These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Rethinking Cruiser Balance

Author
Scipio Artelius
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2017-03-07 22:57:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
James Zimmer wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
James Zimmer wrote:
The deal with the higher speed for the short range ships is to reinvigorate a brawling vs. kiting meta. I feel brawling is at a substantial disadvantage when compared with kiting right now, and that kiting is just a smarter thing to do. Giving the brawler a way to consistently close the gap makes it more of a tradeoff and balances out the two styles of gameplay.

Wouldn't the ability to close the gap consistently just negate kiting as a meta completely?

Kiting ships generally have lower DPS, less tank, poorer tracking weapons (missiles aside). They usually can't shut down an MWD because they are point fit, so can't prevent a micro jump.

The two main advantages of kiting is their speed and range.

If brawlers can just cut that, then kiting is finished as a style of play. What's the point of them?


The balance will be in the fact that the kiter can do damage to the brawler all the way in, while the brawler has to wait until they're on top of the kiter. In addition, the kiter can warp off if they like. The balancing act will be in how quickly can the brawler close the gap. If it's too fast, kiters will be doomed, if it's too slow (as I think it is right now), brawlers are left hugging gates and stations and avoid giving chase to a ship they will never catch.

This is why we have interceptors.

Fast, small, lowsig ships that are hard for kiters to hit, with scram range bonus - get in, get tackle, turn off the kiters MWD and let the brawlers close.

Anything more than a solo roam and a brawling fleet has to consider tackle.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#22 - 2017-03-08 00:33:28 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
James Zimmer wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
James Zimmer wrote:
The deal with the higher speed for the short range ships is to reinvigorate a brawling vs. kiting meta. I feel brawling is at a substantial disadvantage when compared with kiting right now, and that kiting is just a smarter thing to do. Giving the brawler a way to consistently close the gap makes it more of a tradeoff and balances out the two styles of gameplay.

Wouldn't the ability to close the gap consistently just negate kiting as a meta completely?

Kiting ships generally have lower DPS, less tank, poorer tracking weapons (missiles aside). They usually can't shut down an MWD because they are point fit, so can't prevent a micro jump.

The two main advantages of kiting is their speed and range.

If brawlers can just cut that, then kiting is finished as a style of play. What's the point of them?


The balance will be in the fact that the kiter can do damage to the brawler all the way in, while the brawler has to wait until they're on top of the kiter. In addition, the kiter can warp off if they like. The balancing act will be in how quickly can the brawler close the gap. If it's too fast, kiters will be doomed, if it's too slow (as I think it is right now), brawlers are left hugging gates and stations and avoid giving chase to a ship they will never catch.

This is why we have interceptors.

Fast, small, lowsig ships that are hard for kiters to hit, with scram range bonus - get in, get tackle, turn off the kiters MWD and let the brawlers close.

Anything more than a solo roam and a brawling fleet has to consider tackle.



but team work and organization is hard and its unfair
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#23 - 2017-03-08 00:44:37 UTC
Seeing as your viewpoint is strictly pvp oriented and pve is part of EVE, let me tell you that mwd usage is very high in the pve world of EVE and your MWD penalties are largely pve unacceptable.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Lugh Crow-Slave
#24 - 2017-03-08 01:27:33 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Seeing as your viewpoint is strictly pvp oriented and pve is part of EVE, let me tell you that mwd usage is very high in the pve world of EVE and your MWD penalties are largely pve unacceptable.


ships should never be balanced around pve pve needs to be balanced around the ships.


an ai doesn't care if things are not balanced players do
Matthias Ancaladron
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#25 - 2017-03-08 09:15:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Matthias Ancaladron
I just want the sacrilege to be a laser boat with an ab bonus instead of mwd like an armor Sansha ship.
Missiles on a amarr ship wtf.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#26 - 2017-03-08 09:38:15 UTC
Matthias Ancaladron wrote:
I just want the sacrilege to be a laser boat with an ab bonus instead of mwd like an armor Sansha ship.
Missiles on a amarr ship wtf.


Wouldn't that be the Maller?

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#27 - 2017-03-13 19:51:38 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Seeing as your viewpoint is strictly pvp oriented and pve is part of EVE, let me tell you that mwd usage is very high in the pve world of EVE and your MWD penalties are largely pve unacceptable.


ships should never be balanced around pve pve needs to be balanced around the ships.


an ai doesn't care if things are not balanced players do


So we can agree that balancing ships around only pvp or only pve is wrong.....glad we talked.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#28 - 2017-03-13 19:57:55 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Seeing as your viewpoint is strictly pvp oriented and pve is part of EVE, let me tell you that mwd usage is very high in the pve world of EVE and your MWD penalties are largely pve unacceptable.


ships should never be balanced around pve pve needs to be balanced around the ships.


an ai doesn't care if things are not balanced players do


So we can agree that balancing ships around only pvp or only pve is wrong.....glad we talked.


Pvp is the only measure ships are balanced at and to, except for sleeper ships.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2017-03-13 22:17:27 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Matthias Ancaladron wrote:
I just want the sacrilege to be a laser boat with an ab bonus instead of mwd like an armor Sansha ship.


Wouldn't that be the Maller?

It wouldn't be a long way off. Maller is tanky (by resists), this Sacrilege would be tanky (by speed), and would leave the Omen and Zealot pure shooting boats.

Here's how I can see it playing out if it did:

Sacrilege, laser+tanky/kiter
6/4/5 slot layout (unchanged)
5 turret hardpoints, 1 launcher hardpoint
100m3 drone bay, 50mbit/sec bandwidth (unchanged)
Amarr Cruiser Bonuses:
10% reduction in medium energy turret capacitor cost
10% bonus to afterburner velocity bonus
Assault Cruisers Bonuses:
10% bonus to medium energy turret optimal range
5% bonus to medium energy turret damage
Role Bonus:
15% better agility while running a 50MN afterburner

Only one damage bonus, but it'll still probably out-DPS the Zealot due to its drones. This one won't be great at brawling with battlecruisers but it'll be great for catching destroyers or slippery cruisers.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#30 - 2017-03-15 00:40:55 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Seeing as your viewpoint is strictly pvp oriented and pve is part of EVE, let me tell you that mwd usage is very high in the pve world of EVE and your MWD penalties are largely pve unacceptable.


ships should never be balanced around pve pve needs to be balanced around the ships.


an ai doesn't care if things are not balanced players do


So we can agree that balancing ships around only pvp or only pve is wrong.....glad we talked.


Pvp is the only measure ships are balanced at and to, except for sleeper ships.


"pvp is the only measure ships are balanced at and to".

So my venture mining amount / hr is balanced to a mackinaw because of pvp concerns....Roll
or rather because i dont have the SP to fly a mackinaw. Which proves that other factors than pvp alone influence ship balancing which while this doesnt prove my statement it inherently disproves yours.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Previous page12