These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Moraguth
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#381 - 2012-11-06 23:50:27 UTC
Lipbite wrote:
Moraguth wrote:
No.


If thread wasn't full of empty messages such as yours it could be much more readable and informative. But even with hidden messages (hint: triangle near avatar pix open options menu to hide messages from certain shiptoasters forever) thread is barely readable. Please, stop posting nonsense - just 26 days left till Dec 4 which is barely enough to train damn Battlecruisers V (not to mention Destroyers and racial skills frigate / cruisers skills I've planned for next year).


fiiiiiiine. you were reading earlier though, but i think maybe your question was answered before your first post a few pages ago. And I just like to pretend to be mean.

No, these changes aren't coming anywhere near to the winter expansion. You have plenty of time. There is no date.

My plan for reading threads quickly is to just scroll quickly and only read the posts for people i have set to positive standings or CCP employees. Everyone else is just speculating, asking questions, or repeating answers that have already been given. You can go through pages almost as fast as your computer can load them.

I got a Feature Added!

Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn".  It is "uh-bad-in" dictionary.com/abaddon

SevenBitBrian
Doomheim
#382 - 2012-11-06 23:57:49 UTC
I am really excited to see what you come up with for the Brutix. I've always felt it should be a front line ship, the type that makes you go "oh ****!" when it gets close.

My suggestion would be to give it basic blaster bonuses, nothing to high but enough to put out average DPS, but give it a really really good Tank and Armor Tank bonuses. So basically you have to deal with this thing at a range, if you let it get close to you you are going to get that "oh ****" moment because this thing is going to be able to take a serious beating, more than you can most likely, and will be hammering you with blasters all the while.

So basically make it a close range meat shield, if you let it get close it's going to soak up the dmg, but you have to take it out unless you can soak up it's dmg. It gives it a really nice role imo, if your tacklers can pin down a target and you can get your Brutix close then your opponent has 2 options; 1: sink the dmg into the Brutix to get it off so it can't apply it's constant dps pressure on the target, or 2: ignore the Brtuix, decide its not worth trying to pop that tank, and try to out dps the more dangerous targets leaving that Brutix all by it's lonesome.

So your getting risk and reward either way, it's just a matter of choice. I think this would give the Brutix a real role, a real place in fleets, a real identity or presence if you will.

7bitworld.org

Random Womble
Emo Rangers
#383 - 2012-11-06 23:59:00 UTC
Typhoon

I said a while ago i would personally like to see the projectile bonus replaced with a Target painter bonus, not useful on most ships but would benefit a torp boat. Additionally to facilitate this i would drop a high to a mid as with 5 launcher slots 2 versatility slots should be sufficient and 5 mids are needed to make a painter viable. 5 launchers is sufficient but not overpowered provided the phoon keeps its current drone bay + bandwith and also provides a diffrent flavour to the raven (mobile, armor tanked, reduced range, reduced base missile DPS, additional drone DPS &/or versatility)

Command Ships:

First seems odd that all 4 races get skirmish WF for T3s

Second regarding bonuses being given remotely:

At the moment there is already a bit of an issue, as a skirmish WF link user when in a gang the ships that most benefit from me are quick an agile (mainly inties) now if we are chasing a target the inties will need the bonus the instant they land to help survivability and help tackle so even as it is i cannot enter warp to join them without hurting their and my effectiveness so i am actually encouraged not to go to the fight on that basis alone. While i have not PvPed for a while my past losses and kills show i put Command ships in the thick of it and i would rather that was the way forward.

With that in mind i have 2 linked suggestions which i think actually benefit command ships but at the same time encourage them to come on the field.

1. Have a decay timer for bonuses (say 5 minutes) - providing that you have been on grid with a bonus provider within the time limit and their gang link is on you receive their bonus (in some ways its a bit like a positive combat flag). During this period you continue to recieve the bonus even if you or the bonus giver leave the grid. If you both remain on grid the timer effectively resets each cycle of the WF Link modules. Prefereably you should even be able to change system and keep the bonus but perhaps halve the time left on the timer.

2. Allow WF links to be turned on while in warp so that ships warping into combat are not punished (yes this applies to warping out as well but if you can warp in and out of grid repeatedly in a command ship without getting tackled you will be pretty busy)

There are a few other issues such as if a WF Link is switched off then back on again when you are on different grids do you get to regain the bonus? (personally i say yes again)

Oh and i would make mindlinks more common the prices of those are getting a bit silly.
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
#384 - 2012-11-07 00:12:51 UTC
NOT THE PHOON :/


YOU CAN BUFF MY MIDSLOTS, AND MY LOWSLOTS AND MY GRID BUT YOU WILL NEVER GET MY SWEET AUTOCANNONS FOR IT
Intex Encapor
#385 - 2012-11-07 00:18:44 UTC
sad to see how they want to reduce the most versatile bs to some khanid wannabe.

sure it requires many skills to max out, but its perfectly fine on each subset of skills too :/

eve really needs more of those ships, not less.
Le Thanh Ton
Kick B0rt
#386 - 2012-11-07 00:21:23 UTC
Please the Typhoon alone - the whole point of the ship is versatility, don't make it just another Raven/missile boat.

Sure you need a lot of skills to fly it properly, but that makes it a great goal ship for middle-age players (before they step into capitals).

Other changes look interesting enough, but leave the Typhoon (you're leaving the Scorpion as that works, just make a new category for versatile ships and put the phoon in by itself like you did with the Scorpion)
Berendas
Ascendant Operations
#387 - 2012-11-07 00:30:49 UTC
Intex Encapor wrote:
sad to see how they want to reduce the most versatile bs to some khanid wannabe.

sure it requires many skills to max out, but its perfectly fine on each subset of skills too :/

eve really needs more of those ships, not less.



QFT

I would encourage everyone else who wants to keep the Phoon as is to voice your discontent with the changes as early as possible so CCP can see how much we love the old boat.
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers
#388 - 2012-11-07 00:32:31 UTC
i REALLY wanted the prophecy to turn into a T1 HAM BC with a brick tank :-P...actually, how about a drone boat with HAM/Rapid light launchers ... that could be pretty cool.

also i thought the brutix was fine , just needs a tad extra fitting space.
NightmareX
Pandemic Horde High Sec Division
#389 - 2012-11-07 00:36:40 UTC
NightmareX wrote:
I have a question about the Megathron.

Since it was said that the Megathron should be more mobile / agile. Will the Vindicator then get the aditional boost in agility (like it have now over the current Megathron) over the new Megathron stats then?

Will the Vindicator be even more agile then?

Or will this only affect the normal battleships?

Quoting myself so i can get an answer on this.

Here is a list of my current EVE / PVP videos:

1: Asteroid Madness

2: Clash of the Empires

3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama

ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers
#390 - 2012-11-07 00:37:50 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ethan Revenant wrote:
Is it just that no one loves the Eos, but one day, its prince will come?

Let me answer your question with one of my favorite old-school pvp videos.

And before anyone asks no we are not bringing back superNOS.



are you sure there is nothing we can do to persuade you to bring back the good oll super NOS ^_^
Dracko Malus
Messerschmitt Vertrieb und Logistik
#391 - 2012-11-07 00:38:17 UTC
Xercodo wrote:
Skill requirements are only to START training the skill, not to keep it.

This means that you can still keep flying a carrier even if you lost battleship 5 since you still have the carrier skill.

Incorrect, you're confusing skillbook requirements with Ship prerequesite to "activate" it.

If you loose BS5 of the race, you'll currently be purged from your ship. But you'd have to be pretty stupid.. as dying in an AlphaClone affects the highest multiplier skills.. and there are a lot more you'll have to burn through before loosing a BS5 skill..

Tess La'Coil's loveslave.

CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#392 - 2012-11-07 00:42:27 UTC
NightmareX wrote:
NightmareX wrote:
I have a question about the Megathron.

Since it was said that the Megathron should be more mobile / agile. Will the Vindicator then get the aditional boost in agility (like it have now over the current Megathron) over the new Megathron stats then?

Will the Vindicator be even more agile then?

Or will this only affect the normal battleships?

Quoting myself so i can get an answer on this.


We're going to get the T1 hulls done first then work on making sure all the faction ships are good to go.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

NightmareX
Pandemic Horde High Sec Division
#393 - 2012-11-07 00:43:55 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
NightmareX wrote:
NightmareX wrote:
I have a question about the Megathron.

Since it was said that the Megathron should be more mobile / agile. Will the Vindicator then get the aditional boost in agility (like it have now over the current Megathron) over the new Megathron stats then?

Will the Vindicator be even more agile then?

Or will this only affect the normal battleships?

Quoting myself so i can get an answer on this.


We're going to get the T1 hulls done first then work on making sure all the faction ships are good to go.


Ahh sweet. Thanks for the answer Big smile

Here is a list of my current EVE / PVP videos:

1: Asteroid Madness

2: Clash of the Empires

3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama

Bodega Cat
Expedition Spartica
#394 - 2012-11-07 00:47:44 UTC
This all sounds great and all, but what about Tactical Shield Manipulation.....
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#395 - 2012-11-07 00:48:19 UTC
Berendas wrote:
Tarra Nobilii wrote:
Prophecy: expected to be changed to a drone boat. This is a role revamp that will radically modify its slot and fitting layout. It will most likely have less bandwidth but more drone bay than the Myrmidon.

On top of being sacrilegious, this seems a daft idea; 1) armor drone boats cannot take advantage of new mods for lows along with their tank, 2) there is already and armor drone boat (myrmidon), 3) Amarr do not need drones, we shoot things with lasers. I understand the need for balance...but this is not balance to me.


This was really the only other beef I had with what was in the dev blog. Making the Prophecy a drone boat just doesn't make all that much sense to me. A T1 missile boat for the Amarr would be more reasonable imo, as it would be a good lead in to the Khanid ship line.

With very few exceptions the Amarr have ALWAYS favored drone use and usually have good sized drone bays. The Prophecy is basically following in the same line as the Armageddon, which has a large drone bay in addition to it's powerful lasers.

While I too am personally fond of missile boats (I am rather fond of Khanid ships) the use of drones as a strong secondary weapons system in all other cases has been clearly spelled out since Tiericide was first laid out.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#396 - 2012-11-07 00:50:33 UTC
Dracko Malus wrote:
Xercodo wrote:
Skill requirements are only to START training the skill, not to keep it.

This means that you can still keep flying a carrier even if you lost battleship 5 since you still have the carrier skill.

Incorrect, you're confusing skillbook requirements with Ship prerequesite to "activate" it.

No, he's spot on. You don't need a single SP in Battleship to fly a Carrier. All you need is Carrier I, Capships I, and Jump Drives I. Those are the prereqs for a standard carrier and it doesn't matter that the Carrier skill has Battleship V (soon BS IV) as a prereq.

Quote:
If you loose BS5 of the race, you'll currently be purged from your ship. But you'd have to be pretty stupid.. as dying in an AlphaClone affects the highest multiplier skills.. and there are a lot more you'll have to burn through before loosing a BS5 skill.
If the ship doesn't require BS V to fly — in other words, if it's not a T2 battleship — then losing that skill level makes no difference. Also, BS V is a very likely skill to be hit in the case of a podding. The SP loss mechanic doesn't care what multiplier the skill has; it just goes after whichever skill has the most SP in it, and BS V is 2M SP. Between Carrier IV (600k SP) and BS V (2M SP), you'll lose BS 5 first.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#397 - 2012-11-07 00:54:06 UTC
Well perhaps the Prophecy might get a HAM bonus as its secondary bonus if they don't decide to put a e-war bonus on it would be nice if they didn't it will no doubt have launchers either way.

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

Berendas
Ascendant Operations
#398 - 2012-11-07 01:02:18 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Berendas wrote:
Tarra Nobilii wrote:
Prophecy: expected to be changed to a drone boat. This is a role revamp that will radically modify its slot and fitting layout. It will most likely have less bandwidth but more drone bay than the Myrmidon.

On top of being sacrilegious, this seems a daft idea; 1) armor drone boats cannot take advantage of new mods for lows along with their tank, 2) there is already and armor drone boat (myrmidon), 3) Amarr do not need drones, we shoot things with lasers. I understand the need for balance...but this is not balance to me.


This was really the only other beef I had with what was in the dev blog. Making the Prophecy a drone boat just doesn't make all that much sense to me. A T1 missile boat for the Amarr would be more reasonable imo, as it would be a good lead in to the Khanid ship line.

With very few exceptions the Amarr have ALWAYS favored drone use and usually have good sized drone bays. The Prophecy is basically following in the same line as the Armageddon, which has a large drone bay in addition to it's powerful lasers.

While I too am personally fond of missile boats (I am rather fond of Khanid ships) the use of drones as a strong secondary weapons system in all other cases has been clearly spelled out since Tiericide was first laid out.



Amarr use drones to compliment lasers to be sure, but only as a secondary weapon system, there really isn't any existing Amarr ship that uses drone capability as a selling point beyond the Armageddon. The notable exception being the Amarr recons, but I would consider them a special case since one of their bonused EWAR's uses high slots which deprives them of any weapons besides drones. I would be hesitant to support a drone bonused T1 Amarr hull because there are far more missile bonused Amarr ships than drone bonused ones. Putting a missile bonused hull in Amarr T1 would help newer pilots far more than one with drones as its focus.
Draconus Lofwyr
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#399 - 2012-11-07 01:07:51 UTC
Ok, the command ship changes are the right direction, but the wrong implementation. dual bonuses are great, but if you do it the way its listed now, you will just homogenize the command ships. if you intend to give them dual bonuses, dont just double up the existing, make a whole new set of gang links based on the current skills. The difference is make the new bonuses one defensive bonus and one offensive bonus. (armor tanking defense, hybrid damage bonus for offensive as an example).

Also, will there be any changes to or new gang implants available to provide a dual bonus? like a variant implant that gives half of 2 bonuses instead of a full of one?



Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#400 - 2012-11-07 01:17:42 UTC
A couple of solutions to consider:

For the Ferox/Naga confusion, I'm not sure why nobody has suggested changing the Naga's bonuses to support more of a sniping role. I propose:

Naga gets +optimal and +tracking bonus to help it keep its top position as a ranged large turret sniper. The Rokh, then, can change to a +damage and +tank bonus set, since it can use its more slots for range management (or maybe a +optimal role bonus).

The Ferox could get a +optimal and add a +damage bonus to 1) keep in its design direction of using bonused optimals on hybrids for brawling as well as a nice damage bonus (which should help with the medium rail damage output problem) and give more damage to its optimals-boosted blasters.

Brutix differentiation:

Here's the trick: to keep both sufficiently different and keep the Brutix for brawling superiority, change the Brutix's bonus to a +damage and +falloff set. This would help the Brutix in its damage application while getting into range and close up. Fix the hull with either a +bonus to active tanking role bonus (if you fix active armor tanking) or, better, a +armor amount % role bonus. This would keep it alive in close range combat as well as providing more buffer against being alpha'd. Better yet, and a LOT "out there," you could give the Brutix the ability to fit a Micro Jump Drive!

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<