These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Dev Blog: Back to the balancing future!

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
CCP Falcon
#1 - 2012-11-06 14:48:44 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Navigator
EVE Online: Retribution is just around the corner and with it will come a whole heap of ship balancing.

But what happens beyond Retribution?

CCP Ytterbium is here to talk about more potential changes to your internet spaceships in the future to make them even more awesome.

You can read all about it in his latest devblog!

Please use this thread for all your constructive feedback.

CCP Falcon || EVE Universe Community Manager || @CCP_Falcon

Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3
cBOLTSON
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#2 - 2012-11-06 14:51:45 UTC  |  Edited by: cBOLTSON
1st? its a possibility...

The ferox is very much lacking in the speed department.
Also a tracking speed bonus might make railguns more viable. (Change it for the resist bonus?)

The good old days of Unreal Tournament, fragging and sniping on Facing Worlds, listening to Foregone Destruction.......
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#3 - 2012-11-06 14:52:02 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
First finally :) Lol Damn second Oops

Some BIGSHOT DEV wrote:

•Drake: once again, blame the modules, not the hull – while missiles are being looked into by CCP Fozzie, shield tanking is the root of the problem here.


The tank on this thing of course is not going to be affected by the HML change.... question is should CCP nerf the Drakes tank or buff all the other BC tanksQuestion I perfer BUFFs over NERFS every day TBH

Some MISGUIDED DEV wrote:

as current tier 2 variations perform too well while tier1s are found wanting...
Command and conquer
When we're finished with tech 1 hulls we are going to start looking into more advanced roles, starting with Command ships

You want to look at a BC issue that is really found wanting its not tier 1 vs. tier 2 its TECH 2 vs. TECH 3Attention Are the T2 BC's really going to be addressed before all the smaller T2 ships? I thought there was some rebalancing done already on the T2 Frigates... or am I mistaken?
from what I've seen the TECH 2 command ships are rarely pretty much never used anymore because of OGB T3's please tell ME THAT THESE ISSUES WILL BE TARGETED BEFORE T1 BATTLESHIPS ARE TACKLED by rebalance or is the OGB rebalance going to be put off until theT3's are on the chopping block in a year & a half?
I really, REALLY see no incentive to train for a command ship for over a year otherwise
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#4 - 2012-11-06 14:56:33 UTC
Your current plan for the Ferox is doomed. Short range shield brawlling is the key here.

Brutix should have a utiliy high and active armour tanking bonuses should diaf. Otherwise, please proceed.

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe
#5 - 2012-11-06 15:02:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Louis deGuerre
On the whole I am positive about these plans. I kinda like the way the Ferox works as a Brawler now, not sure if you want to mess with that.
cBOLTSON
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#6 - 2012-11-06 15:02:40 UTC
cBOLTSON wrote:
1st? its a possibility...


Also please CCP be careful not to overbalance the ships, making them all very equal. We like things to be different, just not OP :)

The good old days of Unreal Tournament, fragging and sniping on Facing Worlds, listening to Foregone Destruction.......
Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#7 - 2012-11-06 15:09:14 UTC
ferox needs to keep its tanking bonus and get a damage bonus, rails have way enough range, plus, it needs to be viable as a blaster AND a rail boat, not just forced to rails.

Just give it a 6th midslot, some more velocity (at least faster than drake) and a damage bonus instead of optimal, and it's good.

For the drake, -1 highslot and its good. Could use a little more speed considering the missile nerfs however.

Naga and oracle really don't need much of a speed nerf. It's pretty much just the talos and tornado that are too fast (too competitive with the speed of cruisers)

Raven better be good after the update...should have much better tank than the drake rather than like 5-10% better at least.

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us
DeBingJos
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2012-11-06 15:10:15 UTC
cBOLTSON wrote:
cBOLTSON wrote:
1st? its a possibility...


Also please CCP be careful not to overbalance the ships, making them all very equal. We like things to be different, just not OP :)


VERY MUCH THIS !

Rebalancing is good, making everything the same is not.

Ungi maðurinn þekkir reglurnar, en gamli maðurinn þekkir undantekningarnar. The young man knows the rules, but the old man knows the exceptions.

Braxus Deninard
Hard Knocks Inc.
Hard Knocks Citizens
#9 - 2012-11-06 15:11:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Braxus Deninard
cBOLTSON wrote:
cBOLTSON wrote:
1st? its a possibility...


Also please CCP be careful not to overbalance the ships, making them all very equal. We like things to be different, just not OP :)


I have to agree with this, you can't balance everything out so that it's all super similar. Each ship still needs to have a unique sort of weakness, and needs to excel in certain areas. There still needs to be some thought put into what sort of ship you choose for what situation, and some ships need to excel in certain situations better than others.

Rebalancing is great when done a little bit, but make sure you don't go too far.
Innominate
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#10 - 2012-11-06 15:13:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Innominate
Don't these skill changes kinda screw new players at the same time as giving older players a huge pile of free skill training? This seems backwards to me.

If the skills are going to be split by race, the training time on them should be reduced accordingly. Giving existing players months of free skill training is kind of a **** move and I can't believe it will work out well in the long run.
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
Aideron Robotics.
#11 - 2012-11-06 15:14:41 UTC
Amarr get Amor and Skirmish for their command ships? Seriously? I think we are playing a different game.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#12 - 2012-11-06 15:14:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Quote:
Ferox: we would like to reinforce the sniping nature of this ship, most likely by replacing the shield resistance bonus with a hybrid damage bonus. Nothing is set in stone yet, as we need to find ways to ensure it doesn’t compete with the Naga.


You might want to change that bit Big smile

Otherwise I like what I'm reading there. Sensible changes all around except I'm still wondering how a drone Prophecy is going to work - is it going to have a laser cap usage or laser damage bonus? What's going to make it different from the Harbinger?

I'm glad the tier 2 BCs are going to be slightly nerfed. The command ship changes were totally unexpected and blew my mind.

By the way, what's the plan with armor vs shield tanking balance? Can you disclose any details yet?
TheMercenaryKing
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#13 - 2012-11-06 15:15:17 UTC
NO DO NOT MAKE CAPITAL SHIPS REQUIRE {Race} BATTLESHIP 4.

Capital ships are not the same as sub-caps, DO NOT CHANGE THAT, it should require the extra month to get into.

I have nothing against new players who want to get into them, i was the same. But they just are not the same as all the subcaps and should be treated differently.
David Laurentson
Laurentson INC
#14 - 2012-11-06 15:19:16 UTC
TheMercenaryKing wrote:
NO DO NOT MAKE CAPITAL SHIPS REQUIRE {Race} BATTLESHIP 4.

Capital ships are not the same as sub-caps, DO NOT CHANGE THAT, it should require the extra month to get into.

I have nothing against new players who want to get into them, i was the same. But they just are not the same as all the subcaps and should be treated differently.


That's why they require Advanced Spaceship Command V, Capital Ships, and a million years in jump skills, surely?


I do think that tweaking medium rails to be something other than 'mediocre at all ranges' would help the Ferox and the vulture.
Baki Yuku
Doomheim
#15 - 2012-11-06 15:20:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Baki Yuku
No offense but your proposed changes to Tech III Gang-links are pretty dumb. Because a gang-link Tech III is anything BUT versatile and 2% bonus for a ship that costs at least twice as much as a command ship I don't see any incentive of people using them at all if this goes though. You would need to drastically change and improve the Tech III warfare subsystem for it to have any fleet value after this change. Besides I do not see the point of having a Tech III able to carry more then 3 links there just iss'nt any incentive to use that. Because the way fleets work you use 2 separate command ships anyway. To get armor bonus's and skirmish bonus's for tackle wing..
Cliverunner
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#16 - 2012-11-06 15:21:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Cliverunner
Quote:

Let us repeat again: if you could fly it before, you will be able to do so after the change. Technically it means if you are able to fly an Oracle by having Amarr Cruisers 3 and Battlecruisers 3, we will remove the Battlecruisers skill from your character and give you Amarr Battlecruisers at 3. If you had Battlecruisers at 3 and Caldari Cruisers 3 instead, you would not receive Amarr Battlecruisers but the Caldari Battlecruisers skill at 3 instead. The same principle work with the Destroyers skill.


Does this mean that to get all the racial BC's at 5 you will need all the racial Cruisers at 5 as well as BC at 5?
Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
#17 - 2012-11-06 15:21:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Smoking Blunts
Quote:
Reimbursement details:

Let us repeat again: if you could fly it before, you will be able to do so after the change. Technically it means if you are able to fly an Oracle by having Amarr Cruisers 3 and Battlecruisers 3, we will remove the Battlecruisers skill from your character and give you Amarr Battlecruisers at 3. If you had Battlecruisers at 3 and Caldari Cruisers 3 instead, you would not receive Amarr Battlecruisers but the Caldari Battlecruisers skill at 3 instead. The same principle work with the Destroyers skill.
With the way nested skill requirements work in EVE, it also means that you will still be able to fly an Apocalypse even if you don’t have the Amarr Battlecruiser skill trained at 4 after the change. It won’t matter as long as you have the Amarr Battleship skill at the proper level.



so if you have 4 race crusiers at 3 and bc 3, you will get all 4 race bc's at 3 right? same with desy's?

lv5's for the 4 race bc skill's if you have bc5?

OMG when can i get a pic here
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2012-11-06 15:22:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
"Brutix: this ship role conflicts a bit with the Talos, mainly because the latter is more mobile and packs more punch. We want to explore options on how to turn the Brutix into a more reliable close-range brawler, while the Talos keeps a kiting advantage."

I think the active tank bonus should be replaced with a passive armor bonus.

Edit: Just curious but CCP are going to be making a lot of changes across the game all at once and how can you possible balance ships in that environment? For example, tier 3 are going to have their speed and sig radius nerfed but target painter effectiveness is going to be buffed. That sounds to me like (in the right circumstances) tier 3's get a double nerf and I worry that CCP are overdoing things and we're going to end in a mess.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
NeoShocker
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#19 - 2012-11-06 15:24:34 UTC  |  Edited by: NeoShocker
No, i disagree on the multi bonuses on the races for command ships, its not even distinct.

If you are going to do that, then AT LEAST the specific race have better bonus over the other. Like vulture gets 5% shield bonus and 3% skirmish. I mean come on, 3% across the two race? :(

other than that, idea is fine, but i say CS should have 5%. No matter what. It was (or rather, is) insane that t3 ships have 5%, better than a specced ship of a commandship that even to this day i am against to.

If not, swap the t3 and cs bonus percentage is much more preferred!
Baki Yuku
Doomheim
#20 - 2012-11-06 15:26:32 UTC
NeoShocker wrote:
No, i disagree on the multi bonuses on the races for command ships, its not even distinct.

If you are going to do that, then AT LEAST the specific race have better bonus over the other. Like vulture gets 5% shield bonus and 3% skirmish. I mean come on, 3% across the two race? :(


I agree! and being able to use more then 3 links on a Tech 3 lol what is that supposed to be good for its useless.. wanna know why because we already have tons of boosting alts.. so why would we use a ship that provides 2% which is freaking useless and not even close to cost efficient..
123Next pageLast page