These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: No Brakes - Ship and module Balancing in Retribution 1.1

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mund Richard
#101 - 2013-02-14 23:17:02 UTC
Ravcharas wrote:
Have you considered using a different naming convention for the new armor reps, considering they function differently compared to the ASB's? I'm thinking the word 'ancillary' in both modules implies they are basically the same, when they have a couple of really important differences.

It would be less misunderstandable.

"We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Stacking penalty for NPC EWAR then? Lock range under 9km from over 100 in a BS is not fun. Nor is two NPC web drones making me crawl 10m/s. PvP SW-900 x5: 75m/s.
fukier
Gallente Federation
#102 - 2013-02-14 23:31:43 UTC
Bubanni wrote:
I am looking forward to the day when Interceptors are buffed/adjusted a little, like a little more lock range, perhaps some extra pg on some of them... and also make warp velocity (AU/s) matter more, as in acceleration faster within warp... :)


IT would be cool if interceptors were not pulled into sling bubbles.
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
Captain Evil
Tech 3 Constructions
#103 - 2013-02-14 23:38:05 UTC
A lot of you MIST this
Quote:
Unlike the ASBs, AARs always use the same capacitor as a Tech One armor repairer to cycle. This cap use does not change when the module is loaded with charges.
.

So Ancillary Armor Repairers use cap from your ship or Cap charges it runs 3/4 of the same size
and/or put Nanite Repair Paste in (or on top cap charges?) you get 2.25 the amount of a T1 rep.

That is if i am reading ok CCP Fozzie
Hashi Lebwohl
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#104 - 2013-02-14 23:42:45 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Callic Veratar wrote:
Based on the discussions I've seen, I think the next balance pass after Retribution 1.1 will be Summer 1.0 and should contain Battleships, Industrials, Black Ops, Command Ships, and EAF.

A response of "that sounds reasonable" would be great. Lol


All I can confirm is that the ships discussed in Ytterbium's Back to the Balancing Future blog are still expected to be among the earlier sets of ships we work on this year.


Would you care to comment and contrast your excellent communication of forthcoming changes with CCP Greyscale's dismal responses to his changes to shield and armor compensation skills.

Should we expect a Dev Blog from his holiness Greyscale, or would holding our breath just invite unconscienceness.
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#105 - 2013-02-14 23:47:26 UTC
I <3 fozzie! He is the answer to all that complaining I did about ccp never talking about balance and whatnot on the forums!

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
Mund Richard
#106 - 2013-02-14 23:50:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Captain Evil wrote:
A lot of you MIST this
Quote:
Unlike the ASBs, AARs always use the same capacitor as a Tech One armor repairer to cycle. This cap use does not change when the module is loaded with charges.
So Ancillary Armor Repairers use cap from your ship or Cap charges it runs 3/4 of the same size
and/or put Nanite Repair Paste in (or on top cap charges?) you get 2.25 the amount of a T1 rep.

That is if i am reading ok CCP Fozzie
Not quite.
There are two scenarios:

1) The AAR is loaded with nanopaste (henceforth called "charge"), and you activate it:
It will consume the same amount from your ship's capacitor as a T1 repairer, and will repair 2.25 times as much as a T1 repair module of the same size would in the same scenario.

2) The AAR has no charges left in it:
It will consume the same amount from your ship's capacitor as a T1 repairer, and will repair 0.75 times as much as a T1 repair module of the same size would in the same scenario.

It does not accept cap booster charges as "charge", was changed into nanopaste instead.
Which is a good change due to the limited cargo bay on ships, and how you need the rather bulky cap boosters charges for your cap booster, to keep up with the repair module's cap consumption, specially if dual/tripple repping.

I hope that helps clear any lingering misunderstanding.
Also hoping that *I* haven't misunderstood anything.

(Comparing it to T2, it will repair x1.6875 over the T2 repair module while loaded, and 56.25% of the T2 while unloaded, unless math fails me right before I go to sleep.)

"We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Stacking penalty for NPC EWAR then? Lock range under 9km from over 100 in a BS is not fun. Nor is two NPC web drones making me crawl 10m/s. PvP SW-900 x5: 75m/s.
Zombie132
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#107 - 2013-02-14 23:56:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Zombie132
Well done Fozzie, and all who are working hard on ship in space. You've done a great job rebalancing so far, and I'm looking forward to these great new changes.

Also, a little late, but congrats on getting Dust and EVE working together. I've only just activated an account on DUST and am immensely enjoying the unique interaction between Dust and eve, truly awesome, an experience you won't get in any other game universe.

(By the way, has anyone guessed the significance of 514 as it relates to DUST514 and eve?)
Utremi Fasolasi
La Dolce Vita
#108 - 2013-02-15 00:04:55 UTC
More mass on the Drake? It's already a slow brick as it is. Sad
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#109 - 2013-02-15 00:54:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
CCP Fozzie, you must really stop doing such things.

Graph: +1
Black Ops: +1
T3: +1

You see the problem, right? The forums don't allow +3 likes!

I'm not crazy about the battlecruiser changes, though I am happy to read that some earlier proposals have been trashed. For that I won't drop your score, as I'm taking a wait-and-see approach, for now.

I won't celebrate the armor changes until the equivalent of Slaves for shield are released. [EDIT: Of course, Crystals for armor would be appropriate too.]
Zanmaru
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#110 - 2013-02-15 00:54:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Zanmaru
I love the idea of the Harb being turned into a droneboat, and while missiles seem weird on an Amarr ship, I'm not opposed to the idea. What I do find slightly irritating is the fact the high-slot and turret layout basically forces you to either have one launcher or one odd turret if you go the other way.

Based on the redesigns up to this point, I thought we were moving AWAY from that sort of thing.

Edit: Well unless things have changed since the proposed rebalance specs were posted a while back. I am noticing a few changes in the blog.
Kommandohoran
Viziam
#111 - 2013-02-15 02:07:11 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


The plus side of all this is I get to watch Quackbot spasm uncontrollably.



The Fozzie, he walks among us.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#112 - 2013-02-15 02:12:05 UTC
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Callic Veratar wrote:
Based on the discussions I've seen, I think the next balance pass after Retribution 1.1 will be Summer 1.0 and should contain Battleships, Industrials, Black Ops, Command Ships, and EAF.

A response of "that sounds reasonable" would be great. Lol


All I can confirm is that the ships discussed in Ytterbium's Back to the Balancing Future blog are still expected to be among the earlier sets of ships we work on this year.


Would you care to comment and contrast your excellent communication of forthcoming changes with CCP Greyscale's dismal responses to his changes to shield and armor compensation skills.

Should we expect a Dev Blog from his holiness Greyscale, or would holding our breath just invite unconscienceness.


That change doesn't really require its own dev blog in my opinion, and it's a change I fully support.

The honest truth is that I have no idea why someone back in the day would design the active resistance modules to also have a separate passive effect. It's convoluted and provides very little value.

And considering that we have generally shifted the meta towards a lower number of neuts overs the past few releases, the change helps ensure that capacitor warfare serves a useful role.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Jabba Fat
Violent Alternatives
#113 - 2013-02-15 02:31:54 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Just know that the skill changes (including the Battlecruiser and Destroyer skill splits) will not be taking place in Retribution 1.1. They are scheduled for the summer expansion.


Is this a typo also or did I get it all wrong? I thought the expansion on the 19th was the Destroyer and Battlecruiser skill split!
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#114 - 2013-02-15 02:39:02 UTC
Jabba Fat wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Just know that the skill changes (including the Battlecruiser and Destroyer skill splits) will not be taking place in Retribution 1.1. They are scheduled for the summer expansion.


Is this a typo also or did I get it all wrong? I thought the expansion on the 19th was the Destroyer and Battlecruiser skill split!


The skill split is scheduled for the summer expansion, as stated in the recent Dev Blog that covers the skill changes in detail.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#115 - 2013-02-15 02:48:42 UTC
Zanmaru wrote:
I love the idea of the Harb being turned into a droneboat, and while missiles seem weird on an Amarr ship, I'm not opposed to the idea. What I do find slightly irritating is the fact the high-slot and turret layout basically forces you to either have one launcher or one odd turret if you go the other way.

Based on the redesigns up to this point, I thought we were moving AWAY from that sort of thing.

Edit: Well unless things have changed since the proposed rebalance specs were posted a while back. I am noticing a few changes in the blog.

BC's all have at least one 'utility slot' to allow for the use of a Warfare link without compromising primary guns.
Some of the BC's have the option to put an alternative weapon system into these utility slots, while others only have utility.
But in all cases they are utility slots.
Dalto Bane
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#116 - 2013-02-15 02:57:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Dalto Bane
I am mostly happy with all that is being projected in 1.1. Can't say I did not struggle in holding back my last few tears on even more Drake ner... I mean rebalancing. I just was not expecting to lose a launcher slot, have less hp, and a mass increase. Comes with the territory I suppose. Good stuff just the same!Cool

Drops Mic
Zanmaru
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#117 - 2013-02-15 03:22:40 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

-snip-
But in all cases they are utility slots.


A fair point.
Endeavour Starfleet
#118 - 2013-02-15 04:48:40 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Callic Veratar wrote:
Based on the discussions I've seen, I think the next balance pass after Retribution 1.1 will be Summer 1.0 and should contain Battleships, Industrials, Black Ops, Command Ships, and EAF.

A response of "that sounds reasonable" would be great. Lol


All I can confirm is that the ships discussed in Ytterbium's Back to the Balancing Future blog are still expected to be among the earlier sets of ships we work on this year.


Would you care to comment and contrast your excellent communication of forthcoming changes with CCP Greyscale's dismal responses to his changes to shield and armor compensation skills.

Should we expect a Dev Blog from his holiness Greyscale, or would holding our breath just invite unconscienceness.


That change doesn't really require its own dev blog in my opinion, and it's a change I fully support.

The honest truth is that I have no idea why someone back in the day would design the active resistance modules to also have a separate passive effect. It's convoluted and provides very little value.

And considering that we have generally shifted the meta towards a lower number of neuts overs the past few releases, the change helps ensure that capacitor warfare serves a useful role.


Doesn't require a dev blog despite the fact that for many players the training they put into these skills will be worth FAR FAR less now?

Is the old CCP just making their own decisions and not caring how they effect the game back? You are introducing yet another barrier to newer players with the Drake nerf. CCP is backpedaling on modular POS structures. You are boosting AFK Cloaking to even higher levels with the black ops changes. Next you will be saying "We have no idea why someone would design something called a local and while we are at it why are these tech moons so spread out?"

This is the issue. You are "Fixing" things that while may have been an issue are NOTHING compared to the need for Modular POS, Ring mining, and ways to actually get newer players into these vaunted Nullsec groups you keep pushing them towards. And to be something other than cannon fodder.
Destoya
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#119 - 2013-02-15 05:16:44 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:


Is the old CCP just making their own decisions and not caring how they effect the game back? You are introducing yet another barrier to newer players with the Drake nerf. CCP is backpedaling on modular POS structures. You are boosting AFK Cloaking to even higher levels with the black ops changes. Next you will be saying "We have no idea why someone would design something called a local and while we are at it why are these tech moons so spread out?"

This is the issue. You are "Fixing" things that while may have been an issue are NOTHING compared to the need for Modular POS, Ring mining, and ways to actually get newer players into these vaunted Nullsec groups you keep pushing them towards. And to be something other than cannon fodder.


They want clearly defined roles between active and passive tanking modules, and also want to make sure that cap warfare is still a relevant threat to ships with cap-dependent tanks. Seems pretty clear-cut to me with reasons that make a lot of sense.

If anything, the drake nerf (if you can call it that; it's really very similar to the ship that we know on TQ now) is a boon to new players. Instead of just being told that they must fly a single ship and single race to be relevant there are now far more viable options, and they can choose the playstyle that they enjoy the most for themselves.
Lipbite
Express Hauler
#120 - 2013-02-15 05:17:38 UTC
Could be nice to see new non-emergent game content. New star systems, new modules (remote speed boost), drones (energy transfer), new missions, new type of rats (Jove or whatever), new exploration sites. Some avatar gameplay - walking in stations, exploration.

These debugs are nice but not fun - they just make game a bit less boring.