These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

New dev blog: Ship balancing summer update

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
MisterNick
The Sagan Clan
#261 - 2012-06-14 16:48:25 UTC
Looking forward to the combat Navitas, that hull is just too pretty to just sit orbiting an asteroid.

Bots are going to be all over those new tanky procurers/skiffs, but hey, at least they'll not be sucking up as much of the belts as they are now - or at least, not on a per bot basis..

"Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom."
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#262 - 2012-06-14 16:49:01 UTC
I don't think the T2 variants need to be quite that varied. They should keep their existing bonus specializations and be the best at doing that specialization.

Skiff - mercx mining
Mack - ice mining
Hulk - ore mining

It's not a problem that the Hulk is the best for mining ore. And I think that trying to shoehorn the other 2 T2 variants into also being suitable for ore mining to be a bit of a stretch. The primary issues:

Skiff - very specialized, has a very weak tank and hardly any PG. But it's also very specialized so I'm not sure this matters much. Could probably use 1-2 more mids and 1-2 more lows and a bit more PG.

Mack - weak tank. Biggest issue on the mack is the lack of power grid and missing out on low/mid slots. Even another 50-75 PG would be a huge boost if combined with 1-2 more lows and 1 more mid.

Hulk - weak power grid. Like the rest of the barges/exhumers, it uses medium sized rigs, is obviously a cruiser class, but has less power-grid then destroyers. Two more low slots and maybe 1 more mid slot and another 50-75 PG would have gone a long way towards fixing the Hulk.

The important thing in designing the new PG/CPU values, the slot layouts, etc is that you need to leave as much of the choice into the player's hands as possible. Give them more low slots so they can choose whether to fit more tank, more yield or more cargo as suits their tastes.

The orca is almost the best example of this. Because of the large amount of structure HP, you can outfit an orca to be a max-yield carrying beast but with a weak 80-90k EHP tank. Or you can go with a mid-level fit which trades away some cargo space in exchange for taking the EHP up to about 140k. Or you can sacrifice even more cargo space and get something in the 250-290k EHP range.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#263 - 2012-06-14 16:49:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
Moonaura wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
So battlecruisers are still remaining as OP as today?

So EHP idiocy is kept the same?

So tech3 vs Command Ships nonses is left intact?

Who the hell decided it's a good idea to commit that much manpower into damn frigates? Come on, man! By next summer, the date you're going to have remote chances of actually addressing bigger stuff (I'm even optimistic here), It will have been a damn year of you trying to fix these pesky frigates! How long will it take to address all the other issues then?

Let me remind you of some:

- cyno mechanics
- rigs
- armour vs. shield in general (with Shield extenders not affecting mobility, while apparently they should)
- abovementioned stuff

QuestionUghQuestion


Again, like many other players, you seem to assume that nobody flys these T1 frigate things... we fly them regularly, because of the way Faction Warfare works. And its a lot of fun let me tell you :)

You missed the point.

1) CCP's already taken quite a lot of steps to balance out frigs.

2) On the other hand, they pretty much agreed that perfect balance is not possible and they'd rather have more of small but frequent shifts in the future to fight stagnation.

Guess what? By providing so much love to frigates alone and neglecting anything else they're just bound to cause a freaking stagnation rampart while chasing that mystic "ultimate frigs balance", which is said to be unreachable anyway.

Just think about that yourself, dude.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Selissa Shadoe
#264 - 2012-06-14 16:49:41 UTC
Swearte Widfarend wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Swearte Widfarend wrote:
It's pretty common to fit Hulks (and Covetors) with Cargo Expansion Rigs and even sometimes the Expander II mods. I hope you realize this and will also either transfer the bonuses for these mods/rigs to the Ore Hold, or create a separate Mod and Rig to expand the Ore Hold (with similar penalties to the cargo rigs/mods).
Same goes here: doing that, and trying to expand the cargo hold of the new Hulk to begin with, would be to go completely counter to its new purpose and intended use. You don't need a big ore hold — the Orca in your gang has that covered.

Most likely, when these changes go through, they're simply going to force-strip all barges and exhumers since none of the fittings will make sense any more (and some of them might even no longer be able to fit the things they currently carry). They've done that before when they've completely revamped ship bonuses and layouts, so it will probably be the preferred solution here as well.


I've not seen CCP pull rigs off ships and repackage them - a straight up strip of the ship would result in the destruction of the rigs. And 10 million ISK is't a lot, for one person/one ship, but when you have thousands of ships with two expander rigs, that's gone from one guy and 10 million ISK to a few billion ISK of assets across hundreds of players potentially destroyed by "stripping the ships" - hence the question.


I seriously hope noone has been silly enough to put T2 cargohold rigs on their mining barge .. lol Shocked .. that'd really pee in their cornflakes if they wake up and find they're obsoleted/stripped.

I like the idea of ore-bay expanders. I like the idea of choice of how a ship is configured. I like the idea of balance between cargo and tank that you can do right now. It comes down to preference and risk/reward. Losing that capability feels like it will be one-size-fits all for fittings.

"Whether suicide ganking or doing anything in eve, there are exorbitant amounts of people in the game and on the forums that are complete jerks." - Spikeflach
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#265 - 2012-06-14 16:51:01 UTC
Maul555 wrote:
Tippia, please... read it again
Quote:

Covetor/hulk: ore bay is identical to its current cargo hold, little to average EHP, but best mining output. Basically made for group operations when players have industrials and protection to back them up.
Yes, please do. What does it say about its new cargo hold?

Nothing. It says that the ore bay will have the same size as its current cargo hold. What the new cargo hold size will be isn't mentioned, and leaving it the same size as it is right now, with the same kind of expansion capabilities it has, breaks the design philosophy mentioned earlier about not letting them compete with industrials.

So, new ore bay = old cargo hold; new cargo hold = who knows, probably enough space for a couple of crystals.
Selissa Shadoe
#266 - 2012-06-14 16:55:28 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Maul555 wrote:
Tippia, please... read it again
Quote:

Covetor/hulk: ore bay is identical to its current cargo hold, little to average EHP, but best mining output. Basically made for group operations when players have industrials and protection to back them up.
Yes, please do. What does it say about its new cargo hold?

Nothing. It says that the ore bay will have the same size as its current cargo hold. What the new cargo hold size will be isn't mentioned, and leaving it the same size as it is right now, with the same kind of expansion capabilities it has, breaks the design philosophy mentioned earlier about not letting them compete with industrials.

So, new ore bay = old cargo hold; new cargo hold = who knows, probably enough space for a couple of crystals.


So, you support a Hulk nerf? I don't, I think that's going about it the wrong way.

Amusingly your sig has the quote '“If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡ you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.”' .. which is what a lot of industrial/miner ppl on here are trying to do :)

"Whether suicide ganking or doing anything in eve, there are exorbitant amounts of people in the game and on the forums that are complete jerks." - Spikeflach
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#267 - 2012-06-14 16:56:05 UTC
We are having some discussions about the ORE Frig: can you assure us that if we have no mining skills you won't be saddling us with ore frig skills to replace the mining cruisers? Many people would prefer not to have such stuff on their character board.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Maul555
Xen Investments
#268 - 2012-06-14 16:56:09 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Maul555 wrote:
Tippia, please... read it again
Quote:

Covetor/hulk: ore bay is identical to its current cargo hold, little to average EHP, but best mining output. Basically made for group operations when players have industrials and protection to back them up.
Yes, please do. What does it say about its new cargo hold?

Nothing. It says that the ore bay will have the same size as its current cargo hold. What the new cargo hold size will be isn't mentioned, and leaving it the same size as it is right now, with the same kind of expansion capabilities it has, breaks the design philosophy mentioned earlier about not letting them compete with industrials.

So, new ore bay = old cargo hold; new cargo hold = who knows, probably enough space for a couple of crystals.




I can only hope that you are right, but I don't read it as that. It seems to explain that the current Hulk cargo bay will stay the same, it will get an Ore bay of the same size (that cant be expanded if it works like other ore bays), and that mined ore will automatically be dumped into the ore bay. this results in the highest mining output of all the exhumers being outputted to a small bay. This will mean that hulks will require twice the attention they do now to use.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#269 - 2012-06-14 16:56:33 UTC
Selissa Shadoe wrote:

Amusingly your sig has the quote '“If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡ you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.”' .. which is what a lot of industrial/miner ppl on here are trying to do :)

He doesn't mean on the forums.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
Aideron Robotics.
#270 - 2012-06-14 16:56:33 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Dino Boff wrote:
I love the coming changing, but something's missing Roll...

Can we have a dedicated ship to harvest Gas, maybe a t2 ORE frigate with bonus t2 harvester cpu requirement and to gas harvested amount, and with a gas bay?


Not sure if you've mined gas before - but its *dangerous* business. Exploding clouds and all. I don't really think a frigate is best suited for this - though I too would LOVE a dedicated gas harvester. I don't really envision it as an ORE barge though, maybe a unique Poteque Pharmaceuticals cruiser with 5 turret slots and a 1000m gas bay? Could also just be a Tech 2 Noctis variant as well.


This is why gas harvesting should be done with drones and not ships. I think ORE ship actually makes sense. Especially if we could get rid of the current harvesters and use drones.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#271 - 2012-06-14 16:57:07 UTC
Selissa Shadoe wrote:


So, you support a Hulk nerf? I don't, I think that's going about it the wrong way.

Amusingly your sig has the quote '“If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡ you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.”' .. which is what a lot of industrial/miner ppl on here are trying to do :)


How is this a hulk nerf?
Denidil
Cascades Mountain Operatives
#272 - 2012-06-14 16:57:20 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Maul555 wrote:
Tippia, please... read it again
Quote:

Covetor/hulk: ore bay is identical to its current cargo hold, little to average EHP, but best mining output. Basically made for group operations when players have industrials and protection to back them up.
Yes, please do. What does it say about its new cargo hold?

Nothing. It says that the ore bay will have the same size as its current cargo hold. What the new cargo hold size will be isn't mentioned, and leaving it the same size as it is right now, with the same kind of expansion capabilities it has, breaks the design philosophy mentioned earlier about not letting them compete with industrials.

So, new ore bay = old cargo hold; new cargo hold = who knows, probably enough space for a couple of crystals.


even if it kept it's current bay

8000m3 primary, 8000m3 ore < good skills T1 hauler.

that being said i expect the bay parameters on the new and improved hulk to be something like 1000m3 primary, 8000m3 ore

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#273 - 2012-06-14 16:59:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Selissa Shadoe wrote:
So, you support a Hulk nerf?
What nerf? It's a role change. Hell, it's not really even that — it's a role clarification.

Maul555 wrote:
I can only hope that you are right, but I don't read it as that. It seems to explain that the current Hulk cargo bay will stay the same, it will get an Ore bay of the same size (that cant be expanded if it works like other ore bays), and that mined ore will automatically be dumped into the ore bay. this results in the highest mining output of all the exhumers being outputted to a small bay. This will mean that hulks will require twice the attention they do now to use.
Yes? You're going to need that anyway since you have to co-ordinate your work effort with the rest of the team (and hell, you will need to attend to it once every six minutes to jettison the cargo for tractoring or transfer to a close-by Orca, which isn't much to ask, tbh…). If you want a more AFK experience, pick a Retriever/Mack.

Denidil wrote:
even if it kept it's current bay

8000m3 primary, 8000m3 ore < good skills T1 hauler.
If it kept its current bay, it would be able to achieve 17k+ m³ primary + 8k m³ ore, which is well within the range of competing with industrial ships.
Biterno Sintaph
Reboot Required
#274 - 2012-06-14 17:00:41 UTC
Dear CCP,

These changes look great. The mining frig reminds me a lot of Homeworld.

While you're at it, can you add ships that have a bonus to smartbomb damage and radius?
Maul555
Xen Investments
#275 - 2012-06-14 17:00:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Maul555
baltec1 wrote:
Selissa Shadoe wrote:


So, you support a Hulk nerf? I don't, I think that's going about it the wrong way.

Amusingly your sig has the quote '“If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡ you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.”' .. which is what a lot of industrial/miner ppl on here are trying to do :)


How is this a hulk nerf?



If you use expanded cargo holds, and/or cargo rigs on a hulk, then this is looking like a big operational nerf/headache. I would love to get some clarification on hulk bay changes and the forcing of mined ore into ore bays.
PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#276 - 2012-06-14 17:02:24 UTC  |  Edited by: PinkKnife
There is a lot of reading fail in this thread, and a lot of misinformation on how things work.
Peta Michalek wrote:

Seriously?

So let me get this straight.

T1 frigates.destroyers to be released this winter;
T1 BCs/BS one update after that(summer 2013)
T2 frigs/destroyers after that(winter 2013)
T2 BCs/BS after that (summer 2014)
T3 and/or faction ships at the end(winter 2014)

Two and half years long balance plan?


They started with frigates because there are the most of them, and they have to start from the ground up to set the power and ability levels. If you rebalance a drake now, but then buff the frigates and cruisers later, you then have to go back and re-rebalance the drake so that it fits nicely in line with the changes.

Yes, We are impatient and want the ships we fly most often new and shiny. But that doesn't exactly work out well.

Also, It isn't just rebalancing. The roles defined by frigates will be reflected in new ships in other hull sizes. Look to see new support battleships, and other T2 variants down the line.

Also, Ship balance team is not all of CCP. Ship balance doesn't work on artwork, doesn't work on UI stuff, doesn't work on modules and balance within. Just because the tiercide changes are taking a while, doesn't mean you won't see other updates in the mean time. I.e. Inferno saw new frigate changes, and a whole crap ton of other gameplay changes as well.


That said, onto the dev blog:

The current changes to the mining barges is not a final list, They said they would look at barge EHP, stop whining about the gankability of Hulks, when they have already said they will address it. You're just shouting at the people who are giving you want you want and making yourself look bad for failing to read.

I like it. With the exception to the idea of every racing having drone boats. This is a gallente weapon predominantly, and should be stuck on amarr/gallente ships near exclusively. Give us SOME reason to fly gal for once. Racial homoginization is bad, and drones are very much a gallente racial characteristic. Drone bays on some ships are fine, just make sure that the Gallente version has a better bay/better bandwidth.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#277 - 2012-06-14 17:03:38 UTC
I would appreciate hulk miners still having an incentive to fill their lows with expanded cargoholds and their rigs with cargohold optimizations, or give them mining rigs that reduce tank, or rigs that increase ore bay size and reduce tank.

Basically, anything that dangles shinies in front of miners encouraging them to forgo tank entirely for that little extra yield.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Selissa Shadoe
#278 - 2012-06-14 17:03:49 UTC
Maul555 wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Selissa Shadoe wrote:


So, you support a Hulk nerf? I don't, I think that's going about it the wrong way.

Amusingly your sig has the quote '“If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡ you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.”' .. which is what a lot of industrial/miner ppl on here are trying to do :)


How is this a hulk nerf?



If you use expanded cargo holds, and/or cargo rigs on a hulk, then this is looking like a big operational nerf/headache. I would love to get some clarification on hulk bay changes and the forcing of mined ore into ore bays.


Yes, exactly.. At least you 'get it' too.

"Whether suicide ganking or doing anything in eve, there are exorbitant amounts of people in the game and on the forums that are complete jerks." - Spikeflach
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#279 - 2012-06-14 17:05:22 UTC
Maul555 wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Selissa Shadoe wrote:


So, you support a Hulk nerf? I don't, I think that's going about it the wrong way.

Amusingly your sig has the quote '“If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡ you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.”' .. which is what a lot of industrial/miner ppl on here are trying to do :)


How is this a hulk nerf?



If you use expanded cargo holds, and/or cargo rigs on a hulk, then this is looking like a big operational nerf/headache. I would love to get some clarification on hulk bay changes and the forcing of mined ore into ore bays.


So you have to empty the hold a bit more. These things are ment to be used in goups you know. Worst case is you just warp to the station and back a bit more but then again, a smart miners fits a tank and does this anyway. If you want a massive hold then use a retriver/mack.
Selissa Shadoe
#280 - 2012-06-14 17:06:53 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
I would appreciate hulk miners still having an incentive to fill their lows with expanded cargoholds and their rigs with cargohold optimizations, or give them mining rigs that reduce tank, or rigs that increase ore bay size and reduce tank.

Basically, anything that dangles shinies in front of miners encouraging them to forgo tank entirely for that little extra yield.


Yes, exactly. It's called choice and I support that. If it lets you get ganked easier, then that was the choice made.

"Whether suicide ganking or doing anything in eve, there are exorbitant amounts of people in the game and on the forums that are complete jerks." - Spikeflach