These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#121 - 2012-11-15 15:59:26 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
(some would say too harshly, but I have seen what a nano gang using apprporiate tactics can accomplish with little more damage available than what the Stabber will have).

Too small a niche with too high a skill barrier for a ship that will be the starting point for the youngest players IMO.

Here is the way they should have handled it.

Stabber:
Cruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret firing speed
7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff
Slot layout: 5 H (-1), 4 M (+1), 5 L (+2), 4 Turrets, 0 Launchers (-2)
Fittings: 715 PWG (+15), 340 CPU (+40)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1500(+15) / 1400(+150) / 1300(+11)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 1200(+137.5) / 427.5s(+46.25s) / 2.8(+0.01)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 260(+39) / 0.5(+0.02) / 11400000 / 5.3s (+0.2)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 47.5km(+7.5) / 320(+15) / 5
Sensor strength: 13 Ladar (+3)
Signature radius: 100 (-5)
Cargo capacity: 420

They should have drones replace the launchers, the speed lowered and an extra low added. That way you can choose whether you want more DPS (Gyro) or Speed (Nano / OD) Most important it opens the option to reasonably kite without Barrage with 2 TE's allowing newer players to use it before T2.

All and all they dropped the ball on the Stabber restricting it so much.


As always, your opinion is respected... and that would have worked as well.

I think what it is really going to boil down to is do people remember how to defend against lightly armed ships that have a strong speed advantage.

To you and I it might be a trivial matter to defend against a similar sized gang made up primarily of Stabbers, however if you think back there were an amazing number of people who could think of nothing else to do as a counter other than to huddle up in a group, missing repeatedly with their long range ammo, and dying one at a time as the swifter ships cut in quickly to do their attack runs (zooming back out before they took too much damage, rinse, repeat).

You could be right, and I certainly wouldn't object to the Stabber being beefed up a bit, but I don't blame them for wanting to see if it is neccessary in the wild first.

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

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#122 - 2012-11-15 16:06:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Sizeof Void wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

While I would not object to a larger emphasis being placed on speed for destroyers, I also understand that in most cases their way of dealing with kiting frigates is the ability to inflict large amounts of damage at considerable range.

This was the original design (which is why the class came with a range bonus), but it didn't work in practice. Frigs were able to easily stay out of range of the bonused guns. Dessies need to be able to catch their targets - via a speed advantage or, more preferably, via a web/scram range bonus.

Ranger 1 wrote:
Cruisers as a whole needed a speed increase.... They are a far cry from entering the realm of speed that required the nano nerfs...

Speed is relative. Decrease long gun/missile ranges, increase hit penalties vs. moving targets, nerf TEs, reducing tracking speeds, etc. and you don't need those speed buffs.

I'm just pointing out that increasing values across the board usually leads to problems. You increase speed - now the guns and missiles don't hit as well. So, you tweak up the missiles and guns to improve their ability to hit fast targets. Then, the guns and missiles are hitting too well, so you buff the ship speed again. Eventually, you end up with Stabs moving at 20+km/s. This is how the original speed problems occurred. Not in a single patch, but a series of upwardly biased balancing tweaks.

Ideally, after each round of balancing changes, your average delta over all changes (measured in percentage change, not absolute values) should be zero, or nearly so. If it is consistently positive, say +5% each round of tweaking, then you are going to run into power/speed creep problems, which will eventually break the game mechanics.


Actually, in practice the frigate usually dies long before it has a chance to pull range unless there are enough to overwhelm the destroyers. And frankly, if those frigates that survive the initial encounter have to stay well outside their engagement range to survive the destoyer has done it's job. It's also fairly obvious that if you are intent on killing everyone present, your destroyer needs to have some dedicated tacklers present, just like every other ship in the game.

The reason people don't use cruisers any more is due to problems created when their speed potential was OVER nerfed across the board. Yes, originally too many things stacked that were speed boost related (although frankly the main issue was that most people simply didn't know how to defend against typical nano gang tactics... it's not actually that hard to do). However things went a bit too far and the cruiser class as a whole fell into widespread disuse. There is nothing what so ever wrong with bringing their ability to speed tank up to a respectable level.

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

Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#123 - 2012-11-15 16:15:39 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
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?


You don't balance things around what stupid people will do. They'll need to seriously rebalance the shield/armor/hull hitpoints amounts, if they plan to add module slots. With the current values just the T2 DC would double their tank.
GALEN hocus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#124 - 2012-11-15 16:36:05 UTC
can any1 help me on how to get tech help with my eve coz iv made petitions to thm but still cant get no help[[[[ I CANT GET ON MY EVE GAME NO LAUNCHER NO NOTHINNNNN HELP CCP HELP]EvilEvilEvilEvilEvilEvilQuestionQuestionQuestionQuestionShocked
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#125 - 2012-11-15 16:48:08 UTC
Destination SkillQueue wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
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?


You don't balance things around what stupid people will do. They'll need to seriously rebalance the shield/armor/hull hitpoints amounts, if they plan to add module slots. With the current values just the T2 DC would double their tank.



https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2180120#post2180120

Drop capacity to 62% of current or so
Drop the number of structure points to 70% or so.
Increase base speed to 125% or so.
CPU 70
PG 2
2 low slots.

Yes, you can make it harder to gank. But you drop the capacity to do so.

I'd pretty much ignore shields and armour values. They're pretty negligible in comparison to structure.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#126 - 2012-11-15 17:12:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
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.

If so it really won't matter.
Freighter pilots will ALWAYS find a way to make suicide ganking them worth while.

I think even just adding the ability to rig a freighter would make things interesting.

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

AlexHalstead
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#127 - 2012-11-15 17:15:25 UTC
Okay since I want a Dev reply, I'm rephrasing my post earlier in this thread; Why have you not consider scaling back the shield repair amount for Ancillary Shield boosters? You are essentially getting the equivalent of TWO normal shield boosters for same fitting of a normal shield booster with no drawback whatsoever.

I mean basically if you need two *normal* shield boosters on a tank setup, you only need to get an ancillary shield booster of the same size and all you are paying for is...having two normal shield booster in one slot with the same fittings of a normal shield booster for a slighter better performance. And that's NOT taking in account the fact it can feed off booster charges.

So again, cannot the solution be a tweaking down amount of shield HP it heal instead of tweaking the cap booster aspect of it?
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#128 - 2012-11-15 17:29:10 UTC
AlexHalstead wrote:
Okay since I want a Dev reply, I'm rephrasing my post earlier in this thread; Why have you not consider scaling back the shield repair amount for Ancillary Shield boosters? You are essentially getting the equivalent of TWO normal shield boosters for same fitting of a normal shield booster with no drawback whatsoever.

I mean basically if you need two *normal* shield boosters on a tank setup, you only need to get an ancillary shield booster of the same size and all you are paying for is...having two normal shield booster in one slot with the same fittings of a normal shield booster for a slighter better performance. And that's NOT taking in account the fact it can feed off booster charges.

So again, cannot the solution be a tweaking down amount of shield HP it heal instead of tweaking the cap booster aspect of it?

I think they would rather not remove or dampen the characteristics/strengths that make the module unique in how it functions and encourages different fits and tactics.

Instead they would rather make the distinct vulnerabilities the module has more prominent. In other words emphasize the short duration of this repping ability, and make it more difficult to set up continuous repping by using two of them. Also make it even more painful to use it without charges.

This sounds like a reasonable step, and will not neccessarily be the last tweak made.

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

AlexHalstead
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#129 - 2012-11-15 17:43:01 UTC  |  Edited by: AlexHalstead
Ranger 1 wrote:
I think they would rather not remove or dampen the characteristics/strengths that make the module unique in how it functions and encourages different fits and tactics.

Instead they would rather make the distinct vulnerabilities the module has more prominent. In other words emphasize the short duration of this repping ability, and make it more difficult to set up continuous repping by using two of them. Also make it even more painful to use it without charges.

This sounds like a reasonable step, and will not neccessarily be the last tweak made.
Having the ancillary do 50% or 75% more than a normal booster would be still unique, but 100% more actually make it more attractive than getting just two normal shield boosters and that IS without factoring in the cap booster ability of the ancillary. Looking at the shield amount healed wouldn't take away the uniqueness of the module.


My point being is that it should be a tough decision between getting an ancillary shield booster and two shield boosters (if the ancillary only do 50-75% more than a single normal booster).
In this situation You Either Take;
A. The ancillary for the cap booster capacity to reduce cap need for a smaller shield heal than two Normal boosters. But you get a slot freed up and better fittings need (allowing for a different module in place of a 2nd booster) than the 2 boosters.
or
B. The two shield boosters for a bigger shield heal amount if you want to take on their cap demand and using a 2nd slot to mount the 2nd booster.

But as the way the things are, it's no brainer to take the ancillary shield booster and kick the using 2 normal shield boosters to the side.
Kale Eledar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#130 - 2012-11-15 18:21:35 UTC
This expansion is going to be so sexy.

I'lll have to hop on the server to test it out, but I'm really encouraged by the damps love and the "significant" boost to Thorax speed. It will probably still DIAF but at least it won't be as frustrating.

Nice work, Devs.

First come smiles, then lies. Last is gunfire.

ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers
Already Replaced.
#131 - 2012-11-15 19:07:19 UTC
CCP Manifest wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Easily takes the "longest dev blog of Retribution" crown from Masterplan. Cool


I am the undisputed king of TLDR at CCP. I'm going to write a devblog just to unseat you!




could you make it about the drone changes ^_^
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#132 - 2012-11-15 19:25:35 UTC
Obligatory lasers and amarr are ****.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#133 - 2012-11-15 19:27:06 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:

Actually, in practice the frigate usually dies long before it has a chance to pull range unless their are enough to overwhelm the destroyers.

Sure, assuming that a dessie can actually get in range in the first place. This is how it works currently, after the series of dessie buffs.

Prior to the dessie buffs, however, dessies were rarely used (except as mission salvagers, pre-Noctis) because they could never get in range of the frigs, to lay down their damage.

Ranger 1 wrote:
The reason people don't use cruisers any more is due to problems created when their speed potential was OVER nerfed across the board. Yes, originally too many things stacked that were speed boost related (although frankly the main issue was that most people simply didn't know how to defend against typical nano gang tactics... it's not actually that hard to do). However things went a bit too far and the cruiser class as a whole fell into widespread disuse. There is nothing what so ever wrong with bringing their ability to speed tank up to a respectable level.

Perhaps, but over-buffing the speed isn't necessarily the right answer. As I stated, the problem can be equally solved by adjusting other OP and unbalanced features in the game.

Also, at the height of the speed mess, defending against nano gangs wasn't actually possible, except with another nano gang. The speeds were breaking game mechanics, incl. webbing, bubbles, gun tracking, missile hits, drones, etc. Remember that scrams did not shutdown MWDs back then, either.

In any case, my point is that all of the new speed changes are up, none of them are down (well, I think one dessie got a -1 on velocity). You don't balance weights on a scale by adding more weight to each side until the scale breaks. In the long run, this will cause a problem - and I'm raising the yellow flag now, so that we can try to avoid having to raise the red flag (again) later.
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
#134 - 2012-11-15 19:49:47 UTC
The speed discrepancy between BCs/BSs and Cruisers has been too small for a long time, I am happy that this has been evened out now.

You can wave yellow flags and tell stories of the nano-age when they buff the speed on BCs and BSs
Fellblade
Gemini Talon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#135 - 2012-11-15 21:58:30 UTC
Has anyone got the stats handy for the final (?) ASB changes? I'm currently stuck in work...

http://theexcession.blogspot.com - A Wormhole PvP blog.

Sakurako Kimino
Eternal Darkness.
Initiative Mercenaries
#136 - 2012-11-15 22:29:15 UTC
still reading trhe blog but is the title from a crossword puzzle
fifty-nine down - ship balancing for retribution
ohmygodwhathavetheydonetomyshipitslookingcoolnowthankyouccp

eve is about sin

darkdooku
Malicious Mission Murderers
#137 - 2012-11-16 00:01:08 UTC  |  Edited by: darkdooku
I read over the dev blog twice now and can't seem to find any mention of changes or lack of changes to the Tormenter. Did I miss that or is it not mentioned?

EDIT: Suppose it was reworked when moved from being a mining frig, but I take it further tweaks are not occurring?
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#138 - 2012-11-16 02:40:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Michael Harari
Quote:
The Micro Jump Drive is a new propulsion module that allows a ship to teleport forward 100km. This module can be used in bubbles or while disrupted but not while warp scrambled, basically following the same rules as the existing Microwarpdrive. The MJD also has a spool up time and cooldown that must be waited between uses.


I honestly cannot believe you are putting the MJD into the game like this. Is the intent really to make any battleship with a spare mid immune to long points?


Imagine this - you are roaming around in your vagabond (lol, i know), and come across a typhoon. He gccs on you, and starts shooting you with torps, but cant land a web because you are flying your ship well. You kite him for several minutes, wearing him down. He has made numerous mistakes which you have taken advantage of. He doesnt have javelin torps, doesnt have ecm drones, couldnt get the tackle on you, etc. He has made poor decisions, and you have made good decisions.

But, none of this matters, assuming he can align to a safe, activate MJD and then press warp when he lands (ie, he can press 3 buttons in order), you cant kill him. He could burn out all his launchers, accidentally smartbomb his drones and mwd 100km off gate before burning out his mwd, and you still cant kill him, because you are in a kiting ship.

Edit: Also rogue drone officer units should be called something like Rogue Drone Hive Mothers or something
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#139 - 2012-11-16 03:31:17 UTC
Michael Harari wrote:
But, none of this matters, assuming he can align to a safe, activate MJD and then press warp when he lands (ie, he can press 3 buttons in order), you cant kill him. He could burn out all his launchers, accidentally smartbomb his drones and mwd 100km off gate before burning out his mwd, and you still cant kill him, because you are in a kiting ship.


He can align to the safe, and he can activate the MJD. The MJD will then go through twenty seconds of painfully obvious spooling up before it activates, after which it's useless for 5 minutes.

Is twenty seconds not enough time to react? Is the long spoolup plus the longer cooldown worth it in the general case vs. a Microwarp Drive? Is its vulnerability to the cheapest and easiest warp-canceler to fit not a tradeoff? I'm not being snarky; I don't know. I'm asking.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Kira Hizu
Rotten Kimchi Squadron
Hard Knocks Associates
#140 - 2012-11-16 03:33:39 UTC
whats the deal with capitals no changes ? they are t1 hull whats the deal?