These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Terik Deatharbingr
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#921 - 2012-11-19 22:20:26 UTC
Syri Taneka wrote:
The only thing I really want to comment on with this is in regards to the command ships and t3s.

1) Please don't take away our 5% per level bonuses altogether. Things are just a little more awesome with that extra 10% multiplicative-stacking bonus. Some of us spent much time training hard to be Warfare Link Gods. Possibly make CS' 4% or 5% per level bonus? (To further distance them from the versatile t3s.)

2) In regards to t3s, I *highly* approve of making their bonus weaker than CS' (again, some of us dumped a lot of time into getting CS 5 and all the other requisite skills to fly the things!). I'd also like to suggest/request a major skill change to t3 ships, specifically with regards to "specialized" sections, IE Warfare Links, Cloaking, EW, etc. Please consider making a skill requirement for these specific sections be the relevant t2 skill to at least 4, IE CS 4, Recon Ships 4, Recon Ships 4, etc.


Considering the current training time just to get into a CS.....second, think about this....

Currently saying you can already get into either a T3 or a CS and are not remapped or have implants...
T3
5% per lvl
25% aggregate
additional training time to be max boosting - 5 Days, 22 hours, 5 minutes

CS
3% per lvl
15% aggregate
additional training time to be max boosting - 47 Days, 8 hours, 40 minutes......

From scratch with no other skills, just enough to get in and get max boosting from hull....
T3 - 66 Days, 18 hours, 51 minutes
CS - 156 Days, 19 hours 52 minutes

NO reason that it should be that way.

As for people complaining about mindlinks and why have multiple bonuses on one command ship. This gives people versatility....most people who train leadership normally train it all, as well as all the racials. Since they are increasing skill requirements for cross training, this allows new players coming in to be multi-fuctional boosting in only one race.....cross training into a second race will allow them the versatility of all four options...rather than training 4 different races, which would be astronomical now. In essence this benefits newer players, as it should. Saves me from training all 4 races *well, 3* to lvl 5 cruisers. Bottom line, all these changes are so people don't HAVE to cross train every race in order to maximize their boosting capabilities. It's a logical step, as is nerfing T3's boosting ability.....as i started training boosting, my thought process was to train all T3's. Sure, they are more expensive...but a lot less training time for a lot more boosting...logic....
MOL0TOK
NOCTURNAL TORTURE
#922 - 2012-11-19 22:58:35 UTC  |  Edited by: MOL0TOK
http://eve.battleclinic.com/loadout/63002-1K-DPS-Tengu.html wtf? new cheat? I play as the Caldari but I can not understand this marasmus Evil. God, give mind to them!

Бил, бью и буду бить! / to Kerzhakoved /

Mr Dogg
Double-Down
#923 - 2012-11-20 00:09:20 UTC
Will you please take another look at BlackOps Battleships?

Plz, K, Thx.
I'm Down
Perkone
Caldari State
#924 - 2012-11-20 00:44:02 UTC  |  Edited by: I'm Down
In terms of the massive skill point increase for people who have all 4 cruiser and all 4 frigs at 5... Have you considered those of us who intentionally stopped just short of the next expensive ass clone? This is going to put us well over the cap. Or are the clone cost reduction changes going ahead with this patch.

If not, I'm going to be pretty pissed that I have to pay way more for every clone in the future and possibly forget to upgrade my clone (speaking for others here).

And just to give it a seperate line, how will clone upgrades be affected by this change. How many people do you think will go over their current clone limit, only to lose it pretty early w/o noticing and then lose some 80 day lvl 5 skill?

This sounds like a nightmare in the making.
rekina
Maladapted Tribe
Warlords of the Deep
#925 - 2012-11-20 21:09:08 UTC  |  Edited by: rekina
With link nerf - I somewhat agree that links were overpowered. The idea of only being ongrid, however, is going to kill those small gang pvpers. When enemies have better T2 battlecruiser link in their fleet with enough dps, tankle, logi, ecm while small gang likely have only dps without link because you simply don't have enough people to let them fly a link ship for compensate a dps - you are only encouraging a pvp of numbers.

We will start to estimate the outcomes of battles like this: "We have 3 BCs and they have 4 BCs. There is 0 chance of winning them because they have 1 more ship than us. Let's avoid this fight and keep our boring roam until we meet 3 or less enemies." "What if they run away from us because they had 1 less ship than us?" "Well, then we keep roam again."

Do not take the tiny chances away from us. We are the people who are tired of avoding fights and getting nothing from playing this game for hours a day. Let us fight the odds. We don't success that much, but more likely to fail. Nevertheless we would like to keep try. Otherwise you leave us only 2 options of being one of the blob pvp or quit the game.

As much as you care about those 0.0 power blocks pvpers, we are also one of the solid form of pvpers you should give a little damn to.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#926 - 2012-11-20 21:45:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
rekina wrote:
With link nerf - I somewhat agree that links were overpowered. The idea of only being ongrid, however, is going to kill those small gang pvpers. When enemies have better T2 battlecruiser link in their fleet with enough dps, tankle, logi, ecm while small gang likely have only dps without link because you simply don't have enough people to let them fly a link ship for compensate a dps - you are only encouraging a pvp of numbers.


How is that T3 in safespot going to contribute to dps?

Would that be better to have that T3 on grid if you don't have enough ships to begin with?
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#927 - 2012-11-20 22:02:59 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
rekina wrote:
With link nerf - I somewhat agree that links were overpowered. The idea of only being ongrid, however, is going to kill those small gang pvpers. When enemies have better T2 battlecruiser link in their fleet with enough dps, tankle, logi, ecm while small gang likely have only dps without link because you simply don't have enough people to let them fly a link ship for compensate a dps - you are only encouraging a pvp of numbers.


How is that T3 in safespot going to contribute to dps?

Would that be better to have that T3 on grid if you don't have enough ships to begin with?

Also, why does everyone always make those arguments like the other side isn't going to have their own booster with them? It's just a straw man argument to keep boosting overpowered.

Nerf off grid boosting and make people risk their booster alts and their ships. Unbalanced is hiding your booster in a safe spot while you sit in your gate camp and reap the benefits.

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

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

Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#928 - 2012-11-20 22:07:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
MOL0TOK wrote:
http://eve.battleclinic.com/loadout/63002-1K-DPS-Tengu.html wtf? new cheat? I play as the Caldari but I can not understand this marasmus Evil. God, give mind to them!


Enjoy it while it lasts. The Tengu's missile subsystem will get the nerf bat when CCP gets around to do T3s.

The Tengu gets a +100% dps bonus from the missile subsystem. The other T3s get only between 50% and 66% with the same number of turrets (except for the one Loki subsystem with split weapons).
rekina
Maladapted Tribe
Warlords of the Deep
#929 - 2012-11-20 23:38:28 UTC  |  Edited by: rekina
Maximus Andendare wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
rekina wrote:
With link nerf - I somewhat agree that links were overpowered. The idea of only being ongrid, however, is going to kill those small gang pvpers. When enemies have better T2 battlecruiser link in their fleet with enough dps, tankle, logi, ecm while small gang likely have only dps without link because you simply don't have enough people to let them fly a link ship for compensate a dps - you are only encouraging a pvp of numbers.


How is that T3 in safespot going to contribute to dps?

Would that be better to have that T3 on grid if you don't have enough ships to begin with?

Also, why does everyone always make those arguments like the other side isn't going to have their own booster with them? It's just a straw man argument to keep boosting overpowered.

Nerf off grid boosting and make people risk their booster alts and their ships. Unbalanced is hiding your booster in a safe spot while you sit in your gate camp and reap the benefits.


I don't care whether they have links or not. It gets little easier when they don't have, but either way I'm willing to deal with it. The problems here are 2 things.

1. Commandship is going to be stronger link than Tech3 links. This means even if offgrid links were allowed, larger fleet, which is the one likely will have commandship link, will overshadow the smaller fleet, which likely not to have commandership because they are already lacking dps. ex) in 3 men gang, 1 ship deals nearly 33% dps of the entire gang. This gang won't kill something without those 33% dps. So they must use offgrid Tech 3 link, which is worse than commandship = more number, better link. This should be at least effective as much as commandship is.

2. If offgrid link were prohibited, smaller gang doesn't have enough people to use ongrid commandship anyway, so the larger fleet has huge advantage over them.

Either cases we will have very little chance to fight them than now. Thus, the situation I have described happens. No one will fight under unfavorable situation, and the game gets even more boring. If you guys think you will not affected by this, you are thinking it wrong. You will lose a lot of small gangs you can probably gank as well. That's what I believe.
Shade Alidiana
PROSPERO Corporation
#930 - 2012-11-22 05:10:01 UTC
I've counted slots on all battlecruisers I'm flying, remembered what I thought of them while fittiong and I think 18 in total would be more pleasant.

I am a big BC lover, so this might hurt me.. And with 18 lots Ferox could solve its problems without any further changes (never flew Brutix as another listed BC). And thanks for Prophecy.
MOL0TOK
NOCTURNAL TORTURE
#931 - 2012-11-23 01:56:03 UTC  |  Edited by: MOL0TOK
and why now frigate Vengeance (which has a short-range attack!!!) has speed only like a cruiser Sacrilege ???? broken engine???Evil

Бил, бью и буду бить! / to Kerzhakoved /

kelmiler delbone
JSIG Holdings
Shattered Freeholds
#932 - 2012-11-23 18:01:00 UTC
if boosters are to be nerfed so that they will only take effect while on grid then its should work like a pooling system, ie the smaller the gang the better the effects, this at least makes it more even

Base off 20 to 30 man gang effects stay the same

El Geo
Warcrows
Shattered Foundations
#933 - 2012-11-23 18:11:19 UTC
kelmiler delbone wrote:
if boosters are to be nerfed so that they will only take effect while on grid then its should work like a pooling system, ie the smaller the gang the better the effects, this at least makes it more even

Base off 20 to 30 man gang effects stay the same



i like the sound of that, gives more scope for gang/fleet tactics and doesnt promote unhealthy blobbing
Mocam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#934 - 2012-11-24 11:22:13 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
In terms of the massive skill point increase for people who have all 4 cruiser and all 4 frigs at 5... Have you considered those of us who intentionally stopped just short of the next expensive ass clone? This is going to put us well over the cap. Or are the clone cost reduction changes going ahead with this patch.

If not, I'm going to be pretty pissed that I have to pay way more for every clone in the future and possibly forget to upgrade my clone (speaking for others here).

And just to give it a seperate line, how will clone upgrades be affected by this change. How many people do you think will go over their current clone limit, only to lose it pretty early w/o noticing and then lose some 80 day lvl 5 skill?

This sounds like a nightmare in the making.


Odd thought on some of this that just hit me...

What if... What if CCP were able to give the skills but no SP?

Just stuffs the new skills in if you have the prerequisites but without any skill point changes at all -- just 4-8 new skills at the appropriate levels.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#935 - 2012-11-24 12:42:13 UTC
Mocam wrote:
I'm Down wrote:
In terms of the massive skill point increase for people who have all 4 cruiser and all 4 frigs at 5... Have you considered those of us who intentionally stopped just short of the next expensive ass clone? This is going to put us well over the cap. Or are the clone cost reduction changes going ahead with this patch.

If not, I'm going to be pretty pissed that I have to pay way more for every clone in the future and possibly forget to upgrade my clone (speaking for others here).

And just to give it a seperate line, how will clone upgrades be affected by this change. How many people do you think will go over their current clone limit, only to lose it pretty early w/o noticing and then lose some 80 day lvl 5 skill?

This sounds like a nightmare in the making.


Odd thought on some of this that just hit me...

What if... What if CCP were able to give the skills but no SP?

Just stuffs the new skills in if you have the prerequisites but without any skill point changes at all -- just 4-8 new skills at the appropriate levels.


So, Destroyers 5 -> 4x Racial Destroyer 4 and Battlecruisers 5 -> 4x Racial Battlecruiser 4? No thanks.
josie haulet
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#936 - 2012-11-24 18:26:21 UTC  |  Edited by: josie haulet
i read and heard that the claymore is being turned into a missile boat, why? ...i trained caldari command ships up to use missiles...and the claymore in its place with 5 t2 425 ac and 3 ham is perfect for up close use...
so your nerfing this the same way you did the macherial ..cant you just leave the top slots open so we can decide which damn weapons we put in.....in changing the claymore to missiles only it will be pointless....just fly a caldari ship at that point...which why i trained caldari so i could use caldari command ships if needed

for minmatar ships have always been a mix of all types...now your trying to specify which ships do what.. the Sleipnir has always been a long range slow gun boat. the claymore has always been the closer range ac boat..with a few missiles as added extra...and im sure in the process of removing turrents from the claymore it will lose a weapon top slot like the macherial, so 7 missile launchers = a night hawk...don't we have one of those already.

i never understand why you just don't let us decide which weapons mods we put on a ship...
Mocam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#937 - 2012-11-24 21:37:45 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Mocam wrote:
I'm Down wrote:
In terms of the massive skill point increase for people who have all 4 cruiser and all 4 frigs at 5... Have you considered those of us who intentionally stopped just short of the next expensive ass clone? This is going to put us well over the cap. Or are the clone cost reduction changes going ahead with this patch.

If not, I'm going to be pretty pissed that I have to pay way more for every clone in the future and possibly forget to upgrade my clone (speaking for others here).

And just to give it a seperate line, how will clone upgrades be affected by this change. How many people do you think will go over their current clone limit, only to lose it pretty early w/o noticing and then lose some 80 day lvl 5 skill?

This sounds like a nightmare in the making.


Odd thought on some of this that just hit me...

What if... What if CCP were able to give the skills but no SP?

Just stuffs the new skills in if you have the prerequisites but without any skill point changes at all -- just 4-8 new skills at the appropriate levels.


So, Destroyers 5 -> 4x Racial Destroyer 4 and Battlecruisers 5 -> 4x Racial Battlecruiser 4? No thanks.


No - it would be the same system they have. If you qualify by having the skills, you get the new ones.

The difference being how many players are going "you get up to almost 7 million SP from this." - no SP adjustment (as the person I replied to is concerned about). Instead, all you would get are the replacement skills - with no SP adjustment (example: I have both at 5 -- 4 new skills each = 8 "replacement" skills for the 2 being removed.

With some suggested opinions on this, I'd go from my 67 mill SP to 74 mill. Instead, my SP doesn't change, just the number of skills I have goes up: From 242 to 248 -- minus 2, + 8 = 6 increase). -- no "free SP" from this.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#938 - 2012-11-24 22:09:44 UTC
Mocam wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Mocam wrote:
I'm Down wrote:
In terms of the massive skill point increase for people who have all 4 cruiser and all 4 frigs at 5... Have you considered those of us who intentionally stopped just short of the next expensive ass clone? This is going to put us well over the cap. Or are the clone cost reduction changes going ahead with this patch.

If not, I'm going to be pretty pissed that I have to pay way more for every clone in the future and possibly forget to upgrade my clone (speaking for others here).

And just to give it a seperate line, how will clone upgrades be affected by this change. How many people do you think will go over their current clone limit, only to lose it pretty early w/o noticing and then lose some 80 day lvl 5 skill?

This sounds like a nightmare in the making.


Odd thought on some of this that just hit me...

What if... What if CCP were able to give the skills but no SP?

Just stuffs the new skills in if you have the prerequisites but without any skill point changes at all -- just 4-8 new skills at the appropriate levels.


So, Destroyers 5 -> 4x Racial Destroyer 4 and Battlecruisers 5 -> 4x Racial Battlecruiser 4? No thanks.


No - it would be the same system they have. If you qualify by having the skills, you get the new ones.

The difference being how many players are going "you get up to almost 7 million SP from this." - no SP adjustment (as the person I replied to is concerned about). Instead, all you would get are the replacement skills - with no SP adjustment (example: I have both at 5 -- 4 new skills each = 8 "replacement" skills for the 2 being removed.

With some suggested opinions on this, I'd go from my 67 mill SP to 74 mill. Instead, my SP doesn't change, just the number of skills I have goes up: From 242 to 248 -- minus 2, + 8 = 6 increase). -- no "free SP" from this.


BC5 is 1536000 SP
1536000 / 4 = 384000
BC4 is 271000 SP
So I would get all racial battlecruisers at level 4.
But instead they would remove:
384000 - 271000 = 113000 SP
113000 * 4
= 452000 SP

The problem here is that BC5 is kinda needed if you want to put skill Command Ships to your skill queue.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#939 - 2012-11-24 22:22:28 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Mocam wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Mocam wrote:
I'm Down wrote:
In terms of the massive skill point increase for people who have all 4 cruiser and all 4 frigs at 5... Have you considered those of us who intentionally stopped just short of the next expensive ass clone? This is going to put us well over the cap. Or are the clone cost reduction changes going ahead with this patch.

If not, I'm going to be pretty pissed that I have to pay way more for every clone in the future and possibly forget to upgrade my clone (speaking for others here).

And just to give it a seperate line, how will clone upgrades be affected by this change. How many people do you think will go over their current clone limit, only to lose it pretty early w/o noticing and then lose some 80 day lvl 5 skill?

This sounds like a nightmare in the making.


Odd thought on some of this that just hit me...

What if... What if CCP were able to give the skills but no SP?

Just stuffs the new skills in if you have the prerequisites but without any skill point changes at all -- just 4-8 new skills at the appropriate levels.


So, Destroyers 5 -> 4x Racial Destroyer 4 and Battlecruisers 5 -> 4x Racial Battlecruiser 4? No thanks.


No - it would be the same system they have. If you qualify by having the skills, you get the new ones.

The difference being how many players are going "you get up to almost 7 million SP from this." - no SP adjustment (as the person I replied to is concerned about). Instead, all you would get are the replacement skills - with no SP adjustment (example: I have both at 5 -- 4 new skills each = 8 "replacement" skills for the 2 being removed.

With some suggested opinions on this, I'd go from my 67 mill SP to 74 mill. Instead, my SP doesn't change, just the number of skills I have goes up: From 242 to 248 -- minus 2, + 8 = 6 increase). -- no "free SP" from this.


BC5 is 1536000 SP
1536000 / 4 = 384000
BC4 is 271000 SP
So I would get all racial battlecruisers at level 4.
But instead they would remove:
384000 - 271000 = 113000 SP
113000 * 4
= 452000 SP

The problem here is that BC5 is kinda needed if you want to put skill Command Ships to your skill queue.



I (now) get what he means.

You just set the skill levels. You don't set the SP level higher. So you still have all the BCs at 5, but there's a disparity between how many skillpoints you have, and how many you /should/ have, if you add everything up.

Not sure it's a good idea, as it makes the dba in me cringe. But I guess it might work.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

CaptCommando
Infinite Improbable Industry Inc
Pandemic Horde
#940 - 2012-11-25 05:56:12 UTC
Ok, so if you have say BC and dessy skills at 5 all but racial cruiser and frig trained to 4 and racial for both at 5. would you get all BC and dessy skills at 5?