Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I support a lot of the ideas in this thread, Pattern can you please confirm that text in your first post is up to date with your current thinking as there are so many posts now it’s hard to keep track.

Will you be proposing it as an all or nothing idea or do you think you can get CCP to pick up parts of it?

Regarding the rig changes, I would support this over the current position but how would you feel about changing shield and armour to active and passive rig sets.

Passive - decrease speed or agility as proposed
All armour and shield extension/resistance rigs

Active - increase sig radius
All armour and shield rigs affecting active tanking
May need a week omni passive resist rig in this group

This may help active armour compete with shield buffer nano fits.

How would you feel about this, too drastic a change would it affect too many fits and make armour and shield to similar? Just throwing it out there.

Having trouble keeping track of idea,s but here goes...

Caldari speed. Ranged ships should be slow, close-in ships should be fast. When this relationship is ignored, we have problems - see Minmatar. Be careful that you don't make Caldari railboats better blaster platforms than Gallente. However, the Eagle's speed needs to be better balanced with Zealot and Muninn (why is the Zealot so fast?) - or it should gain a comparable EHP/DPS advantage in compensation for sluggishness.

Moa and Eagle PG - hell yeah.
Probing - sounds good.

Hybrid ammo - options between kinetic and thermal sound good. I'd still be tempted to tone down the projectile damage-type selection though. Damage-type selection is best used in the very small scale combat that Gallente should be best in, not Minmatar, because they have the shortest-range weapons, blasters, least useful in large-scale combat.

T2 ammo. While they need changes, I'd hold off on this until the hybrid changes settle down in game. Your Quake might be a bit too good, alpha is useful. Gleam sounds well balanced though. Javelin might be a bit too good too. Jav and Quake sounds like they might be the "default loaded ammo", which T2 ammo should not be (yeah I'm thinking of you here, Scorch and Barrage), because it means that people have to have T2 guns to be useful.

Oh, new Gleam

"- Gleam - Increases damage - 15% more damage than Navy Multifreqency and 33% less tracking and 50% less optimal range."

Keep the damage advantage to 10%, and use the same tracking penalty as with Conflagration to Navy MF.

There are no ship specific changes to the Proteus. It gets a lot of buffs through changes to hybrids and active tanking.

Yep, the OP is up to date. If your new to the thread, the suggestions on the first page will reflect the most current version of the set of suggestions.



I think these elements are the most important.
1) weapons system changes (including changes to spike/hybrid ammo)
2) changes to the hulls of gallente, caldari blaster ships as well as roden
3) changes to drone carriers
4) active tanking

Following on from that in a later patch
- Tiericide of Tier 1 BC's.
- Assault Warfare gang links + commandship boost
- Warp to, lock range and probing mechanics change
- Tech 2 ammo for long range turrets




I don't what you suggested would be game breaking, but it wouldn't be popular as shield buffer tanking is actually quite niche, and isn't that strong (beyond a few classes) breaks a lot of established RP in regards to how and why ships are shield tanked.

I guess I wanted something a little more targeted, providing active tanking armour ships specifically, with no speed reduction overall when compared to plates.

Ideally. We'd need to change the tracking formula.

I'm going to be looking at a few charts to see just how blasters do in an orbit. I should have a refined view for how blasters should operate. (perhaps in orbit)


As sentry drones don't move until you recall them, and when you recall them they no longer shoot, this isn't exactly the case any more. Maybe 200ms is too fast, but it should be somewhere between 50ms to 200ms - as opposed to the 5ms it crawls at now. Although yeah, since having a Moros with drones this will be an issue.


No, but the individual mods will have a stacking penalty with each other and perhaps DCU's.


I guess the commanships could be a balance patch all on to it's self, however I'd steer away deliberately trying to nerf things unless it's absolutely necessary.


I'll be having another look at this, however any improvements to Nos often disproportionally boost capwarfare in relation to blaster combat. But no, there needs to be a module that scales up better with higher neuting whilst it should be possible for a ship to, whilst sacrificing a number of slots, fortify their capacitor in the same way one would do so for their tank.

Caldari hybrid ships will be competitive with where amarr and gallente are now. Gallente will be faster now, but not faster than minmatar ships on average. Gallente ships will have significantly more agility however which will differentiate it from Caldari and Minmatar.

Fundamentally, if we're committing to the concept that blasters are close range weapons, ship hulls need to be compensated to be naturally in tune with the usage of the weapon system. Which means more speed. In sniping mode, beams will still out damage caldari rails whilst Gallente rail ships will become competitive, but just won't get the range or do as much t2 turret dps at close range.



The goal here is with t2 ammo we really get to really differentiate the weapon systems. Quake may be too much alpha, but I'm not really sure what else to give it. Also, looking at the penalties more closely, it'll have much lower range and less dps than RF EMP, which would mean people would generally carry that, and prefer to use that for most situations. I admit that the numbers may need tweaking however I'm rather confident that the general concept is where those ammo types should go.

I would say that a big reason why T1 cruisers and destroyers aren't flown is because of tier 2 BCs. They cannot survive in a world of tracking-enhanced Hurricanes, being more mobile than an armour Rupture with more, better-tracking, longer-range DPS and more EHP. Likewise Harbingers and Drakes. Tier 2 BCs are better than cruisers at being cruisers.

Tier 1 BCs haven't really been flown since the introduction of the Tier 2s in, what, late 2006? But I seem to recall that they were popular enough then. I remember buying my first Ferox, naming it HMS Hood, then losing it 20 minutes later on jump-in to lowsec. In today's environment, I think they'd still be attractive ships - still well superior to cruisers, just with the margin of superiority being less. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the Cyclone, for example, it's just that the Hurricane is better all-round. The Prophecy can do 466 DPS with 70k EHP, it only looks bad next to the Harbinger. The Ferox would is a much better sniper than the Moa, it's problem is that the arty-Hurricane is much better than it.

TBH, getting people out of tier 2 BCs and into BS would be a good thing, I think. For one thing, the BS would have much more difficulty tracking cruisers, destroyers and frigates, making these classes more attractive too.

You're right though, the playerbase would rage at the idea. And for that reason, CCP won't dare nerf them. Tier 2 BCs have become too important to people - precisely because they're too good, too flexible... too overpowered.

Tier 1 BC's weren't popular at all and were either ignored or a stepping stone before moving on to commandships. I personally flew the brutix once or twice back in 2006 and died once or twice in it and didn't think about training up the skill beyond 3 until the myrmidon came, which at the time became my favourite ship. Before then HAC's did more than what BCs did at the time but with a lot more speed, and thus being worth the 5x premium.

Players prefer flying *faster* more agile ships so it would be a bad thing for overall player experiences shifting more people into battleships.

There needs to be a greater gap in the MWD speeds of ships. There just far too close together, and too many ships of big size classes overlap across the lower ones, especially between destroyer, cruiser and Battlecruiser.


(For bonus points work out the speed difference between the slowest destroyer and the fastest BC with MWD's and nano fit.)

loveing the ideas i just hope with so many ideas and changes flying around no ship gets left in the closet thats why i am worried about my proteus is all 1 change can throw a whole ship into the trash heap

I posted this once on scrapheap before it imploded. IMO it's probably the most in depth collection of gallente issues done, though ofc I could have missed something. The supercharger idea I wrote up here IMO is not viable when I think of it, but some kind of burst speed mechanic is required to make things work right. If CCP only addresses blaster damage, it simply won't do enough to make things work. Kudos to pattern for attempting to get things rolling, I'll post my stuffs below (would go into it moar, but I need to go to work):

This is going to be a long post. If you don't like that, then don't read it, though I hope that people will.

As most people are aware, the title "king of the hill" in PvP in eve is pretty nebulous. As the game goes on and things change, the FOTM changes, and things that were once good become bad, and vice versa. However, what has been true for some time is that gallente as pvp ships have been fairly lacking, mostly due to balance related issues. The goal of this post is to systematically identify the issues that they have as a race and identify them for correction, so Vuk can take up the issue as part of the CSM. This will allow them to step out of the shadow that they currently live in of being identified as "mostly crappy" and allow them to take the place they should have on the eve battlefield, while not becoming overpowered.

The first step is the identification of the areas that need to be addressed. These are (in no specific order):

1. EW ships are ineffective at their job. Dampeners are considered to be mostly useless.
2. Blasters as a weapon are far outclassed by mostly everything in game, for a variety of reasons.
3. Slot configurations on some gallente ships over frigate size is unideal, which compounds the issues identified in point two above.
4. Current rig design/balance penalize gallente type playstyle/ships more than others, because of the specific types of tactics that are required for use in these ships.
5. Railguns need some thinking about. Currently rails are defined as "mostly not horrible" which means, if you can fly another race and use another weapon that you likely have a better choice for whatever fight you're going to be getting into.
6. Tank bonuses for gallente ships are simply not effective enough in today's eve environment, for a variety of reasons. Passive tanking >> active tanking, however gallente ships (and some minmatar ships) are set up to active tank.
7. T2 ammo used by gallente ships is junk, with the exception of spike. Javelin and void are currently being redone by CCP so for the purposes of this discussion I will not touch on them much, but null is also poorer as a choice than all other extended range, short range ammo which is a problem.
8. Drones have several issues that require them to be looked at in order to achieve the maximum effectiveness that they should have.

These are the general issues that gallente ships face in game. While not of course totally inclusive, and while not identifying specific issues that various hull classes have, I believe that correction of the above will "fix" gallente, as well as address several other areas as well that are not specific to gallente, thus improving eve in general. We'll start by taking each identified issue, explaining the problems behind it that cause it to be a problem, and how I believe they should be corrected. Therefore:

#1. Sensor dampeners. Once upon a time in eve, sensor damps were considered to be an ubermodule. They were fitted to damn near everything, in a fashion quite like warp core stabilizers. Burn eden ravens were running around with full racks of them fitted in their mids. However, CCP then decided to double nerf them - first they reduced the maximum effect of the dampener to roughly 55%, and then then applied scripts to them so you had to choose which effect that you could employ. The result of this is that while you saw an end of BE ravens you also saw the end of sensor damps on ships such as the lach. While rooks and falcons got their EW strength boosted when jammers were redone, the lach/arazu got literally nothing. As it currently stands now as an example, it is only possible to dampen a hostile logistic to a maximum of about 13-15km lock range with the current dampeners - and only by applying 3 of them to the same target. This means that they are generally ineffective in being able to prevent spider tanking for instance as most ships in fleet are closer than that. A rook or falcon with a full rack of jammers likely will be able to incapacitate multiple opponents with the EW it carries; a lach or arazu will only be able to shut down one ship, at best, and only if the fight is at range. The confirmation on the current status of these modules can easily be found by checking killmails. For a simple example, I checked killmails on our killboard for the 30th. While the sample size is quite small overall - 11 ships - the results I believe are very informative. Of those 11 ships, only 1 had sensor dampeners fitted, or just over nine percent. The others all were either shield tanked, or fitted other modules instead; in one case one individual made the choice to fit a target painter and a ECM module instead of dampeners, which is a telling sign in my opinion of just what value that they think that sensor dampeners are worth. This on a ship that is supposedly designed to employ them and has bonuses for their use.

(next)