These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Dev Blog: Back to the balancing future!

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dhaaran
deZoltral Bloodline
#241 - 2012-11-06 19:00:10 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Dhaaran wrote:
the main problem i see with gang link changes are as follows:

1. in a big fleet fight, command ships are way too easy to kill. say you got 200 people in fleet, then killing that one on-grid commandship that specialized in EHP links takes 30% EHP off the other 199. as you promote specialization, there will be no redundancy for this.
the consequence of this fact is: if you want commandships on the grid, they need to have insane amounts of resists, say 500k+ EHP with a total cost for the ship of below 500m. otherwise they just instantly get killed and then everything else dies way faster than it atm, which is already too fast due to alpha.

2. the other thing OGB T3s have going for them that Commandships can not provide is Interdiction Nullification & Covert Ops Cloaks. this makes them extremely well suited for not getting tackled and killed when jumping in and allows them to cloak up while not fighting if there is not a friendly pos in system.

3. the reduction in overall EHP for proper fleets needs to be counterbalanced by either a reduction in the dps of all ships or a general increase to all ships EHP. in a day and age where you get fights with 1200+ people there is sufficient alpha around to instapop everything, which is neither skillful nor interesting gameplay and voids the role of logistics. higher resists allow logistics to be successful at what they are doing.


Your talking about the problems of blob warfare you can't ask for ridiclous EHP buffs to solve your problem


i am aware of that, the least i expect CCP to do is not encourage blobing even more via ship changes
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#242 - 2012-11-06 19:01:05 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
I like all the proposed changes except the Hurricane.

The ship is full of awesomeness even if it's not a "monster" like a Drake.

It's awesomeness comes exactly from its versatility (not for inner super-powers) and seeing it taken away really makes me sad.
I literally have fun at experimenting zillions and zillions of new setups with it, it's really that great.
What good is going to do, to make it less great? If it got overpowered stats then nerf those, not the ship fun.

The Typhoon imo should not become a full missile boat.
It's sig radius and speed would not really be valuable as they are now. Imo it should become a big Hurricane brother, that is versatile and in the middle between Mael and Tempest.

The reason for the for the Hurricane nerf is because it can fit anything without even batting an eye at fitting costs.
Callic Veratar
#243 - 2012-11-06 19:01:28 UTC
I really like the idea of a ganglink sphere. It encourages having multiple command ships in the fleet to get coverage and variety to all fleet members. There could even be an analogous heavy command ship that launches fixed spheres (or targeted super bonuses?).
Reverend Mak
Abh Empire
#244 - 2012-11-06 19:01:33 UTC
Quote:
Changing skill requirements for capital ships from Racial Battleships 5 to 4, but introducing or increasing other skills to keep the same overall training time requirements


Can we have more detail on what new requirements aspiring cap pilots will be facing?

Or if not that, some ballpark of the timeframe for this change?

Currently, I have an alt that is 78 days out from racial Carrier 1. Racial Battleship is already at 4 and I'm wondering whether to go racial Battleship 5 ASAP, or make it the last skill in the plan. The alt will not be flying battleships, so this is just about the path to capitals.

Reverend Mak Director, Abh Empire http://twitter.com/ReverendMak [b]ABH EMPIRE IS RECRUITING: http://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4573312[/b]
Dhaaran
deZoltral Bloodline
#245 - 2012-11-06 19:01:45 UTC
Moraguth wrote:
Nobody will know which one is giving the bonuses unless you have spies in your fleet feeding the enemies intel.


welcome to eve
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#246 - 2012-11-06 19:03:30 UTC
Callic Veratar wrote:
I really like the idea of a ganglink sphere. It encourages having multiple command ships in the fleet to get coverage and variety to all fleet members. There could even be an analogous heavy command ship that launches fixed spheres (or targeted super bonuses?).


Now don't be crazy the point is too keep it ongrid but also short ranged as its giving significant bonus and should have a big drawback

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#247 - 2012-11-06 19:03:37 UTC
As far as boosters hiding behind a POS shield, just make it impossible to turn on the module within 5km of a POS shield. It is not a fix for off grid boosters, but a step in the right direction till a more complete fix is done.
Julius Foederatus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#248 - 2012-11-06 19:04:57 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Julius Foederatus wrote:
Leave my Astarte alone you bastards, it doesn't need any link bonuses. Why on earth would you need to mess with the Field/Fleet dichotomy when no one has complained about it?


Are you sure about that?
Fanfest springs to mind why does Fleet CS do virtually no dps?


That's a complaint about Fleet CS, and I'm fairly sure no one who complained about it had the solution of nerfing Field Command ships' combat role. I'm not saying don't buff the Eos, just leave my damn Astarte alone.
Callic Veratar
#249 - 2012-11-06 19:04:58 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Callic Veratar wrote:
I really like the idea of a ganglink sphere. It encourages having multiple command ships in the fleet to get coverage and variety to all fleet members. There could even be an analogous heavy command ship that launches fixed spheres (or targeted super bonuses?).


Now don't be crazy the point is too keep it ongrid but also short ranged as its giving significant bonus and should have a big drawback


The drawback is that I'm sitting in a command ship with 4 medium guns instead of a battleship with 8 large.
Qaidan Alenko
Eezo-Lution Inc.
#250 - 2012-11-06 19:05:23 UTC
I asked this earlier...
Quote:
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.
Can any light be shed on this area? What is being bandied about with mods and shield tanking?


Just what is the "Issue" with shield tanking here? If the problem isn't in the hull, just what is it? Will we be looking at stacking penalties for Shield Extenders? Or perhaps limiting what size Extender can be fitted to certain ships (a-la Lg = BS, Med = Cruise/BC, etc)?
Go ahead... Get your Wham on!!!
Michal Jita
Lords Of The Universe
#251 - 2012-11-06 19:07:52 UTC

Quote:

CCP Ytterbium wrote:
With the bulk of our work out of the way though, this begs the question, what are we going to do now with all that precious free time?


New POS anyone?

When this will get some love?
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#252 - 2012-11-06 19:08:03 UTC
Turning on a gang link module should equate to using a remote module on a war target with associated aggression.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#253 - 2012-11-06 19:09:55 UTC
Callic Veratar wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
Callic Veratar wrote:
I really like the idea of a ganglink sphere. It encourages having multiple command ships in the fleet to get coverage and variety to all fleet members. There could even be an analogous heavy command ship that launches fixed spheres (or targeted super bonuses?).


Now don't be crazy the point is too keep it ongrid but also short ranged as its giving significant bonus and should have a big drawback


The drawback is that I'm sitting in a command ship with 4 medium guns instead of a battleship with 8 large.


No thats the drawback of using a CS instead of a bs and it would be 5 guns.
i'm saying a module always has drawbacks relative to its bonus so a high bonus to a mod means a high drawback.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
Aideron Robotics.
#254 - 2012-11-06 19:10:01 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
Lors Dornick wrote:
Jennifer A wrote:
Would be cool if you fixed the HORRIBLE drone UI before you made half of the ships DRONEboats.

You're sure that you want the game designers monitoring this thread getting involved in a long outstanding UI issue?

There are better targets for that (5 y celebrating Karkur, Puncturis and "don't touch that button" Tuxford seems likely) and they appear to be well aware of it.

Let's focus our balancing wrath on Ytterbium and his game designer minions ;)


designer minions lol


Technically they're my minions Cool


Let me tell you something about one of your minion's then. Your minion Fozzie, he completely ROCKS! You should have the mayor of Reykjavik give me the keys to the city (or the Icelandic equivalent)!
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#255 - 2012-11-06 19:13:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
Quote:
Dhaaran wrote:
Harvey James wrote:

3. the reduction in overall EHP for proper fleets needs to be counterbalanced by either a reduction in the dps of all ships or a general increase to all ships EHP. in a day and age where you get fights with 1200+ people there is sufficient alpha around to instapop everything, which is neither skillful nor interesting gameplay and voids the role of logistics. higher resists allow logistics to be successful at what they are doing.


Your talking about the problems of blob warfare you can't ask for ridiclous EHP buffs to solve your problem


i am aware of that, the least i expect CCP to do is not encourage blobing even more via ship changes

Yeah, this never ceases to amaze:
- omg-omg, we've blobbed up an entity of 40 ships, now everything pops way too fast!
*CCP boosts HP*
- omg-omg, now there are 200 of us, ships still pop too fast!
*CCP boosts HP once again*.

And so on ad infinum.

Noticed how pretty much all the ships CCP has overhauled over last months got HP buffs?

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
MinefieldS
1 Sick Duck Standss on something
#256 - 2012-11-06 19:14:22 UTC
Most of these changes are complete bullshit. I'll just leave this here:

The Prophecy is built on an ancient Amarrian warship design dating back to the earliest days of starship combat. Originally intended as a full-fledged battleship, it was determined after mixed fleet engagements with early prototypes that the Prophecy would be more effective as a slightly smaller, more mobile form of artillery support.

Now it's a drone boat? Perhaps CCP shouldn't let drones make changes to the ships.
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#257 - 2012-11-06 19:14:33 UTC
Julius Priscus wrote:
off grid boosting will not take a huge hit in high sec..

fleets if you call them that will use out of corp boosters on grid.


INCURSION runner here telling your you are off your rockers if you think: "off grid boosting will not take a huge hit in high sec.."
Assault & HQ fleets make much use of them & when Sansha incuelence is over 50% red bar peeps getskidish w/o them
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'
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#258 - 2012-11-06 19:17:05 UTC
Iam Widdershins wrote:
I'm really surprised at the way you arranged the double bonuses on the command ships. Why does Amarr get skirmish while Gallente gets information? That seems incredibly outdated. Amarr have no remarkably fast ships, very few ships that rely on fighting particularly up close, and no ships that have any bonuses to tackle. Meanwhile Gallente, who was given the information warfare instead of skirmish, are known for having fast in-your-face skirmishing brawlers, but they have the recon ships with bonuses specifically for tackle range.

Amarr should be Armor and Info. Gallente should be Armor and Skirmish. Doing it otherwise makes no sense to me.


NOOOOOOOO Amarr want the skirmish bonus the INFO sucks!!!! P
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'
David Zahavi
Doomheim
#259 - 2012-11-06 19:17:47 UTC  |  Edited by: David Zahavi
Redacted.
Ryuce
#260 - 2012-11-06 19:19:16 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Callic Veratar wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
Callic Veratar wrote:
I really like the idea of a ganglink sphere. It encourages having multiple command ships in the fleet to get coverage and variety to all fleet members. There could even be an analogous heavy command ship that launches fixed spheres (or targeted super bonuses?).


Now don't be crazy the point is too keep it ongrid but also short ranged as its giving significant bonus and should have a big drawback


The drawback is that I'm sitting in a command ship with 4 medium guns instead of a battleship with 8 large.


No thats the drawback of using a CS instead of a bs and it would be 5 guns.
i'm saying a module always has drawbacks relative to its bonus so a high bonus to a mod means a high drawback.

Unless you run the links on an offgrid alt while having your main on grid in a BS (or whatever is needed), like soo many people currently do.

When the links are on grid, you need to pay a lot more attention to them.