These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ricc Deckard
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#741 - 2012-11-09 08:41:23 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
...

We'll do the destroyer and battlecruiser skills in one batch, after the BC and BS rebalance is done.


Once again my question :)

Will BS IV as a prequisite for carrier (instead of BS V) come in the same patch? Or will it be later?

Please give me a hint on that Big smile
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#742 - 2012-11-09 08:50:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
+1 for allowing pilots to switch implants (perhaps only hardwirings) without having to use a jump clone.
Lady Naween
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#743 - 2012-11-09 09:04:31 UTC
Kara Vix wrote:
Lady Naween wrote:
As someone with all leadership skills to 5 all I can say is:

YAY!!!!!! thank you thank you thank you!!!

Offgrid boosting is so boring it isnt funny, and cant wait to be able to dps in my sexy damnation! ROAR!!!!!


But unless that sexy ship gets some serious bonus to tank, you will be boosting for a very short time before it becomes a sexy wreck and you a sexy frozen corpse. I would think the first target priority will be the on grid booster and it wouldn't take much to dust it. Just my opinion.



not at all. I have used the damnation a lot. Then again we are not part of 0.0 blobfests :)
Robert Fish
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#744 - 2012-11-09 09:25:47 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
+1 for allowing pilots to switch implants (perhaps only hardwirings) without having to use a jump clone.


No don't mess up the implant market, how will I earn my iskies?

+1 for addition of multi bonused mindlink.
Othran
Route One
#745 - 2012-11-09 09:32:22 UTC
Not that I care much as I can use all Command Ships, but the Amarr CS look worryingly like the new FoTM after these changes.

Armour and Skirmish bonuses to one ship? Huge armour boosts + sig res reduction + speed boost + point/scram boost?

I can see how siege and skirmish go together quite well but armour + skirmish looks OP to me.

I don't think you've thought this one through properly but on the off chance you HAVE, I've bought a few Amarr CS Smile
Tornii
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#746 - 2012-11-09 10:11:05 UTC
Really happy to see plans to make the Eos viable, and changes to other BCs/BSs are also welcome.
nikon56
UnSkilleD Inc.
#747 - 2012-11-09 10:58:12 UTC  |  Edited by: nikon56
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 would see a great improvement for the eos, update drone BW to 125Mb/s, replace the hybrid damage by drone bonuses (like myrm?).

and you have a solid platform for a sniping sentry command ship, able to be on grid (and need to since bonuses ships shall be on grid), giving it's link bonuses and taking active role in fights as a DPS support.

this one could engage at 100km range, so still at range for ceptors to catch him (don't add med slot so it shall be armor to make it fair)
this would require to give him more cpu (and maybe reduce it's powergrid to balance?)
and you have a solid command ship that perfectly fill his role
nikon56
UnSkilleD Inc.
#748 - 2012-11-09 11:15:14 UTC
Grombutz wrote:
RORQUAL anyone ? what happens to it once ogb won't work inside of a PoS ?

well i guess you will have to field it on the belt, so you can give bonuses, or keep it safe in the pos, loosing bonuses.

you invested on a ship that is made for low / null / wh mining, it shall take it's part of the risk.

actually, it's impossible to kill a rorqual unless the pilot screw up, it will stock to the pos and voila.

CCP could replace it by a pos array giving the same bonuses / functionnality, wouldn't change a thing to the actual situation.

this is a ship, it is not intended to stick to the pos while giving it's full potential
nikon56
UnSkilleD Inc.
#749 - 2012-11-09 11:21:20 UTC
Nemesis Bosseret wrote:
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.

i disagre about the drake DPS.

it as a bit too much tank, taht's right.
it's DPS is slightly less on paper, BUT it can apply it more efficiently.

this, combined to the HM and HAM upgrade incoming will solve the DPS side of the equation.

only it's tank shall then be balanced to align it to the others BC (wether it's tank is nerfed or the other BC tank is buffed doesn't matter to me, just balance it).

also, fix the drones.

why shall my dps die to sentrys? either make the sentry ignore drones, or make them also damage the weapons of other ships, balance it, drone boat are almost of no use in lowsec because of this stupid game mechanic
RoCkEt X
Hostile.
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#750 - 2012-11-09 11:38:08 UTC  |  Edited by: RoCkEt X
nikon56 wrote:
Nemesis Bosseret wrote:
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.

i disagre about the drake DPS.

it as a bit too much tank, taht's right.
it's DPS is slightly less on paper, BUT it can apply it more efficiently.

this, combined to the HM and HAM upgrade incoming will solve the DPS side of the equation.

only it's tank shall then be balanced to align it to the others BC (wether it's tank is nerfed or the other BC tank is buffed doesn't matter to me, just balance it).

also, fix the drones.

why shall my dps die to sentrys? either make the sentry ignore drones, or make them also damage the weapons of other ships, balance it, drone boat are almost of no use in lowsec because of this stupid game mechanic


drake fleet lol fleet; also - drones are fine... this is why you'll never see a domi coming through a PHEW cyno :)
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#751 - 2012-11-09 11:59:22 UTC
nikon56 wrote:
actually, it's impossible to kill a rorqual

lolwut?
If you have no idea how to use Rorqual, please refrain from commenting.
Jeremiah Kaiso
New Paradigm Inc.
#752 - 2012-11-09 12:40:44 UTC
Given that the Ravens problems are acknowledged to be with it using cruise missiles, when are cruise missiles going to be looked at and made useful outside of PvE?
h4kun4
Senkawa Tactical Division
Crimson Citadel
#753 - 2012-11-09 12:48:10 UTC
Suggestion for the Offgrid POS-Parked Command Ships:

Make all Warfare Link Modules unusable inside POS-Shield (Except Mining Links, the belt is not ne place for a Rorqual)
Standing ouside on a Safe is slightly more Dangerous than inside a POS, in warp you cant boost, so you have to burn around in the Middle of nowhere but being scaned down is still possible.

Second Suggestion:
if its possible with the grid mechanics, make it AoE to 1 AU...


This only on Grid workin is horrible for PvE boosters:
1. My Alt gets money, therefore my Mates hate me^^
2. When the AI is Changed, my alt is useless, because tanking enough in PvE and Boosting is quite hard (Get inside a Maze with a Boosting ship and new AI = Dead boosting ship) Ok, when you take logistics with you, you may survive^^
3. Incursion Boosters, God damnit my Mates will hate me for getting double money^^
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#754 - 2012-11-09 12:49:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
+1 for allowing pilots to switch implants (perhaps only hardwirings) without having to use a jump clone.


Bad idea I think, it'll increase the perception that implants are a "required" item without which you are seriously disadvantaged in combat.

Similarly, jump clone timers should not be decreased, as easy switching to a clone tailored for a specific combat doctrine would have the same effect.

The multi-bonused mindlink is a viable idea, IF the bonus is cut down to about 10%, instead of the absurd 50% it currently is.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#755 - 2012-11-09 12:50:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
nikon56 wrote:
actually, it's impossible to kill a rorqual unless the pilot screw up, it will stock to the pos and voila.


What?

Next time you're in game: try to move or warp with sieged capital (Rorqual's deployed mode works just like siege mode for dreads)...

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Industrial_Core_I
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rorqual
Undeadenemy
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#756 - 2012-11-09 12:59:25 UTC
Overall I like the changes, especially since after 5 years, CCP has decided to make Gallente desirable again.

Here are some suggestions for making the Gallente ships more viable:

Myrmidon: Allow the Myrmidon a 4th heavy drone, keep the drone bay size the same.

Eos: Allow the Eos to field 5 heavy drones again.

Dedicated Drone Boats:

1) In addition to the already implemented bonuses to drone hit points and damage, give a bonus to drone speed and agility, equivalent to having a Drone Navigation module fitted. This will allow drones to get on target faster and apply their damage.

2) Drop the weird drone control range mechanic, instead make the limitation the ships own locking range. For example, it makes no sense that Warden IIs by default cannot target out to their optimal range.

Command Ships/Link Tech 3 Bonuses:

I realize that keeping a ship in a POS or safe spot is not the intended way of using a link ship, and that something should be done about it in general. However, this also goes up there with the "AFK Cloaker in System" game mechanic, and should never be nerfed out of existence.

My Proposal for Fixing POS/Safe Spot Linking:

I've noticed that all the changes to linking proposed result in LESS bonus overall (even the Command Ships), instead of nerfing the bonuses across the board, swap the bonuses between Tech 3 and Command Ships: i.e. give the 5% bonus to command ships and the 3% bonus to Tech 3. Also, as a reward for putting the ships on the field, buff those bonuses by a decent percentage if the ship is on grid with the fleet.

Example:
Command Ship off-grid: 5% bonus
Command Ship on-grid: 7% bonus
Tech 3 off-grid: 3% bonus
Tech 3 on-grid: 5% bonus

OR:
Command Ship off-grid: 3% bonus
Command Ship on-grid: 5% bonus
Tech 3 off-grid: 2% bonus
Tech 3 on-grid: 3% bonus

(I like the first one better, but the second may be more reasonable)

This way, the ships still give very viable bonuses either way, but when on-grid, the extra 2% will allow a gang to push themselves just a little bit further. Some might say that 7% is too much, the exact amount can always be played around with to get to an acceptable level. What I don't want to see however is a gang with no possible way to perform at current levels with maxed bonuses and a mind-link, which is what we would get if the max bonus is 3%.
Blastassin
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#757 - 2012-11-09 13:06:35 UTC
I read through most of this and can't seem to grasp the answer.

If I have Destroyer V but only Minmatar Frigate trained it seems I'll get Minmatar Destroyer V... but do I get points reimbursed?

With Capitals if you only need Racial BS to IV if someone has BS V will that be reset to IV and the point reimbursed? (I don't fly capitals just trying to understand if points will be reimbursed to people who trained things to V only to fly another tier of ship.. ie T2 frigs, cruisers, ect..
Lord Eremet
The Seatbelts
#758 - 2012-11-09 13:12:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Eremet
My view of the proposed changes:


*Prophecy - Don't make it a Amarr Myrmidon, thats just silly. Make it a 'Abaddon'-like BC instead.

*Ferox - Make it a brawler, with one extra mid. Nobody uses it as a sniper now that we have Naga.

*Brutix - Fix armor tanking and you might fix the Brutix at the same time. Add one more low slot.

*Cyclone - Probably fine as is. But I'm interested in ideas.


*Harbinger - a bit more grid/cpu maybe, otherwise fine as is.

*Drake - Remove shield resistance boni and even the field for the other bc's. Controversial, I know.

*Myrmidon - See 'Brutix. Otherwise fine, I think. But don't nerf shieldregen Twisted

*Hurricane - OP bc that should have its powergrid reduced a bit. No more dual-neut shield setup and 425MM guns.



I'm just gonna list those proposed changes to battleships that I have a opinion about:

*Typhoon - Leave it alone!. Break fozzies fingers if you have to. There is nothing wrong with the jack-of-all-trades approach. That leaves people guessing until they get hit by it.

*Tempest - I liked the old Republik Fleet Tempst that had six mids and six lows, before that was scrapped for semi-useless armor tanking. Give the ordinary tempest six mids and six lows and let people be creative Cool

*Rohk - Does people really use it in PVP, seriously?

*Hyperion - It's getting old, but I say it anyway. Fix Armor tanking, and you fix the ship at the same time.


BTW, I can give fozzie kudos for nerfing the blatantly OP off-grid fleetbost. About time if you ask me.
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
#759 - 2012-11-09 13:29:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Claire Raynor
“Hurricane: counting CCP Fozzie’s adjustment to its fitting, the cruiser boost should reduce its over-the-top versatility, especially if battlecruisers slot layout is altered to 17 as mentioned above.”

Hi all – I’m excited about Tiericide as it will give us more ships to play with. But I am nervous about the above quoted statement, especially the part where we talk about reducing versatility.

To put it crudely and in an extreme way – If we reduce Versatility in the Hulls too much we might as well just get rid of {the ability to change} modules – because anything other than the cookie cutter fits will be Fail.

Versatile is fun. Limited and inflexible is not, (in my opinion). I’m not sure why Versatility is something we need to look at reducing. I acknowledge this might be naïve. But can someone indicate why we need to reduce versatility in Hulls? Please! Or at least how the reduced versatility might manifest itself.

I trust CCP and the Devs. This is just my only concern/confusion in an otherwise super exciting development!


{EDIT for Clarity}
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#760 - 2012-11-09 13:29:20 UTC
Lord Eremet wrote:


*Rohk - Does people really use it in PVP, seriously?


Nah