These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Fifty-Nine Down

First post
Author
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
Siberian Squads
#101 - 2012-11-15 09:29:56 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:

That's not enough to justify flying Battleships over convenient tech1/tech2 stuff in medium-sized class. Damage difference is not high enough.

That is because the Raven is short a Launcher and the Typhoon is short 2 Launchers. They should focus there.

Fon Revedhort wrote:

No.

I personally used them to PvP with Typhoon (+fleet issue), Navy Scorpion, Golem. They are pretty different from regular Raven. Rattlesnake can be fitted with them as well. So it's quite a bunch of ships.

* Typhoon is being made a full line Missile Ship so that fix's that. But current try fitting LR Weapons to any other ships with a split weapons system, see many Artillery Cyclones around lately?
* Navy Scorp could also get a 7th launcher.
* Golem is a Marauder with an 8 unbonused launcher equiv. You want to use it for long ranger weapons? How many Artillery Vargurs, Rail Kronos and Beam Pally's do you see wandering around? LR weapons barely if at all work in PvP on the ones with Dmg bonuses, this one does not have one.
* Rattlesnake is a Drone Boat Primarily so how many PvP Rail Domi's do you see? Maybe they could change all Guristas to a Dmg Role Bonus, 4 unbonused weapons, no Battleship pulls off effective range weapons with that, that isn't Cruise Missiles Fault.

The Missiles are fine, the number of Launchers are short.

Come on, everyone knows missiles don't fit into this close-range/long-range sheme. I see LR drakes and tengues on a daily basis LOL. So let's compare apples to apples, that is - missiles to missiles.

Atm cruise battleships don't provide substancial damage increase over HML drakes, NHs and Tengues and the incoming patch will not be enough to change that. Suggesting to add launchers will just make Torp setups really devastating and I doubt that's something anyone wants.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

Alara IonStorm
#102 - 2012-11-15 09:38:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Fon Revedhort wrote:

Come on, everyone knows missiles don't fit into this close-range/long-range sheme. I see LR drakes and tengues on a daily basis LOL. So let's compare apples to apples, that is - missiles to missiles. Atm cruise battleships don't provide substancial damage increase over HML drakes, NHs and Tengues and the incoming patch will not be enough to change that.

Drake 7 Launchers + Dmg / Tengu 5-6 Launchers with a 5% Dmg and a 7.5% RoF / Nighthawk which isn't so hot, 6 Launchers, 5% Dmg, 5% RoF and being buffed. Take away the Drakes 7th Launcher or the Nighthawk's RoF Bonus see how great they fare.

So again Raven is short Cruise Missile Dmg because it is short a Launcher, not the Missile. Typhoon has 5 Launchers so Cruise Missiles not really realistic like at all, when they make it a real missile ship then maybe.

Fon Revedhort wrote:

Suggesting to add launchers will just make Torp setups really devastating and I doubt that's something anyone wants.

Lol. Yeah because Torp CNR's are just tearing it up right?
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#103 - 2012-11-15 09:46:34 UTC
Ludiah wrote:
I noticed that you didn't cover the un-needed nerf to the Hurricane in this 'balance' post.

The PG nerf on the Hurricane is much needed. It is can fit anything without having to sacrifice a single module/rig to boost its power grid like the rest of the battle cruisers.

Sorry, but no ship should be able to have its cake and eat it too.
Alara IonStorm
#104 - 2012-11-15 09:54:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Marlona Sky wrote:

The PG nerf on the Hurricane is much needed. It is can fit anything without having to sacrifice a single module/rig to boost its power grid like the rest of the battle cruisers.

I would have preferred they added a 7th Turret and changed the RoF Bonus to Tracking then moved a Low too a Mid make it a full Shield Ship.

Slightly less Dmg, no Duel Neut, no 1 DCU, 2 TE, 2 Gyro, 1 Nano low slot mix, you have to choose to lose one.

After that it would just be a factor of Armor Balance for the non shield ships and Tiericide.
Mors Magne
Terra Incognita
#105 - 2012-11-15 10:50:31 UTC
This is all really good, BUT 'walking in stations' should be developed in addition to improvements with ships.

Exploring abandoned space stations and hollow asteroids would be awesome.

If this needs to be done in DUST then so be it, but it needs to be done.
Johnny Aideron
Order of Rouvenor
#106 - 2012-11-15 11:09:59 UTC
Just so we're clear here: You're rebalancing shuttles, right?
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
#107 - 2012-11-15 11:57:31 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
...The Coercer is a supremely effective laser platform with both tracking and optimal range bonuses, but it was afflicted with only one mid. We’re moving a low to a mid, so you can choose to fit a point or keep the dedicated DPS role by fitting a tracking computer. The Coercer also benefits significantly from a reduction in small laser fitting requirements....

Loss of low translates into a major dps hit, counter to the "dedicated dps" role.
Loss of low translates into a major variation hit as everything but eWar goes there.
Loss of low translates into a major mobility hit as it is where speed/agility mods reside.
Etc.

Should have taken a high instead of a low, meets all targets and solves all issues with zero drawbacks. Amarr ship having same layout as the filthy Gallente hull is heresy .. do you know what we Amarr do with heretics?

It does benefit rather greatly from increased fittings and laser reductions, but no where near enough to make up for the pigeon holing it will experience with just three lows .. lets hope the newcomer can pick up the slack left when Coercers are retired en masse after it settles into the obvious beam FoTM (wont have tank (lows, go figure!) for anything else).
Ludiah
GOTTEG Mining and Industrial Union
#108 - 2012-11-15 12:09:58 UTC
It's quite obvious people responding to my post haven't a clue what I was trying to get at; at least from their responses. So I'm working on a longer set of posts to go into more detail on *why* it's a bad idea to go so far with this nerf before seeing how the Hurricane will act in relationship to all the other ships. Since they aren't totally nerfing the Drake to oblivion like they are the Hurricane it's obvious that they don't *have* to do it now.

The name of the game is patience NOT jumping to conclusions like this nerf is. I'll go into more detail when I finish my response and make sure I've proof-read it.

Sm Aoki
Big Fish Trading Group
#109 - 2012-11-15 12:30:58 UTC
Awesome.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#110 - 2012-11-15 12:41:48 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
So Cruise Missiles are left behind for further expansions/patches?


Fury missiles get higher damage and better application Big smile
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#111 - 2012-11-15 12:45:24 UTC
Sgt Napalm wrote:
Sheynan wrote:
Look here:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=168820&find=unread

I'm not sure why this wasn't included in the DevBlog


This is pretty important. Fozzie, update teh blog dude.

Done. My bad.

Haifisch Zahne wrote:
The Corax will have a kinetic misile dmg bonus, now unlike all other Caldari missile boats? Odd.

Otherwise, happy happy, joy joy! The proof is in the pudding, but these seem good. (What do I know?)

We're removing the kinetic only bonus on some, but not all of the Caldari ships.

Ila Gant wrote:
Nirnaeth Ornoediad wrote:
If the Micro Jump Drive (MJD?) works in bubbles, how will gate camps ever catch anyone? With no need to align, and nothing able to point with a Scram at 100km from gate (or even 85km from a gate), it's just jump gate, MJD, align, warp away. You just made an invulnerable blockade runner.

I saw MJD and the only thing that popped into my head is "Michael Jackson Dance"

"Yeah, my Apoc moonwalked out of that bubble." Come to think of it, the MJD really should jump directly backwards.

I'm never going to be able to think about them in any other way. Thanks a lot. P

I'm Down wrote:
Did you guys consider removing warping on grid as a means of enhancing the use of Micro Jump Drives (MJD)

Nothing is changing with on grid warping in Retribution. We are investigating some ideas but they would much more likely end up changing the minimum warp distance rather than completely removing on grid warping.

I'm Down wrote:

Did you guys remember to make them unusable to capital ships?

Yeah we triple checked. MJDing Titans would not be a good thing.

Arronicus wrote:

With that aside, you (CCP dev blog writers) have DIRECTLY stated that there will be no changes or rebalancing to a number of battleships, as you think they are perfect, and then in this post, you have said ALL ships in eve will be rebalanced.

We never said there would be no changes to any ship, although for quite a few ships the role may stay the same. There's an important distinction there.

Arronicus wrote:

Also, how do you plan to rebalance freighters and jumpfreighters? Will we ever finally see any module fitting ability on freighters?

Everything will be getting close looks. There's some stuff we know we want to change with freighters and that list may get added to, although I can't promise module fitting.

Fon Revedhort wrote:
So Cruise Missiles are left behind for further expansions/patches?

Yep, we can only get so much done in each patch so we are leaving the specific focus on Cruise missiles until we also hit battleships.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#112 - 2012-11-15 12:50:20 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Arronicus wrote:

Also, how do you plan to rebalance freighters and jumpfreighters? Will we ever finally see any module fitting ability on freighters?

Everything will be getting close looks. There's some stuff we know we want to change with freighters and that list may get added to, although I can't promise module fitting.


Five bucks says this means you plan to nerf freighter ganking.
Pinky Denmark
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#113 - 2012-11-15 13:00:51 UTC
Lucius Demeter wrote:
CCP Fozzie, i notice on the Devblog you mention it is your birthday on the 15, amazing! so is mine! cheers to you sir!


Maybe you are twins??

Nice devblog, however I find it amazing that important buffs to ships like Vexor and Caracal slot layouts are not mentioned...
Creat Posudol
German Oldies
#114 - 2012-11-15 13:05:05 UTC
Adriel Malakai wrote:
Five bucks says this means you plan to nerf freighter ganking.


That's a loaded question (or bet, whatever). You can interpret pretty much anything that is flexible as a nerf.
Let's assume freighters do get some fitting ability, say two lowslots each, and a somewhat corresponding change to their stats. By that I mean a bit less cargo and armor for example.
You can argue that now freighters are possible that can't be ganked that easily. omgNERF! But you could also say that any freighter not specifically fit to withstand a gank (i.e. +armor or +resists, maybe even a AR can become viable) will be easier to gank. Anyone who has some sense should of course fit for resilience and not cargo capacity as soon as valuable cargo is carried, but we all know that isn't gonna happen on every freighter.

And yes, freighters should get some form of fitting ability. At least to SOME degree... Having no way to customize a ship in EVE for a purpose is just stupid.
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies
Joint Venture Conglomerate
#115 - 2012-11-15 14:40:58 UTC
Will insurance values of the lower tier ships get updated to more accurately reflect their post tierside costs?

Fear God and Thread Nought

Kip Troger
System lords Collective
#116 - 2012-11-15 15:21:58 UTC
I really hope that the new drone officer modules means that they will have the possibility to drop in all the exploration drone sites as well. These sites have been mostly a waste of time in the past...
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#117 - 2012-11-15 15:39:42 UTC
Adriel Malakai wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Arronicus wrote:

Also, how do you plan to rebalance freighters and jumpfreighters? Will we ever finally see any module fitting ability on freighters?

Everything will be getting close looks. There's some stuff we know we want to change with freighters and that list may get added to, although I can't promise module fitting.


Five bucks says this means you plan to nerf freighter ganking.



I've got an idea how they should do it.

sure, you could fit a DCII and bulkheads, but that'll slow you down more, and need you to be ATK.

How many people would just fit 2 EC2's (to get the current capacity with how I'd do it). Or 2 nanos/istabs to get into warp faster?

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#118 - 2012-11-15 15:43:18 UTC
Adriel Malakai wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Arronicus wrote:

Also, how do you plan to rebalance freighters and jumpfreighters? Will we ever finally see any module fitting ability on freighters?

Everything will be getting close looks. There's some stuff we know we want to change with freighters and that list may get added to, although I can't promise module fitting.


Five bucks says this means you plan to nerf freighter ganking.


That really would be nice thing as freighters are too easy to suicidegank atm. They melt like butter under those T3 BC large guns.. They really need to get buffed.. Reason why im not buying one is that they are so easy to gank that theres no point with that 1,4billion hull cost.
deepos
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#119 - 2012-11-15 15:49:04 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Armor Resistance Phasing should be -10% cap usage (instead of 5%), -10% cycle time per level.

The cap usage is way out of line even with the current -5% cap usage per level. Here are some numbers:

Reactive Armor Hardener: -6.3 cap/sec
T2 armor hardener: -1.5 cap/sec
T2 shield hardener: -2 cap/sec
T2 Invulnerability Field: -3.2 cap/sec

Most armor tanking ships are much more cap dependant than shield tanked ones also.



Agree with this 100%


Fozzie, when you'll update us with the armor rebalance, please think also about the above !! Smile
Reicine Ceer
K-A-O-S theory
#120 - 2012-11-15 15:52:51 UTC
Another fantastic devblog - thank you CCP for keeping us in the loop! It is very much appreciated.

Loved all the changes, very much looking forward to giving them a try.

Could i make a suggestion? Cheers.
This chart - once completed and filled in with all the ships, would make an excellent addition to the New Player Experience. I often found myself trawling through the market for ages, trying to figure which ship i wanted to use for a particular situation. This image is exceptionally useful and would definitely help to give new players a nice overall view of ships and their categories, etc.

Keep up the great work! Honestly can't wait for December now :3