These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ethan Revenant
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
#721 - 2012-11-08 22:02:23 UTC
Sgt Napalm wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:


Sgt Napalm wrote:

I am perfectly happy with the current mindlink mechanic.

The current mindlink mechanic is in fact fine with the current set of command ships, however the proposed changes to commandships are pretty intense and reworking the mindlinks or the way they interact with the command modules is the only real way to make the actual changes workable.


Do you believe the mindlink module should be make universal and apply to any command module? I can't really see there being another way to 'turn it down' that meets Fozzie's criteria. IMO, mindlinks are a specialty and should remain that way. Flying around with a set of swiss army knives takes away from the unique role of a command ship pilot.



I wouldn't mind having a broad-scope mindlink. If they added one (even with diminished boost power compared to the normal ones and no auxiliary bonus) in addition to the current set, I'd think long and hard about getting one after I next get podded in the theoretical spacefuture. Crosstraining and I are bros! Maybe I'd eventually decide to stick with being omgsoawesome at boosting one thing over having the ability to run around boosting all sorts of different fleets in all sorts of different ships with a little something something in my head, but having that option would be very appealing.

I think that would be a cool trade-off, actually. You can either retain your superpowers in one thing but not be able to bestow any extra superpowers on any other boost type (the way it is now), or you can mix and match with all kinds of ships and boost combinations, but at the cost of slot 10, less effectiveness than someone in the right ship running all three links with the specific mindlink, and the ability to provide an extra bonus from the mindlink itself.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#722 - 2012-11-08 22:39:52 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
I'm afraid I must insist on the Damnation being balanced in a way that will allow me to MWD through a fleet engagement like an Assault Frigate, as seen in the promotional video's.

Of course, that one was primaried at the gate and died a horrible, fiery death... but I don't care. Smile

I have always liked the idea that weapons would have a slight affect on a ships agility, speed and other things. So a HAM Damnation can get on top of another fleet somewhat intact to inflict some damage before dying in a glorious fireball.
Maeltstome
Academy of the Unseen Arts
#723 - 2012-11-08 22:50:11 UTC
Seeing a lot of hate on the Eos.

I would like to remind people what the Eos was like with 5 turrets and 5 heavies... It was so good it got nerfed.

A losec pirate released a video of him 1v5'ing battleships and battlecruisers who came at him and this ship suddenly appeared everywhere. im looking forward to it being strong again.
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#724 - 2012-11-08 23:39:12 UTC
Maeltstome wrote:
Seeing a lot of hate on the Eos.

I would like to remind people what the Eos was like with 5 turrets and 5 heavies... It was so good it got nerfed.

A losec pirate released a video of him 1v5'ing battleships and battlecruisers who came at him and this ship suddenly appeared everywhere. im looking forward to it being strong again.
Well game was quite a bit different back then - 90% webs, no anti-MWD scrams, drone scoop shield regen, effective nos, etc. Current Astarte doesn't see alot of action right now, and stat-wise it's a fairly solid brawler. So gonna need a whole lot of improvements for the Eos to be useable. Even then, still need to address the issue of slow armored ships with short range weapons vs highly mobile mid-range AC boats.
Debir Achen
Makiriemi Holdings
#725 - 2012-11-08 23:48:49 UTC
More random brainstorming:

I'm going to take it as a given that EVE designers want to encourage group play. Specifically, mechanics that encourage players not to form social groups are generally not good for the long-term health of an MMO. (Conversely: mechanics that allow a player to function without a group are good for encouraging players to log on even if they don't have a ready-made group)

For fleets, there are three levels of mechanic that all strongly favour fleets, and larger fleets:

- simple strength of numbers
- C&C mechanics of the fleet interface (group warps, broadcasts, watch lists, etc)
- boosters (and the fact that the raw quantity of boost provided scales directly with number of pilots in fleet)

Essentially, being part of a larger fleet gives a cascading advantage. It might be nice to town down the top level of that cascade.


Observation: game mechanics already support monitoring of on-grid-ness. See overview. See watch list.

What if rather than a "boost bubble", we have a variant of the watch list? Each booster pilot (maybe this only applies to gang links) can select a squad - not necessarily their own squad - and apply boosts to all members of that squad on-grid with them, using a variation of the watch list tracking mechanics. The "active squad" can be changed as required.

This would allow redundancy of boosting and flexibility, turning booster ships into a tactical asset (like logis or ECM) rather than a strategic one.

Certain skills / modules / implants may allow boosting of more than one squad at once.

Concern: does it negate the value of the WC and FC skills?


On the "story" of fleet bonuses: I assume the explanation for fleet bonuses is basically a form of "implant", where the fleet linkage provides an implicit implant bonus. Is there a way to riff off this idea when re-working boosts?

Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature?

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#726 - 2012-11-09 00:03:43 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
So about mindlinks..

  • The fact that they are such a huge portion of the effectiveness of a booster isn't something we like
  • The fact that people are forced to use multiple jump clones or pop a new expensive implant every time they want to switch link types isn't something we like
  • The fact that they make the use of multiple gang link types at once so much worse isn't something we like
  • The exact way to deal with these problems isn't something we have hammered out yet, but we'll keep you updated



Maybe change the spec skills so they aren't 100% per level. Making links easier to fit would be cool maybe - keep the cap usage I guess (so there is at least some way to deal with them that doesn't involve killing a damnation/vulture), but 210 PG and 55 CPU really isn't easy to come by when you aren't flying minmatar.

I still think you should do what I say and give them a range limit or an effectiveness falloff. Encourages fleet togetherness and situational awareness, forces the link ship to be in the fight (they can still just jump out whenever I guess, maybe give them aggression). Prevents 300km cloak nonsense and grid sploits. Then all you'd need to do is cut their effectiveness and they'd be more or less fixed.
Zifrian
The Pannion Domin
#727 - 2012-11-09 00:23:28 UTC
One question I have that I haven't seen asked yet is how does the changes to BC skills affect Command Ships? Will there be a new Caladari/Gallente/Amarr/Minmatar Command Ships skill added? Since BC 5 is a pre-req, will that suffice for flying this ship *after* the patch? Right now I can fly Caldari Command ships. So I have BC 5, Caldari Cruiser 5, Heavy Assault/Logistics 4. But I can also fly all Tier 1 BC's. So after the patch I'll have Caladari/Gallente/Amarr/Minmatar BC 5, Caldari Cruiser 5, Heavy Assault/Logistics 4.

So using the "if you could fly it before rule" I should be able to still fly the Caldari Command Ships and for any others, I'd just need to get Cruiser 5?

It seems obvious that I will and that all I need now to fly the Amarr Command ship is going to be Amarr Cruisers 5, but I want to double check. Also, if there are new Racial command ships added, and If I were to get Command ships to 4, and all cruisers done to 5, would this work like the BC skill change? Would there be any benefit to training up command ships like BC before the patch?

Thanks

Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour!

Import CCP's SDE - EVE SDE Database Builder

Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#728 - 2012-11-09 00:42:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
Zifrian wrote:
So using the "if you could fly it before rule" I should be able to still fly the Caldari Command Ships and for any others, I'd just need to get Cruiser 5?

If the prerequisite was Battlecruisers 5 + Caldari Cruiser 5 it will become Caldari Battlecruiser 5 + Caldari Cruiser 5.

Only the Battlecruiser [and Destroyers] skill is changing, so no you don't need to train the other cruisers to level 5 right now, but you do need to train them to at least level 3 to get the free skill points.

Later when you want to fly the other command ships, THEN you will need cruiser 5. [if it is still a prerequisite.]

There won't be any racial T2 skills according to CCP posts in this thread.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#729 - 2012-11-09 01:09:43 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Zifrian wrote:
So using the "if you could fly it before rule" I should be able to still fly the Caldari Command Ships and for any others, I'd just need to get Cruiser 5?

If the prerequisite was Battlecruisers 5 + Caldari Cruiser 5 it will become Caldari Battlecruiser 5 + Caldari Cruiser 5.

Only the Battlecruiser [and Destroyers] skill is changing, so no you don't need to train the other cruisers to level 5 right now, but you do need to train them to at least level 3 to get the free skill points.

Later when you want to fly the other command ships, THEN you will need cruiser 5. [if it is still a prerequisite.]

There won't be any racial T2 skills according to CCP posts in this thread.

In earlier blogs of this same nature there was an expressed desire from CCP to have the cruiser requirements removed from command ships and simply use the racial BC skills instead. Possibly with other added prerequisites to keep the overall training time roughly the same.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#730 - 2012-11-09 01:30:49 UTC
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
Maeltstome wrote:
Seeing a lot of hate on the Eos.

I would like to remind people what the Eos was like with 5 turrets and 5 heavies... It was so good it got nerfed.

A losec pirate released a video of him 1v5'ing battleships and battlecruisers who came at him and this ship suddenly appeared everywhere. im looking forward to it being strong again.
Well game was quite a bit different back then - 90% webs, no anti-MWD scrams, drone scoop shield regen, effective nos, etc. Current Astarte doesn't see alot of action right now, and stat-wise it's a fairly solid brawler. So gonna need a whole lot of improvements for the Eos to be useable. Even then, still need to address the issue of slow armored ships with short range weapons vs highly mobile mid-range AC boats.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but every one of those things you listed affected both sides equally.

Yes, 90% webs would help the old Eos, but would help his opponents just as much, and probably more. The same goes for scram, nos, and even scooping your drones to regen shield (depending on the opponents).

General game mechanics that are not ship specific work for everyone... if you know how to take advantage of them.

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

Grombutz
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#731 - 2012-11-09 01:31:54 UTC
RORQUAL anyone ? what happens to it once ogb won't work inside of a PoS ?
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#732 - 2012-11-09 01:37:23 UTC
Grombutz wrote:
RORQUAL anyone ? what happens to it once ogb won't work inside of a PoS ?

The same thing that happens to them when POS's no longer have shields. Smile

But in the short term, the answer is that they are aware of this concern and are working on a viable solution to the issue.

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

ParkRanger Bill
Parks 'n Wrecks Wildlife Management
#733 - 2012-11-09 01:56:19 UTC
I'm all for getting warfare link modual ships on the field. Sitting around and boosting in a system is kindof lame. The issue is, while it's great you'll be able to get combat ships out there... what about le orca's and rorquals... there would need to be some interesting modifications to these if they were to work outside of a POS. I'd personally love to see the rorqual more useful in the field.
Nemesis Bosseret
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#734 - 2012-11-09 02:15:32 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
First finally :) Lol Damn second Oops

[quote=Some BIGSHOT DEV]
•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



Honestly i dont get why they are trying to nerf any of the T1 BCs, Drakes, myrms, Harbs, hurricanes are all relatively balanced to begin with, Maybe the drake has too much shield tanking ability with it being capable to run lvl 4s missions but its DPS horribly sucks in compairison to other BC's which should make up for its buff on tank. All of the base line battlecrusers massively suck except the cyclone which suprisingly is doing alot better. If anything they should be the target of the rebalancing and targeting T3 crusers with there ability to everything better than anything. Base line battlecrusers should be tough as hell while the Tier 2 battlecrusers should be the primary grunt pvp ship while Tier 3s are the speed tanked dps boats.... this slot number change is also very disturbing, why take away fromt the slot count? that nerfs all of them riddiculously and takes away from versitility... plus anyone who thinks they should shield tank a harb for solo pvp is a moron i can see the lack of tank being kinda disturbing going in a shield fleet but its an amarr ship and thats the price you pay to go all gank. i agree with giving a buff instead of nerf, like quoted above but if anything buff the hell outta command ships while leaving the standard battlecrusers for the most part alone except minor tweaks... my opinon of course but pretty sure there is alot of people who get conforable flying a certain way then CCP comes out completely wrecks hell on it... The nerfs are getting old, instead of limiting our options why not expand them with more ships modules or maybe go into making T3 battlecrusers or more T2 battlecruser instead of messing with something that isnt broken.
Kuroi Kenjin
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#735 - 2012-11-09 03:03:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Kuroi Kenjin
My opinion on the rebalancing in general is good, but I think there is a slight amiss on the battlecruisers. Tier 1 definately needs some love. Tier 3 was pretty much designed with this rebalance in mind. Tier 2 though, I think are almost ok. The Harbringer and the Mrymadon look ok, but granted I haven't gotten into one, so I don't have a comment on those.

The Drake is most definately over tanked. I threw a first standard fit together with dual Large Shield Extender IIs, and I get 80K EHP. My Mealstrom has 76K ehp. There's something wrong with that. It has 18 slots, just like the Hurricane and the Harbringer. I think the issue is that it has too much CPU to fit multiple Large Shield Extender IIs. Damage is lame, but tracking issues don't apply.

The Hurricane is the jack of all trades, but like the jack of all trades it has little specialty aside from slightly higher base speed than the other BCs (Drake in second). it can armor tank, but lacks the resists of the Harbringer. It can somewhat shield tank. It can speed tank, but has a very hit-able signature radius. It really is only popular for being flexible. Since it has 18 slots. I can't think of a slot that would be dropped yet make it a useable ship.



Oops, I think I mean reduce the Drake Powergrid...not CPU. 1K MW is a bit high
NinjaStyle
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#736 - 2012-11-09 03:28:48 UTC
I've been likeing the smaller ship changes so far but the BCs realy don't all that good since the new BCs where surposed to be high mobility, high dmg and lower sig in order to allow them to engage ships mutch larger in size more effeciently (even thoe they are pretty mutch failing this task since a support fleet too easily counters a fleet of these ships)

So... the Naga, Talos, Oracle and Tornado are gonna lose two of their main Intended bonuses? ....... derp? Well I guess it's fine since they could never do as they never where able to do as intended.....?

17 slots lock... Yeah... no wait... nice nerf. I was hopeing for more versatility in BCs not a completely fixed Tier 2 system...

Alot of BS's are good as is? well I guess that's somewhat fine seeing as you modled some of the Cruisers after them but it dossen't sound as proper balacing to ignore them becaus people use them allready... then again so far I guess that means they wont all be locked into Tier 2? well wait the Armageddon is allready good "as is" so maybe they will stay different in slots?

I have more worries than hope about the Larger size support fleet ships now after reading this Dev blog.

The Links Nerf I atleast Like.. so not evrything is makes me worry atleast!
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#737 - 2012-11-09 04:41:03 UTC
Grombutz wrote:
RORQUAL anyone ? what happens to it once ogb won't work inside of a PoS ?

Capital-sized command links for effect throughout the system.
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#738 - 2012-11-09 04:47:06 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Evil Vile wrote:
Is it really that beneficial to change the Typhoon completely? Yes, it took a lot of skills to use it to it's full extent, but that's what made it so great. It's versatility, and ability to be the swiss army knife of ships in both PvP and PvE set it apart from everything else! For the longest time I wished we had more ships like the Typhoon where it took some serious skill planning to get the most out of it, but I guess that's not how any ship will ever work again.

Jack of all trades, master of none. That is why people will pick another battleship over the Typhoon most of the time.

Then go and pick that another battleships, and I want Typhoon. This is a kind of poor-man Tech3 battleship - you opponents never know what you're going to do until you do it, and then it's too late. Versatility ftw!
Solj RichPopolous
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#739 - 2012-11-09 07:11:23 UTC
Confirming no ships changes will save MWD users. Also no ship changes will save them from 40 vs 5 blobs. Useless Big smile
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#740 - 2012-11-09 07:47:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Keko Khaan
CCP Fozzie wrote:
So about mindlinks..[list]

  • The fact that people are forced to use multiple jump clones or pop a new expensive implant every time they want to switch link types isn't something we like


  • I might be dreaming here but unpluggable implants would be so cool. I think it really sucks when you get stuck in wrong clone. Like for example you have been fighting with capital ship last night and you are in your full slave set clone. And that point your corp decides to go on t1 frigate suicide drunken roam. Your options are either not play or then you can fly your 500k isk rifter in your billion implants with drunken fc.

    There still would be use for jump clones for moving around new eden by clone jumping..

    Or then get rid off 24hr jump timer.. Make it few hours or something...