These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
MinefieldS
1 Sick Duck Standss on something
#841 - 2012-11-12 02:28:50 UTC
Msgerbs wrote:
Remind me why I trained Gallente? Everybody is getting drone boats in these new changes.

Don't worry, Gallente will get lasers soon.
Grath Telkin
SniggWaffe
WAFFLES.
#842 - 2012-11-12 04:29:44 UTC
ISD Suvetar wrote:
Cleaned up an off-topic real-world politics outbreak.

Please leave it out of here in the future, thanks!.

Ruiner

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.

Jita Shopper86
LAWL Corp
#843 - 2012-11-12 07:32:57 UTC
It's probably been answered but there's so many posts to go through and I can't seem to find this one post talking about the skills.

For the racial BC skills, will I get racial BC 5 as long as I have BC 5 and racial cruiser 3 after the skill change?
Odecules
KynetyK Corp
#844 - 2012-11-12 08:32:02 UTC
Jita Shopper86 wrote:

It's probably been answered but there's so many posts to go through and I can't seem to find this one post talking about the skills.

For the racial BC skills, will I get racial BC 5 as long as I have BC 5 and racial cruiser 3 after the skill change?

From Comment Page 4
CCP Fozzie wrote:

In that case you would get both racial battlecruiser skills to V.
You'll get exactly the same level of bonus to your ships after the skill change as you did before it, and since you only need the cruiser skills to 3 to fly those BCs and getting cruiser higher doesn't give bonuses to the BCs, any cruiser skill levels beyond 3 don't matter.

Antoine Jordan wrote:
So if I have Battlecruisers V and Amarr Cruiser III, after the patch I'll have Amarr Battlecruiser V, right? So that I can fly them to the same effectiveness I could before the patch.

This is correct.
piecakes's brother
Assasinated Zombies
#845 - 2012-11-12 08:53:40 UTC  |  Edited by: piecakes's brother
CCP Fozzie wrote:
ReK42 wrote:

It's still a nerf to the boost itself and, in the context of everyone talking about removing off-grid boosting, it should not be taken lightly. Please don't CCP this and nerf a very important mechanic from both ends.

So I want to make clear that we don't have a timeline for when pushing links ongrid will be possible. It won't be happening at the same time as these other listed changes.


Harvey James wrote:

An AOE range would be the way too go and make all CS brawlers


However, let's throw a brainstorming concept out here just for fun: What if gang links worked a lot like warp disruption spheres? Smile



Terrible idea.. like a warp distruption bubble?
So will others get aggression from there target flying into your bubble.....
So what you have small gang and targets are close enough in your "bubble" you are boosting them as well... FAIL
Jita Shopper86
LAWL Corp
#846 - 2012-11-12 10:35:07 UTC
Odecules wrote:
Jita Shopper86 wrote:

It's probably been answered but there's so many posts to go through and I can't seem to find this one post talking about the skills.

For the racial BC skills, will I get racial BC 5 as long as I have BC 5 and racial cruiser 3 after the skill change?

From Comment Page 4
CCP Fozzie wrote:

In that case you would get both racial battlecruiser skills to V.
You'll get exactly the same level of bonus to your ships after the skill change as you did before it, and since you only need the cruiser skills to 3 to fly those BCs and getting cruiser higher doesn't give bonuses to the BCs, any cruiser skill levels beyond 3 don't matter.

Antoine Jordan wrote:
So if I have Battlecruisers V and Amarr Cruiser III, after the patch I'll have Amarr Battlecruiser V, right? So that I can fly them to the same effectiveness I could before the patch.

This is correct.


Thanks
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
Desman Alliance
#847 - 2012-11-12 12:06:16 UTC
Ciba Lexlulu wrote:
I have question regarding skill training for Command Ship, ie, Combat Command vs. Fleet Command. Currently the two command ships require a slightly different skills. How would you handle the skill difference after there is no differentiation between these two ships? If currently I can fly Absolution, can I use Damnation post the skilling changes?

I'd like to see the answer for this as well.
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#848 - 2012-11-12 13:58:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Keko Khaan
Im starting to get tired of this game. All these nerfs and changes starting to make me sick. I dont know how long i can continue playing this game with all these game ruining changes and constant nerfs like NPC AI isk income nerf and drone nerf. So you guys can balance as much you want but it doesnt change the fact that you are breaking this game to annoyance level beyond...

Edit: Frustration typed that.. It wasnt me...
Lheticus Vox
Council Of Internal War
#849 - 2012-11-12 15:42:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Lheticus Vox
First off, apologies if these have been asked before but I am NOT looking through 40+ pages of forum thread. I am horrifically confused by the new skill requirements and have a number of questions.

1. The blog says if I could fly it before, I can after the patch, but it also says that the skill requirements for racial Cruisers are being changed to racial destroyers. I went straight from frigates to cruisers without even injecting the Destroyers skill, so what will happen? Will I really be able to fly the cruisers still?

2. I recently started training a second race of ships. In terms of cruisers, does this mean I will get racial skills for both racial cruisers I have skills for?

3. Come to think of it, currently battlecruisers have no skill requirement other than Spaceship Command 4, and the dev blog did not mention changing this. Does this mean I will get racial BC skills for ALL races at level 3, which is my current Battlecruisers skill level?

Thank you in advance, whoever addresses these questions.

--Lheticus
nikon56
UnSkilleD Inc.
#850 - 2012-11-12 15:50:07 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
YuuKnow wrote:


1. Its already mentioned that cruise missles and torps are poor performers at the moment and the Raven is seeing poor days. Why would you make another bship based on a weapon system (cruise missiles) that is a underperformer? Does adding a 2nd bship with the identical poor utilized weapons system (torps and cruise) add anything?

So because you don't value a particular weapon system and it may not be perfroming up to spec they should suddenly stop designing ships that use it instead of fixing the system in question and still designing ships that make use of it?


YuuKnow wrote:
2 The the cross training to make Typhoons work well wouldn't make sense. Players would train gunnery and projectiles all the way up, but at the bship level would then need to switch to a completely different weapon type where all the previous skills are wasted.

Here's a shocker: Most minmatar ships are designed around split weapons systems. Nearly all of them have a combination of Gun and Missile hardpoints. If you've trained up to BS sized guns while ignoring all the other missile systems its only your own fault. By the time you can fly a minnie BS you would be well served to have skills in both sets to fully use each and every ship that Minmatar has to offer.

sorry but no, just no.

on all the other ships minmatar, the Missiles slots are meaningless, and the end up filled with utility modules such as smartbombs or neuts / vamp.

so it is understandable that a matar pilot doesn't skilled up missiles because the missile side of the matar ships are only used on to ships ATM: typhoon and hound.

would you say the same to a gallente pilot, since gallente boats also packs missile capacity (like matar tho, only a few useless slots)

nikon56
UnSkilleD Inc.
#851 - 2012-11-12 15:54:36 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Oblivion Maximus wrote:
Faction Crusier about to become worthless ?

Best guess on what they will drop too... I am guessing price drop by 50% once new crusiers hit.....

Reason.. New t1s are Better in most cases then Navy version...

Edit: Added your subject to your comment so I can merge this to the right topic. - ISD Suvetar


And then later on the Navy cruisers will be rebalanced. They're a lower priority since they're not exactly a popular class of ships, even compared to cruisers which aren't themselves terribly popular especially compared with how often they should be used.

not popular? i see some very popular: stabber fleet and navy omen
ho and vigilant / cynabal too, on the pirate side
LordJohnn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#852 - 2012-11-12 17:54:09 UTC
well,

i fly only caldari ships and in my 3 year eve experience caldari ships are only for farming isk, maybe for big fleets and most certainly not for solo pvp, from my point of view all caldari ships are the weakest ...

now after missile change thay will be possibly more weaker ...

ferox ... leave resist and do something useful with optimal range (5% damage be nice)

drake ... yes shild tank su.. pretty much, and the problem is in shild base resistance, shild have ~110% but armor ~130%

and please CCP stop nerf caldari ships ... missiles are not that scary :D
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#853 - 2012-11-12 17:59:38 UTC
piecakes's brother wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
ReK42 wrote:

It's still a nerf to the boost itself and, in the context of everyone talking about removing off-grid boosting, it should not be taken lightly. Please don't CCP this and nerf a very important mechanic from both ends.

So I want to make clear that we don't have a timeline for when pushing links ongrid will be possible. It won't be happening at the same time as these other listed changes.


Harvey James wrote:

An AOE range would be the way too go and make all CS brawlers


However, let's throw a brainstorming concept out here just for fun: What if gang links worked a lot like warp disruption spheres? Smile



Terrible idea.. like a warp distruption bubble?
So will others get aggression from there target flying into your bubble.....
So what you have small gang and targets are close enough in your "bubble" you are boosting them as well... FAIL


no no no... read the word like its an important distinction that says the concept would work in a similar way but not exactly the same.
i.e. its a invisible bubble that doesn't interact physically more of a if your fleet members are within this range they get boosted.

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

Mercury24
Parroto Social Club
#854 - 2012-11-12 18:11:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Mercury24
Since some people still seem to be confused on the matter, I have made a flowchart of the way the skills will be distributed. If this is blatantly wrong I pray that CCP Fozzie will show mercy on me and only give me a minor lashing and that he will make a chart that is better in every way. If I am right, please refer all who cannot figure this out to the following link:

http://imgur.com/2gJnP

I hope this either clears this up or makes somebody smarter than I clear it up farther (Looking at you CCP Fozzie Blink )
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#855 - 2012-11-12 19:13:52 UTC
How much lead time can we expect before a go date?

Please can the first post be edited/updated with relevant data? It's a nightmare paging though every page for a nugget of dev info Sad
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#856 - 2012-11-12 20:22:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Keko Khaan wrote:
Im starting to get tired of this game. All these nerfs and changes starting to make me sick. I dont know how long i can continue playing this game with all these idiotic changes and constant nerfs like NPC AI isk income nerf and drone nerf. So you guys can balance as much you want but it doesnt change the fact that you are breaking this game to annoyance level beyond...


My problem with it, a lot of changes or potentially there are going to be changes to established gameplay mechanics (and not just minor tweaks to them) not even in response to emergent gameplay but because CCP decides they need to change something for whatever reason. For a game like Eve you need to have long term goals and working towards them it gets a bit tiresome when several times you put a lot of effort and training time into something only for CCP to change it drastically just as you almost get there or just as you get there.

Its happened to me so many times that even if its not actually happening I'm getting hesitant to make long term plans for anything just due to the highish chance that it will all be for nothing. Looking at the proposed ganglink changes (and rumours) some good stuff in there but also a lot of fairly big changes that appear to have been done purely for changes sake some of which drastically impact on how I've been playing and things I've been working towards for as far as I can see no good reason. Depending on how some of these pan out in reality when the relevant patches come I can potentially see myself quitting the game as its just not fun to play any more.
Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#857 - 2012-11-12 21:29:28 UTC
There goes CCP dictating how its players operate in-game again re: Command-type ships potentially being forced on-field. Sandbox game-play, my left nut.

Also, what's to keep the mega blobs who can drop "big assets" on-field and consistently / instantly obliterate their opponents command ships thereby rendering the mega blobbers that much more effective in combat? I have been around long enough to make and hear all of the arguments regarding counter-blobbing and bringing in other powerful allies, but this proposed Command ship change creates a situation where the smaller guys are yet again at a greater disadvantage than those that they may oppose.

Lastly, what is the justification for nerfing (reducing bonus value) an aspect of gameplay for which many pilots have spent upwards 1.5 years training to be fully effective?

+++++++ I have never shed a tear for a fellow EVE player until now. Mark “Seleene” Heard's Blog Honoring Sean "Vile Rat" Smith.

MOL0TOK
NOCTURNAL TORTURE
#858 - 2012-11-12 23:53:37 UTC  |  Edited by: MOL0TOK
WHAT IS THE FOOLISHNESS???Evil

Why because someone installs 425mm autocannons with dual medium energy neutralizer on personal ship, I now can not equip 720mm artillery? Why Sleipnir with two X-large anchilary shield boosters laughing at all other command ships?

Simply increase the powergreed requirements of autocannons and not invent this foolishness! Is not necessary in connection with the stupid energy neutralizers turn Hurricane into a cruiser!

Why, if Drake can installed together heavy missile launchers and large shield extenders, we cut damage of heavy missile rocket?

Simply increase the powergreed requirements of heavy missile launchers and not invent this foolishness!
Let it will be possible to have an existing damage with slow protection or more damage with the assault missile launchers and a short range but with a high protection. Other ships do not must suffer because Drake is unballanced.

Why, if Tengu have uncompromisingly powerful damage bonuses (5% damage and 7,5% ROF per skill level), which make it stronger then Nighthawk for all parameters, we cut damage of heavy missile rocket?

Simply reduce the damage bonuses of Tengu to 5% damage and 5% ROF per skill level as other t2 or t3 cruiser size ships and not invent this foolishness!
Obtain infernal ship if you increase assault missile damage with existing bonuses 5% damage and 7,5% ROF per skill level. Other ships do not must suffer because Tengu is unballanced.

Don't try to balance this with perverse ways!Sad

Бил, бью и буду бить! / to Kerzhakoved /

Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
#859 - 2012-11-13 00:22:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Milton Middleson
Start at page one.

Take a drink every time some illiterate asks what is going to happen to their battlecruisers skill.

Take a shot every time Fozzie repeats himself with regard to how the skill changeover is going to work.
Grenn Putubi
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#860 - 2012-11-13 01:57:37 UTC
What skill tree looks like currently:
racial frigates x2 lvl4 - racial cruisers x5 lvl4 - racial battleships x8 lvl5 - racial captial ships x12+
____lvl3\ destroyers x2____lvl3\ battlecruisers x6

What the skill tree CCP is proposing looks like:
racial frigates x2 lvl4 - racial destroyers x2 lvl4 - racial cruisers x5 lvl4 - racial battlecruisers x6 lvl4 - racial battleships x8 lvl4 - racial cap ships x12+

By making Destroyer and Battlecruiser skills a requirement for the next size of ship you're increasing the total training time necessary to get to any hull past a Destroyer. It may not be by much if you really specialize, but it's still an increase. Also, by not changing the training time modifier you're effectively giving older players millions of free skill points while forcing new players to pigeon whole themselves into a specific race of ships with very little room to make adjustments in their skill plans if they happen to not like the race they've initially chosen. Given how difficult it is to bring a new player into EVE in the first place with how steep the learning curve is, do you really want to make things even more confining to a new player? I'd think you'd be looking for ways to make new players able to experience a wider variety of ships and game play instead of making them feel force to abandon a large portion of their already paid for skill points just to try another race's ships. More options faster should be your goal, not more options slower.

Besides that you're changing the whole idea behind Destroyers and Battlecruisers from being an extremely combat oriented variant of a Frigate or Cruiser class ship into them being some sort of stepping stone between the Frigate and Cruiser classes. Destroyers use Frigate class modules. Battlecruisers use Cruiser class. There's very little rationalization for having to learn to pilot a specialized Frigate before being able to learn to use a basic Cruiser. We don't need to learn to pilot Interceptors or Assault Ships before we can learn Cruisers, why should we need to learn Destroyers? The extremely combat oriented ships should branch off each other with basic class skills as secondary skills required since they don't get any benefit from actually having the associated class skill. Even the T2 variants of Destroyers and Battlecruisers, Interdictors and Command Ships, don't get a bonus for having the associated racial basic skill even though they require lvl5 in the skill to pilot. With the intended changes to the skill trees I'm guessing that Interdictors and Command Ships won't require the basic class skills but will instead only require the racial Destroyers or Battlecruisers skills at lvl5 to pilot, while still requiring the current secondary skills required such as Heavy Assault, Logistics, or Interceptors at lvl4.

With all of that in mind I'd like to propose the following skill progression for consideration:

racial frigates x2 lvl4 - racial cruisers x5 lvl4 - racial battleships x8 lvl4 - racial captial ships x12+
____lvl4\ racial destroyers x2 lvl4 - racial battlecruisers x5 (req lvl3 racial cruiser as 2ndary)

By lowering the training time modifier on Battlecruisers you'll be reducing both the amount of free skill points that older players will be getting and the time necessary for new players to experience combat in the ship class that is widely considered the backbone of any pvp fleet. Being given a frigate and told to be a scout or just follow along by a more experienced player may be fun the first few times, but getting on a killmail without being used as fodder by the older players is what most new players are really interested in.