These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Introducing myself and asking for help with balance!

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#281 - 2013-03-26 10:39:05 UTC
[
Deacon Abox wrote:

Your point?



My point was and is that you causioned for missiles buffs because of the Drake and how OP it is.

The top ten of that list consist of blaster, projectile and one laser ship.


so yeah Large missiles and Rails for that matter need a buff or way, though modules and or riggs to become more usefull.

I agree that speed and agillity are to powerful as they are now, made an extended post about that earlier. though that does not take away the fact that Large missiles and Rails for that matter need to be evaluated.

abit sad that Caldari (railgun) hulls are shining with blasters (not for a small part due to the speed and agility those ships have)
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#282 - 2013-03-26 11:37:50 UTC
So CCP rise, who's going to be working on the Command Ship changes that were previously planned for the summer xpack?
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#283 - 2013-03-26 11:49:34 UTC
Someone said earlier that battleships simply aren't tanky enough.

Got to say I agree. They need more tank to differentiate them from battlecruisers more.

War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#284 - 2013-03-26 12:06:24 UTC
Two step wrote:
IMHO, Battleships need a large EHP buff. The fact that cruisers can match or exceed their EHP is a very bad thing. Along with an EHP buff, they probably also need a tracking nerf. BSs should be very vulnerable to smaller ships, but for fighting other BSs and caps, they should be the front line ships the lore makes them out to be.


I'm still diving into this thread, but this was my immediate thought as well.

...going back to page 2...

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#285 - 2013-03-26 12:37:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Whiite
War Kitten wrote:
Two step wrote:
IMHO, Battleships need a large EHP buff. The fact that cruisers can match or exceed their EHP is a very bad thing. Along with an EHP buff, they probably also need a tracking nerf. BSs should be very vulnerable to smaller ships, but for fighting other BSs and caps, they should be the front line ships the lore makes them out to be.


I'm still diving into this thread, but this was my immediate thought as well.

...going back to page 2...



the problem is that they are already very vunrable to smaller ships, EHP isn't going to change that,

Tracking nerf is the last thing they need, so aside from being slow and bulky you want them to become even less acurate, so Attack battle Cruisers are faster, more agile and get a better damage projection, that will kill the BS.

The Naga has about a 25% of the shield capacity of the Rokh, not taking the Rokh's resistance bonus and is more used and has more deployment options.

and even if you raise the Rokh's hitpoint that won't change, the ability to move the Naga through hostile space is what will prevail over the battleships all the time.

So unless CCP want to reduce the Battleship to a Capital support ship and a PVE mission and high sec incursion ship

Battleships should become less vunrable to small ships (mind not saying that they should be able to shoot them) [I'm thinking more in the line where sharks don't mind the little fish so much and the little fish don't do more than nible at the shark]

And maybe more importand Battleships should have a way to travel a little safer than they do now.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#286 - 2013-03-26 12:49:36 UTC
I do not think all battleships should become less vulnerable to smaller ships. That could be somethign the combat ones could get but the attack ones could become more lumbering hulks of brute force against alrger things.


Example.


Tempest: Role bonus: tracking +25% agility +25%
Malestrom: Role bonus: damage and hitpoints + 30%, tracking -30%.


Just random numbers there.. just illustrating as you can diversify more between battleship roles.


"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#287 - 2013-03-26 13:27:30 UTC
Mike Whiite wrote:
War Kitten wrote:
Two step wrote:
IMHO, Battleships need a large EHP buff. The fact that cruisers can match or exceed their EHP is a very bad thing. Along with an EHP buff, they probably also need a tracking nerf. BSs should be very vulnerable to smaller ships, but for fighting other BSs and caps, they should be the front line ships the lore makes them out to be.


I'm still diving into this thread, but this was my immediate thought as well.

...going back to page 2...



the problem is that they are already very vunrable to smaller ships, EHP isn't going to change that,

Tracking nerf is the last thing they need, so aside from being slow and bulky you want them to become even less acurate, so Attack battle Cruisers are faster, more agile and get a better damage projection, that will kill the BS.

The Naga has about a 25% of the shield capacity of the Rokh, not taking the Rokh's resistance bonus and is more used and has more deployment options.

and even if you raise the Rokh's hitpoint that won't change, the ability to move the Naga through hostile space is what will prevail over the battleships all the time.

So unless CCP want to reduce the Battleship to a Capital support ship and a PVE mission and high sec incursion ship

Battleships should become less vunrable to small ships (mind not saying that they should be able to shoot them) [I'm thinking more in the line where sharks don't mind the little fish so much and the little fish don't do more than nible at the shark]

And maybe more importand Battleships should have a way to travel a little safer than they do now.


BS should be vulnerable to small ships getting under their tracking.

But, BS still have drone bays and neuts to very successfully deal with small ships.

(My full thoughts to come...)

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#288 - 2013-03-26 13:49:27 UTC
War Kitten wrote:
Mike Whiite wrote:
War Kitten wrote:
Two step wrote:
IMHO, Battleships need a large EHP buff. The fact that cruisers can match or exceed their EHP is a very bad thing. Along with an EHP buff, they probably also need a tracking nerf. BSs should be very vulnerable to smaller ships, but for fighting other BSs and caps, they should be the front line ships the lore makes them out to be.


I'm still diving into this thread, but this was my immediate thought as well.

...going back to page 2...



the problem is that they are already very vunrable to smaller ships, EHP isn't going to change that,

Tracking nerf is the last thing they need, so aside from being slow and bulky you want them to become even less acurate, so Attack battle Cruisers are faster, more agile and get a better damage projection, that will kill the BS.

The Naga has about a 25% of the shield capacity of the Rokh, not taking the Rokh's resistance bonus and is more used and has more deployment options.

and even if you raise the Rokh's hitpoint that won't change, the ability to move the Naga through hostile space is what will prevail over the battleships all the time.

So unless CCP want to reduce the Battleship to a Capital support ship and a PVE mission and high sec incursion ship

Battleships should become less vunrable to small ships (mind not saying that they should be able to shoot them) [I'm thinking more in the line where sharks don't mind the little fish so much and the little fish don't do more than nible at the shark]

And maybe more importand Battleships should have a way to travel a little safer than they do now.


BS should be vulnerable to small ships getting under their tracking.

But, BS still have drone bays and neuts to very successfully deal with small ships.

(My full thoughts to come...)




generally I think battleships coudl get even worse against frigates and small cruisers and become stronger against capitals. But there is space for a few battleships specializing in anti support role.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#289 - 2013-03-26 14:03:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Whiite
Kagura Nikon wrote:
I do not think all battleships should become less vulnerable to smaller ships. That could be somethign the combat ones could get but the attack ones could become more lumbering hulks of brute force against alrger things.

Example.

Tempest: Role bonus: tracking +25% agility +25%
Malestrom: Role bonus: damage and hitpoints + 30%, tracking -30%.

Just random numbers there.. just illustrating as you can diversify more between battleship roles.



Not pinning you on the numbers and in a certain way, I think there is a way this could work.

Though I do think this set up will end in the Malestrom being convicted to mission running, because with the speed, tracking and agillity it will have left it will be sitting ducks or the tornado, which has as many guns but suprime tracking, speed and signature, damage bonuses are great but if you're not hitting anything they are worthless.


War Kitten wrote:
BS should be vulnerable to small ships getting under their tracking.

But, BS still have drone bays and neuts to very successfully deal with small ships.

(My full thoughts to come...)


Personaly I think that ballance is to much in favour of the smaller ships, every frigate can get under the guns of Battleship and on her turn criple the battleship, by scrambling/webbing/ emc/dampning it. those drones are a joke and easaly taken care of, their tracking isn't that good most of the times as well. Neuts do work but take quite some time and you usaly can only take on 1 target.


By Making them less vunrable to small ships I don't mean that battleships should be able to engage smaller ships, they should be less bothered by a single or a pare of frigates.


At the moment EVE has 1 big imballence:

Speed has no negative value and mass has no positive value.

so unless this is adjusted those attack battle cruisers will always come on top.

Titans actualy show that, when e-war becomes useless and traveling goes by jumping, speed becomes less importand and every one wants a Armored tanked titan.

(This is seen from a non Blob fleet, non lvl 4 mission running point of view, Battleship do have uses there)
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#290 - 2013-03-26 14:08:24 UTC  |  Edited by: War Kitten
Battleships as an overall meta need turned up to 11, and they need their own "thing".

As mentioned earlier, the gap between BC and BS is nearly nil in many categories.

Battleships ought to be feared for their presence. They ought to take more to take down, and they ought to have a role beyond just being bigger and slower targets than battlecruisers.

Battleships fight at range for the most part. They ought to have range to their EWAR and tackling abilities - all races, not just Gallente. Give them +20-30% per skill level boost to their point ranges. They're still slow. They still lock slowly. But being in the vicinity of one ought to be a threat.

I think a BS should have twice the EHP they do now. A BC can push up to 100k EHP. Dreads and Carriers are on the order of 1-2+ million. Battleships should start around 100k unfit and be pushing 400k when fit properly, before fleet bonuses.

Conversely, another BS on the field ought to be able to wreak havoc on another BS. Add/Adjust the 3rd layer of large turrets with MOAR MORE! Twice the DPS, Twice the PG requirements, 1/3 of the tracking. The balance should be that Tornados and Nagas should only be able to fit 4 of them at most. Battleships should be able to fit a full rack of them. Those guns would be useful for shooting other battleships, and chewing through structure grinds faster. Oh and killing caps, they'd be good for that too.

That's my 2 cents.

EDIT: The tracking penalty on the big guns could be signature resolution instead. That way it is always hard to hit small targets, but not always a penalty to tracking big ones.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#291 - 2013-03-26 14:09:15 UTC
Mike Whiite wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
I do not think all battleships should become less vulnerable to smaller ships. That could be somethign the combat ones could get but the attack ones could become more lumbering hulks of brute force against alrger things.

Example.

Tempest: Role bonus: tracking +25% agility +25%
Malestrom: Role bonus: damage and hitpoints + 30%, tracking -30%.

Just random numbers there.. just illustrating as you can diversify more between battleship roles.



Not pinning you on the numbers and in a certain way, I think there is a way this could work.

Though I do think this set up will end in the Malestrom being convicted to mission running, because with the speed, tracking and agillity it will have left it will be sitting ducks or the tornado, which has as many guns but suprime tracking, speed and signature, damage bonuses are great but if you're not hitting anything they are worthless.




On this scenario its role would be anti capital warfare.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#292 - 2013-03-26 14:29:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Whiite
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Mike Whiite wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
I do not think all battleships should become less vulnerable to smaller ships. That could be somethign the combat ones could get but the attack ones could become more lumbering hulks of brute force against alrger things.

Example.

Tempest: Role bonus: tracking +25% agility +25%
Malestrom: Role bonus: damage and hitpoints + 30%, tracking -30%.

Just random numbers there.. just illustrating as you can diversify more between battleship roles.



Not pinning you on the numbers and in a certain way, I think there is a way this could work.

Though I do think this set up will end in the Malestrom being convicted to mission running, because with the speed, tracking and agillity it will have left it will be sitting ducks or the tornado, which has as many guns but suprime tracking, speed and signature, damage bonuses are great but if you're not hitting anything they are worthless.




On this scenario its role would be anti capital warfare.


true, that could be an option
Nova Satar
Pator Tech School
#293 - 2013-03-26 15:46:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Nova Satar
its a really hard job to balance tier 1 battleships, i dont even think its a case of balancing them against each other, but balancing them against eve as a whole. They need a niche and a focus, whereas once they were the tool of the solo player or small gang to overcome odds, this just isn't the case anymore.

I hope CCP Rise can represent his roots and have some real impact on these changes, as he knows what they should be doing! Rather than just making sure all BS do the same DPS in a fleet fight, and making sure they all die at the same rate.

I personally dont want to see Battleships broken down into GANK and TANK version like the BC's. BS give us smaller gang players a chance, they give us time to get the job done against overwhelming numbers. Please dont just turn them into expsensive tier3 BC's. We DONT need Battleships with speed or agility bonuses, they are LARGE ships, they shouldnt be fast or agile, they should be strong and powerful. If you want speed, you go smaller!
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#294 - 2013-03-26 17:19:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
Just my thoughts on the Gallente line-up, including how to make the Hyperion and Megathron more distinct with their own roles/niche:

Megathron

Make it faster, leaner, as discussed in the blog, but also a more flexible blaster platform: dropping 1 turret and changing the bonus to Rate of fire results in a 8.6% loss of turret DPS, but gives you a much more rounded platform for neutralizers/RR/drone links/smartbombs/missiles (awaiting something cool to be done with Cruise/Torpedoes). Port across the same changes to the Navy issue variant (also below), but probably not the Vindicator/Kronos.

Bonuses: +5% bonus to large hybrid turret rate of fire, +7.5% large hybrid tracking speed per level
Slot layout: 8H, 4M, 7L, 6 turrets, 2 Launchers
Shields/Armour/Hull: 5800 (-411), 6500 (-141), 7500
Mobility (Velocity/inertia modifier): 125 (+10) / 0.116 (-0.0056)
Drones (bandwidth/bay): 125/150 (+25)
Signature Radius: 330 (-70)


[Navy Megathron]

Bonuses: +5% bonus to large hybrid turret rate of fire, +7.5% large hybrid tracking speed per level
Slot layout: 8H, 4M, 8L, 6 turrets, 2 Launchers
Shields/Armour/Hull: 9000 (-316), 9500 (-461), 11250
Mobility (Velocity/inertia modifier): 130 (+10) / 0.105 (-0.01052)
Drones (bandwidth/bay): 125/175
Signature Radius: 330 (-70)


Dominix

Don’t change anything on the hull, it works well in a vast range of roles and configurations. However, add more drone functionality, something which hasn’t been done since Castor, because quite frankly the drone system is horribly creaking now. Because this is somewhat out of scope of 'Battleships' I've put it in italics, but I think, as discussed in the blog, drone system overhaul is the main route forward for polishing the Dominix.


[Drone commands]

‘Orbit target at’: [1000m, 2000m, 5000m]
‘Keep target at range’: [500m, 1000m, 5000m]
‘Halt’ [cut propulsion, but do not stop firing]
‘Deploy’ [Sentries become stationary and can be tasked with a fire order]
‘Mobilise’ [Sentries can MWD back to ship, cannot fire]

On another note, all ‘racial’ flavours of scout/heavy drone (i.e. not sentry) currently have the same optimal/falloff, that should probably be looked at separately, in which case you’d probably add a fourth ‘Orbit at’/’Keep at range’ option. I would also suggest looking at the feasibility of making logistics drones work on the ‘mother’ ship.


Hyperion

I personally don’t think that armour repair bonus will ever scale well to the Battleship arena regardless of what you might do for Armour tanking 2.0, simply because damage mitigation becomes extraordinarily difficult in something that has a fat signature, relatively slow and probably using a MWD. So, unless there is a means to make the active local repair/bonuses also affect incoming remote repair, I’d suggest removing it and focusing on damage projection as a ‘fleet’ blaster Battleship (don't make any more BS sized 'EW' boats...).

Bonuses: +5% bonus to large hybrid turret damage, +10% large hybrid turret falloff per level
Slot layout: 8H, 5M, 6L, 8 turrets, 1 Launchers
Shields/Armour/Hull: 6500 (-1000)*, 9000 (+1000), 8500
Mobility (Velocity/inertia modifier): 120 (+5) / 0.116 (-0.0018)
Drones (bandwidth/bay): 100/125 (+25)
Signature Radius: 485

(Neutron II with null: optimal + 0.5 falloff range is pushed out to 26km, optimal + falloff range to 39km, before a tracking computer is added)


*Shield tanking Hyperions – just say no.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#295 - 2013-03-26 17:37:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
Ps It's absolutely fine that the Scorpion is the only 'EW' Battleship as that is the Caldari thing - likewise it's absolutely fine that the Dominix is the only 'Drone' Battleship as that's the Gallente 'thing'.

Don't screw up the entire back story/lore that's existed for the last 10 years for the sake of 'standardisation' of everything. It is not necessary, doesn’t fill any ‘role’ gaps (cruiser sized EW is fine). Celebrate the diversity of doctrines that exist. Yes we need balance, but we don't need carbon copy Amarr Drone Battleships, or Gallente EW Battleships, or Minmatar target painting Battleships...

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Andrea Griffin
#296 - 2013-03-26 17:47:37 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
So, even with max skills, split-weapon ships tend not to perform as well as single-weapon ships.
Easy to fix by adding a turret or another damage bonus or some such. Just because someone was bad about balance in the past doesn't mean that viable split weapons systems should never appear in the game.

CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#297 - 2013-03-26 19:41:11 UTC
Andrea Griffin wrote:
Sizeof Void wrote:
So, even with max skills, split-weapon ships tend not to perform as well as single-weapon ships.
Easy to fix by adding a turret or another damage bonus or some such. Just because someone was bad about balance in the past doesn't mean that viable split weapons systems should never appear in the game.

Adding an extra turret doesn't fix the perceived problem. This was already done to the Phoon a long while back.

And adding extra damage bonuses apparently isn't possible for some odd coding reason - at least, that's what the devs were saying years ago (this issue has been around for a long time). Maybe they were wrong and it can be done now.

In a follow up post on this same thread, I did suggest changing the bonus to something non-specific to guns or missiles, or creating a new bonus which equally benefits both guns and missiles. Perhaps that is doable and something that CCP would consider - but we'll just have to wait and see what Rise says.

Anyways, I'm certainly not against split-weapon ships. Like I said, I think they are cool, too - esp. since I do have the requisite SP in guns, missiles and drones to use them effectively. However, most of the player base doesn't happen to agree, and, as a result, split-weapon ships tend to be unpopular.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#298 - 2013-03-26 23:11:06 UTC
Nova Satar wrote:
its a really hard job to balance tier 1 battleships, i dont even think its a case of balancing them against each other, but balancing them against eve as a whole. They need a niche and a focus, whereas once they were the tool of the solo player or small gang to overcome odds, this just isn't the case anymore.

I hope CCP Rise can represent his roots and have some real impact on these changes, as he knows what they should be doing! Rather than just making sure all BS do the same DPS in a fleet fight, and making sure they all die at the same rate.

I personally dont want to see Battleships broken down into GANK and TANK version like the BC's. BS give us smaller gang players a chance, they give us time to get the job done against overwhelming numbers. Please dont just turn them into expsensive tier3 BC's. We DONT need Battleships with speed or agility bonuses, they are LARGE ships, they shouldnt be fast or agile, they should be strong and powerful. If you want speed, you go smaller!



Then what damma role you propose for the tempest, that due to race philosophy is relegated to having less EHP than a prophecy?


There is a very good role for mobile battleships, but these must be 1 minmatar and 1 gallente, and they shoudl have less EHP . Also there is space for less mobile ships, but these must have way more EHP.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#299 - 2013-03-26 23:12:35 UTC
Gabriel Karade wrote:
Ps It's absolutely fine that the Scorpion is the only 'EW' Battleship as that is the Caldari thing - likewise it's absolutely fine that the Dominix is the only 'Drone' Battleship as that's the Gallente 'thing'.

Don't screw up the entire back story/lore that's existed for the last 10 years for the sake of 'standardisation' of everything. It is not necessary, doesn’t fill any ‘role’ gaps (cruiser sized EW is fine). Celebrate the diversity of doctrines that exist. Yes we need balance, but we don't need carbon copy Amarr Drone Battleships, or Gallente EW Battleships, or Minmatar target painting Battleships...



AMEN! You got my bow, my axe and all my agreement on that.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
YuuKnow
The Scope
#300 - 2013-03-27 06:53:54 UTC
I like the Tier 3 BCs the way they are.

yk