These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#441 - 2012-11-07 07:51:53 UTC
the BS balancing approach will probably still leave gallente with no viable fleet ship

please think about that
Prince Kobol
#442 - 2012-11-07 07:53:30 UTC
I am disappointed to see that CCP are not addressing the issue of some Amarr ships only having 1 bonus.

Take the Apoc and Geddon for 2 examples.

These ships both have a bonus to Cap Usage.

How is this a bonus?

If you were to remove the bonus then both of those ships would be next to be impossible to fly without having a totally gimped fit.

A bonus is something which gives an additional advantage, not something which is essential to fly the ship.
Terik Deatharbingr
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#443 - 2012-11-07 07:53:45 UTC
Grideris wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Want to make this clear to everyone, the stuff in this blog is not coming on the 4th with Retribution. This blog covers some of what we are going to be working on in the beginning of next year.

As for the gang link nerf discussion. It's extremely clear that the addition of the 5% bonused T3s combined with the T2 gang link modules created a perfect storm with gang boosts. These have become far too powerful and it has become almost impossible to compete without a booster alt. We're not switching command ship and T3 bonuses straight up because 5% links are overpowered, so everyone should probably start getting used to that idea.


While I can see what you're saying about the 5% bonus being over the top, I for one would still like to see some specialisation for particular races as far as the bonus amount goes. While for the Command ships it's not as bad (as each has a unique combination) the Tech 3 ships have two identical sets of bonuses. What are the chances of making one of the three bonuses 2.5% or even 3%, depending on the race of the ship? (So Gallente gets Info War, Amarr Armour, Caldari Siege and Minmatar Skirmish)

Also, I hope more Caldari ships moving over to damage bonus for hybrids doesn't start to step on the Gallente's "TONS OF DAMAGE" motif they have going on.


The answer to why you ask is very simple....how often have you seen a gallente command ship or proteus used? If the answer is anything other than never, than you saw a foolish person flying it. Why should amarr, caldari and minmatar be your command ship bonuses, depending on whether your armor, shield or speed tanking.....
Terik Deatharbingr
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#444 - 2012-11-07 07:54:26 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
I am disappointed to see that CCP are not addressing the issue of some Amarr ships only having 1 bonus.

Take the Apoc and Geddon for 2 examples.

These ships both have a bonus to Cap Usage.

How is this a bonus?

If you were to remove the bonus then both of those ships would be next to be impossible to fly without having a totally gimped fit.

A bonus is something which gives an additional advantage, not something which is essential to fly the ship.


Amen, brother! lol
Aijle Mijleroff
Infernal Laboratory
Infernal Octopus
#445 - 2012-11-07 08:16:43 UTC
CCP, you want that megathron in fight died with alfa not having been in time even to shoot? ANSWER!

At a megathrone and now problems with resist and quantity hp. CCP you probably did not fly on megathron i think.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#446 - 2012-11-07 08:29:51 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
As a massive megathron fan (most likely EVEs biggest) I need to ask for more details on the megathron changes. How much tank is being taken off it and where. Also how much speed and agility will it gain in return?

Given that I fly only megathrons in pvp and have done so for the past 2 years this matter is very important to me.
BayneNothos
United Electro-Magnetic Federation
Business Alliance of Manufacturers and Miners
#447 - 2012-11-07 08:30:57 UTC
As a Hyperion Pilot, I'd really really really like a bit more CPU, a chunk more PG and either Armour Repairers having a higher base rep amount, the Hyperion Repair Bonus increased or higher base resistances.

Currently there's too much damage being flung around for the low rep amounts it does. It pretty much requires a booster of some sort to be viable against anything. Any of those 3 would help that immensely and the CPU/PG boost would make it that little bit easier to fit everything it needs.

When I look at Kovorix's Everlasting II, the last fight with the two ASB Maelstoms, that should be where Hyperions exist in my mind. Point blank on a gate, ripping up small gangs. Not as big a gang as that, but small gatecamps or bubblecamps, station undocks and wormholes. Places where holding a small section of space is the goal and there's not a lot of people available to do it, that's where it should exist.

It's close to being awesome, it's just a little short and needs a push over the line.
Veronika Kastrato
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#448 - 2012-11-07 08:34:56 UTC
Hahaha YES! Bring them cloaky boosting fags on to the field!

That should be implemented ASAP. Also nerf ECM :p
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#449 - 2012-11-07 08:46:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Was this a missed opportunity to give the three remaining races a BS with an EWar bonus like the scorpion?

A dominix with a damp bonus could have been good...

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
#450 - 2012-11-07 08:49:41 UTC
Valkyrie D'ark wrote:

This is a horrible idea. You guys concentrate on one piece of a jigsaw puzzle but forget the big picture. Remember that capital ships are also part of the fleet booster family. Do you expect them to run after and keep up with all the members in the fleet? What about Rorquals and Orcas?

You could keep your fleet within range to receive boosts from the capitals. Or just have separate boosters for capitals and subcapitals.
Quote:

Also you would want your squads throughout the solar system to be receiving bonuses, no matter where they are, not force them to blob.

Multiple command ships.
Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#451 - 2012-11-07 08:51:14 UTC
The megathron changes are not very well thought out. The ship, as is, already has low EHP by battleship standards with virtually any feasible fit. Lowering it further to add speed will not fix the ships glaring deficiency in its inability to close range - it will be dead on arrival in most cases.

There are better aspects of the ship to trade off for added maximum velocity.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#452 - 2012-11-07 09:00:20 UTC
Good changes, best blog I've read in a while, looking forward to this but one thing:



COULD YOU PLEASE HURRY UP AND FIX THE T2 SHIPS THAT I SPENT YEARS TRAINING FOR, they kinda all got marginalized and while I do realize they're coming, its taking FOREVER.



Inties are largely outshown by faction frigs


Hacs are outdone by t3's in almost every case and every way

Recons are largely ok, unless you fly an arazu or a pilgrim




The rest are pretty much fine once you do this thing you've got planned for command ships but

those are the ones I think a LOT of us are waiting for.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Infinion
Awesome Corp
#453 - 2012-11-07 09:03:02 UTC
CCP realized that having t2 gang warfare links made their bonuses on t3 cruisers way too overpowered, so now they are nerfing the t3 cruisers so a t2 warfare link gives the same bonus as a t1...


Also I hope CCP decides to finally make t3 cruisers reconfigurable in space because that's something they promised a few years ago that never got done amongst other things.
pussnheels
Viziam
#454 - 2012-11-07 09:03:51 UTC  |  Edited by: pussnheels
open mind about the ship balacing i will see when the final stats come out
what i am worried about the the skill overhaul
racial frig lvl 4 < racial destroyer lvl 4 < racial cruiser lvl 4 < racial batlecruise level 4 racial battleship level 4

ok i understand why and see the logic in it
but why change it and what about people who never bothered to train destroyers or battle cruiser to level 4and are now flying a cap or other ship that need those skills , you can not expect them to be happy that all the sudden they can not fly their favorite ship anymore just because they miss the racial destroyer or racial battlecruiser skill

i can already imagine the threads on the forums about that

I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#455 - 2012-11-07 09:04:54 UTC
My feeling is that the battlecruiser line ought to aim for the baseline of the Tier 1s - 16 slots rather than 17 for a start...
The biggest difficulty is the Tier 3s. The Ferox focussed on long range firepower is never going to work when compared to the Naga with its eight higher base range battleship guns, their higher base damage and the ship's damage bonus.

The tier 3s are, of course, glass cannon but in many situations glass is more than enough when the damage they can put out is considered.

I'm almost tempted to suggest ignoring the Tier 3s when it comes to balancing the BCs... They're just too great a paradigm shift.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#456 - 2012-11-07 09:06:14 UTC
Remove rig penalties.
Jack Mayhem
Kaer Industries
#457 - 2012-11-07 09:06:19 UTC
Some good changes, some bad.

Ferox should be left as close-range brawler. The hull is finally being flown after recent changes, and you want to put into shelf again. Plus with sniping Ferox, Caldari BC line won't have any close range brawlers (if Drake loses it's resistance bonus).

Information links should be buffed. One idea is making them boost gun/missile bonuses (optimal, fall-off, tracking). Though that would make shield kiting setups even more powerful.

I would much prefer keeping off grid boosting, but making it less powerful than on-grid. That's the only way to fight 2-3 ships and still manage to kill at least one before you die yourself.
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
#458 - 2012-11-07 09:09:20 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
Typhoon -

The thing is designed to be versatile. It is one of the fastest BS. Even with four 1600 plates on it - it will go 1km/s. It has a sig radius of 320 - one of the smallest BS out there. It has a 175m^3 drone bay - second only to the Domi, at least T1 wise. You can go five AC or five Torps. Hell - I still will go 4 and 4. The thing can break 1k DPS without any damage mods on. With the changes coming to skills application to Torps and the possible application of TE and TC to both the AC and the torps - the sky is the limit. The are nuet variants and hospital variants.

The only real weakness the ship has is it's fitting grid. It's anemic. It's one of the few Minmatar ships to truly have issues. I'm not even sure that's a bad thing. But if you wanted to make it more new guy friendly that is where I would start. Forcing it to go pure torp may very well relegate it to PVE for eternity.

Let's face it - BS have fallen out of favor in the past couple of years. They are slow. They lock slow. BC are more flexible tools that can get the same job done. Some BC approach BS level tanks. With all the tier 2 BC losing a slot, BS may very well make a comeback. But I think a lot of people wanted to see changes to mass, lock time, EHP, etc. The typhoon is loved by it's pilots for it's flexibility. If you haven't seen many of them out and about it's probably more due to armor tanking issues, torp issues, and BC popularity then the ship itself. Let's not turn it into a jumbo Bellicose please. Straight


i see it the same way. turning the typhoon into a torp-boat would be a vicious kick into the minmatar soul's groin.
this ship can do soo much and it's actually balanced with the restrictive fitting resources. it's one of the examples where split weapons actually work. why would anyone destroy that?

turning it into a armor raven may be good for the statistics in a spread sheet, but dont fix it when its not broken!
in a way you already have the possibility to use it as a torp boat and with the upcoming torp buff their will be uses for this kind of phoon, but please dont take the other candies away.
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies
#459 - 2012-11-07 09:11:22 UTC
Mention of armour tanking balancing is made again, as it has been in other balancing threads. Is there any timetable for this yet? Obviously not for Dec 4 but will this be after the BC/BB balancing? After T2? After Ipswich Town win the Champions League?

Fear God and Thread Nought
Ricc Deckard
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#460 - 2012-11-07 09:23:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Ricc Deckard
Quote:
With this in mind, it becomes quite obvious to focus on training the Destroyers and Battlecruisers skills before the change to get the maximum return effect. We highly recommend you start doing so now.


Would you recomment in the opposite case.... let's say if someone is skilling a pure carrier character .... to wait with skilling BS V even if it doesn't fit into the remapping scheme? ;) Or will this change (Only Racial BS IV needed for Racial Carrier skill) come more likely later in the next year?

Would be pretty awesome to get a hint on this - could save me a month Big smile