years, the last AF specific change iirc was in late 2007.


Yeah but we've been actively arguing about ABs and all sorts of other bollox for 3 years.

Time to see how they work in Eve (not sisi).

As long as we don't end up in a "fire and forget" situation with dev iteration (Dramiel is the poster child of that) then there's no benefit to prolonging the argument. Lets just go play with them and find out what is OP.

Heh I might have to undock to try out a couple of Wolf fits.

I hope you lot are remembering EAFs too.

Anyway frigate changes, time to go get blown to bits Big smile
Kyoko Sakoda
Achura-Waschi Exchange
Monyusaiya Industry Trade Group
#10 - 2012-01-20 19:07:03 UTC
Iteration by definition means letting the top spin and seeing how far it goes. If things don't work, then you can change them. The only thing slightly disappointing is that the new stats aren't being updated in the thread, confusing people.
Hungry Eyes
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#11 - 2012-01-20 22:35:35 UTC
yea they wont be changing anything at this point. AF's for the most part work well now, and are more or less balanced.
Ris Dnalor
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2012-01-21 01:30:57 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
St Mio wrote:
I noticed that they have been tweaking the bonuses since the initial proposal.


They have? What was changed?


AF Bonuses from Test server as of the time of this post ( 1/20/2012 -- 01:28:00 -- Singularity Time )

Assault Ship Role bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty


AMARR

Retribution

Amarr Frigate Skill Bonus

10% bonus to Small Energy Turret Cap Use per level
7.5% bonus to Small Energy Turret tracking speed per level

Assault Ships Skill Bonus:

10% bonus to Small Energy Turret Optimal Range per level
5% bonus to Small Energy Turret Damage per level


Vengeance

Amarr Frigate Skill Bonus:

5% bonus to Rocket Damage per level
-5% bonus to Missile Launcher Rate of Fire per level

Assault Ships Skill Bonus

5% bonus to Armor Resistances per level
% bonus to Capacitor Recharge Rate per level


CALDARI

Harpy

Caldari Frigate Skill Bonus:

10% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret Optimal range per level
5% bonus to Shield Resistances per level

Assault Ships Skill Bonus:

10% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret Optimal Range per level
5% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret Damage per level

Hawk

Caldari Frigate Skill Bonus

10% bonus to Missile Kinetic Damage per level
-5% bonus to Missile Launcher Rate of Fire per level

Assault Ships Skill Bonus

10% bonus to Missile Velocity per level
7.5% bonus to Shield Boost Amount per level


GALLENTE

Enyo

Gallente Frigate Skill Bonus

10% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret Damage per level

Assault Ships Skill Bonus:

10% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret Optimal Range per level
7.5% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret Tracking Speed per level

Ishkur

Gallente Frigate Skill Bonus:

5% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret damage
10% bonus to drone hitpoints per level

Assault Ships Skill Bonus:

10% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret Optimal Range per level
5m3 Drone Bay Capacity per level


MINMATAR

Jaguar

Minmatar Frigate Skill Bonus:

5% bonus to Small Projectile Turret Damage per level
7.5% bonus to Small Projectile Turret Tracking per level

Assault Ships Skill Bonus:

10% bonus to Small Projectile Turret Optimal Range per level
5% bonus to Small Projectile Damage per level

Wolf

Minmatar Frigate Skill Bonus:

5% bonus to Small Projectile Turret Damage per level
7.5% bonus to Small Projectile Turret Tracking per level

Assault Ships Skill Bonus:

10% bonus to Small Projectile Turret Falloff per level
5% bonus to Small Projectile Damage per level

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961

EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody

  • Qolde
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#13 - 2012-01-21 11:25:17 UTC
Kyoko Sakoda wrote:
Iteration by definition means letting the top spin and seeing how far it goes. If things don't work, then you can change them. The only thing slightly disappointing is that the new stats aren't being updated in the thread, confusing people.

That definition might hold true for the generic MMO/game, but for a persistent world like Eve with an economy and mechanics that has more in common with the real-world ditto? We have had numerous examples in Eve of short-term economic/materiel advantage being leveraged to gain long-term/permanent benefits.
The iteration cycle would have to be insanely short, as in days, for that approach to work and I somehow doubt that is feasible with CCP having a single guy assigned to the task.

That is at the core of my opposition to what I consider a gross over-buff of the AFs .. once the dust settles and the follow-up tweaks are put in the damage will already be done. Making something potentially OP on purpose and planning to 'nerf' it down the road is quite frankly a horrendous way of doing things.

As for the OP: No, CCP appears to have delegated/outsourced the feedback/work to a nobody (CSM alternate) with a vested and acknowledged interest in having a light ship to use in null-blobs regardless of what it might do everywhere else.
Kyoko Sakoda
Achura-Waschi Exchange
Monyusaiya Industry Trade Group
#14 - 2012-01-21 20:32:31 UTC
Game design isn't an exact science (it's more multi-disciplinary). Tallest would be foolish not to ask for an expert opinion from Research and Statistics (the economy guys). All that can be done has been done before release.

I understand, though. EVE's socioeconomic politics mirror real-world politics. No one will ever be 100% happy.
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2012-01-21 21:46:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Prometheus Exenthal
Hirana, I could ignore you guys, but I rather try and talk some sense into the few remaining fools.
You also make it sound like I'm the only one reading the threads. I can assure you that's not the case.

If it were a bad idea, the ships would be put back on the shelf.
If the player concerns were legitimate, they would be addressed.

https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT
Vachir Khan
Rugged Ruff and Ready
#16 - 2012-01-22 08:56:02 UTC
Prom, I'm VERY concerned about AFs becoming silly OP, the first list was just entirely stupid "give everything an extra slot, perhaps some fitting and HP, a 4th bonus AND a role bonus". I have the feeling that they're being balanced with faction/pirate frigs in mind rather than brining down pirate frigs back to sensibleness. Don't have access to Sisi atm but they would have to be severely watered down from the initial changes, otherwise they'll just be ridiculous.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#17 - 2012-01-22 08:59:26 UTC
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
If the player concerns were legitimate, they would be addressed.


Where have you been for the past few years? Crucible was a step in the right direction, but CCP has a long and ugly history of ignoring player concerns.

Like it or not, the simple fact is there are player concerns, and CCP's response is effectively nonexistent. No replies to the feedback thread (you know, the one where they asked us for opinions), no status updates from CCP, and no significant changes since the initial proposal. This is not a very encouraging situation.
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2012-01-22 10:05:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Prometheus Exenthal
CCP has adjusted bonuses and stats according to player feedback during the testing period.

In the main thread it's been brought up several times that the ships would become overpowering, but nobody has actually come out with any actual facts other than "because ____ says they will". Well flown T1 Cruisers can still trump them without much stress, and Destroyers still pose a very high threat. The new ships have been on Sisi for nearly a month now, it's given people plenty of time to try and *break* them. Nothing has been brought to the table that would equate to them being such a thing.

AFs are still frigates, and will still die to the same things frigates do.
The difference is that it'll just take a bit more time to do so, as the ships now become worth the price of admission.

And massing destroyers is still the better option (by a large margin) when it comes to big blobs Blink

https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#19 - 2012-01-22 20:29:19 UTC
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
CCP has adjusted bonuses and stats according to player feedback during the testing period.


Oh really? Take a look at the current bonuses (helpfully listed a few posts earlier), with the exception of the Retribution getting a full 7.5% tracking per level instead of the original 5%, they're exactly the same as the ones that CCP initially proposed. So unless they've been changing stuff without bothering to update the thread* and just changed it all back to the original stuff, that's hardly "adjusting bonuses and stats according to player feedback".

Also, whether or not the complaints are legitimate** (and I find it unacceptable that, as a CSM representative, you are that dismissive of those concerns) doesn't change the fact that:

1) CCP has displayed a shameful lack of communication about this. I want to believe that Crucible was more than a one-time show to get people back into the game, but they simply aren't doing their job here. If you're going to ask for feedback and testing, then you need to respond to that feedback and clearly explain what you are doing.

2) Whether or not you agree with it, that negative feedback exists, and it deserves a response. So far CCP has done nothing to address it. No real changes in the ships, no "this is why we did it this way" explanations, nothing. To me this says that the supposed "feedback" discussion was nothing more than a superficial show, and the original changes were already considered final long before they hit the test server.

In short: the only professional thing to do here is to drop the AF changes from the upcoming patch, and do a proper job of responding to player concerns before making anything final.


*And in the process ruining their own testing, since nobody knows that they should go test the latest round of changes and the only feedback you get is from the dedicated few who never play EVE on the real server.

**For the record I think that many of the complaints are seriously overstated. However, I don't agree with all of the changes, and I don't think that the issue is anywhere near settled enough to put them on the real server.
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2012-01-22 21:08:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Prometheus Exenthal
Enyo lost its extra armor - player input
Jag gained cpu and extra shields - player input
Retribution gained tracking - player input
Anomalous signatures fixed - player input
Wolf had optimal bonus and then was changed back to falloff - player input

Said claims have been disproved and tested against, yet those who are adamant simply ignore the facts that are being presented to them. I will be as dismissive as I please when players continue to post the same repeated claims & requests when they don't actually look at the bigger picture or offer any measurable proof. As a CSM rep I have interest in fixing the game for the majority of players, not for the dozen or so people who keep rabbling on without any actual merit (or in some cases, any testing). I'm here trying to explain why said people are incorrect, yet they don't want to hear it. I will always be the enemy in this situation, because I'm trying to explain why people are wrong (and they are quite wrong)

CCP doesn't need to explain anything. Does that neglect help their PR, no.
CCP could tell you exactly what I've been telling you and the reaction would be the same. We would still have the tiny pocket of players moaning and groaning about how they think the ships will break the game and how the dev team is neglecting their niche of Eve. There is no getting around that.

When the AFs went through testing in 2007 they were barely on the test server because it didn't take long for people to figure out ways to hugely exploit the new mechanics. Now, players have had a month to back up their claims and fears with actual information and testing, yet nobody has actually proved anything. Some made some attempts, but ended up looking like fools. Until someone can back up their wild claims then those claims are simply hearsay. Go and prove them. And for the people who don't actually want to test anything, they really don't have much of a say. If they aren't actually testing a class change as complex as this, then who are they to say that the change don't work or will be broken? If they're not going to put in the effort to test I think it's pretty safe to suggest they don't really care that much.

The professional thing to do would be for CCP to make a devblog saying exactly what they intend to achieve with the ships, and posting a nice pair of sunglasses for the tiny number of players who think the changes are a bad idea.

The fact of the matter is that the new AFs:
  • Don't encroach on any other T2 frig roles
  • Don't replace T1 Cruisers
  • Don't replace Destroyers
  • Are now fairly balanced in their own class
  • Are now fairly balanced against their intended targets
  • Are now versatile enough to be used outside of Empire

    • I'm sorry, but we (the players) and they (CCP) have had 4+ years to come up with some divine creative answer to making AFs actually worthwhile in a way that doesn't involve entirely revamping one or more EVEs mechanics. I mean, the ships were pretty crappy from the getgo, and really only acted as ships to use for missions back in the day. It wasn't until Quantum Rise that people could actually start to use them for pvp in any niche worth mentioning.

    Nobody has done that, so here we are today, with AF changes that are actually promising.
    The new changes suit the ships well, and like all changes, there will be hysteria and complaints.

    https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

    DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT
    12Next page