These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Permanent Ship Balancing

Author
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#41 - 2014-04-08 22:50:14 UTC
What really needs to happen is they need to set goals and then stick to those goals. Expansions should build on previous mechanics not completely rewrite them.

We started the game in 2003 with torpedo's that shot out to 100km or so and today we should still have torpedo's that shoot to 100k or so.

Same goes for the all the random, annoying and sometimes ridiculous changes that occur. Build on it, don't rebuild it constantly.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Rhes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#42 - 2014-04-08 22:53:22 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
What really needs to happen is they need to set goals and then stick to those goals.

So they should keep doing exactly what they have been doing since the Summer of Rage?

EVE is a game about spaceships and there's an enormous amount of work to do on the in-space gameplay before players (or developers) are ready to sacrifice it for a totally new type of gameplay - CCP Rise

masternerdguy
Doomheim
#43 - 2014-04-08 22:56:18 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
What really needs to happen is they need to set goals and then stick to those goals. Expansions should build on previous mechanics not completely rewrite them.

We started the game in 2003 with torpedo's that shot out to 100km or so and today we should still have torpedo's that shoot to 100k or so.

Same goes for the all the random, annoying and sometimes ridiculous changes that occur. Build on it, don't rebuild it constantly.


Are you kidding?

Back in my day, the Raven could 1 shot any frigate with torps from 80km+! That same raven could hit 2.5km/s! They've certainly changed that!

And the only ships that shoot torps anywhere near those ranges get huge bonuses to missile velocity and flight time. Maybe you can do it in a Golem, but certainly not in a raven. Stealth bombers have great torp range, but that is because they used to fire cruise missiles (for their improved range) and when CCP rebalanced them to fire torps, which do more damage, they wanted to maintain the long range property.

Put torps on any non bonused ship and they're unlikely to go anywhere near 100km. And they certainly don't annihilate frigates in 1 salvo anymore.

Things are only impossible until they are not.

Marsha Mallow
#44 - 2014-04-08 22:57:37 UTC
Muestereate wrote:
Push your brains a bit further down the road.

Whip a spine from somewhere, post with your main, and take the lash like anyone else.
Gimp.

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#45 - 2014-04-08 22:57:47 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.


masternerdguy wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
What really needs to happen is they need to set goals and then stick to those goals. Expansions should build on previous mechanics not completely rewrite them.

We started the game in 2003 with torpedo's that shot out to 100km or so and today we should still have torpedo's that shoot to 100k or so.

Same goes for the all the random, annoying and sometimes ridiculous changes that occur. Build on it, don't rebuild it constantly.


Are you kidding?

Back in my day, the Raven could 1 shot any frigate with torps from 80km+! That same raven could hit 2.5km/s! They've certainly changed that!

And the only ships that shoot torps anywhere near those ranges get huge bonuses to missile velocity and flight time. Maybe you can do it in a Golem, but certainly not in a raven. Stealth bombers have great torp range, but that is because they used to fire cruise missiles (for their improved range) and when CCP rebalanced them to fire torps, which do more damage, they wanted to maintain the long range property.

Put torps on any non bonused ship and they're unlikely to go anywhere near 100km. And they certainly don't annihilate frigates in 1 salvo anymore.

You missed the whole point. They should still shoot to 100k because they did when the game was implemented. Like I said you build on the game, you don't rewrite it.

Torps were long range high damage missiles, but they were slow, if a frig was stupid enough to allow itself to get popped by one then it was doing stuff wrong.

Building on the torp thing would have been implementing sig and speed tanking which they did which of course would have resulted in torps no longer instapopping.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

masternerdguy
Doomheim
#46 - 2014-04-08 23:13:27 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Infinity Ziona wrote:
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.


masternerdguy wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
What really needs to happen is they need to set goals and then stick to those goals. Expansions should build on previous mechanics not completely rewrite them.

We started the game in 2003 with torpedo's that shot out to 100km or so and today we should still have torpedo's that shoot to 100k or so.

Same goes for the all the random, annoying and sometimes ridiculous changes that occur. Build on it, don't rebuild it constantly.


Are you kidding?

Back in my day, the Raven could 1 shot any frigate with torps from 80km+! That same raven could hit 2.5km/s! They've certainly changed that!

And the only ships that shoot torps anywhere near those ranges get huge bonuses to missile velocity and flight time. Maybe you can do it in a Golem, but certainly not in a raven. Stealth bombers have great torp range, but that is because they used to fire cruise missiles (for their improved range) and when CCP rebalanced them to fire torps, which do more damage, they wanted to maintain the long range property.

Put torps on any non bonused ship and they're unlikely to go anywhere near 100km. And they certainly don't annihilate frigates in 1 salvo anymore.

You missed the whole point. They should still shoot to 100k because they did when the game was implemented. Like I said you build on the game, you don't rewrite it.

Torps were long range high damage missiles, but they were slow, if a frig was stupid enough to allow itself to get popped by one then it was doing stuff wrong.

Building on the torp thing would have been implementing sig and speed tanking which they did which of course would have resulted in torps no longer instapopping.


The same argument can be made for other mechanics too. For example, you used to be able to send an area of effect doomsday via a cyno kestrel. Building on this game mechanic could have given some frigs a bonus to doomsday damage via cynoLol

The main reason for nerfing torps was they stepped on the toes of cruise missiles. This is similar to how rarely HAMS were used instead of Heavies before the rebalance to those missiles.

Finally, long range high DPS weapons are unbalanced, even if they are realistic.

I'm not against adjusting stats of weapons to keep things new and balanced, I am against trying to arbitrarily limit emergent gameplay to satisfy the people who are not intelligent, creative, or social enough to participate.

Things are only impossible until they are not.

Muestereate
Minions LLC
#47 - 2014-04-08 23:13:51 UTC
Marsha Mallow wrote:
Muestereate wrote:
Push your brains a bit further down the road.

Whip a spine from somewhere, post with your main, and take the lash like anyone else.
Gimp.


Is that gimp reference a personal attack?
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#48 - 2014-04-08 23:17:11 UTC
Muestereate wrote:
Marsha Mallow wrote:
Muestereate wrote:
Push your brains a bit further down the road.

Whip a spine from somewhere, post with your main, and take the lash like anyone else.
Gimp.


Is that gimp reference a personal attack?


Probably just a reference to the well known, high quality, open source raster graphics application.

Things are only impossible until they are not.

Marsha Mallow
#49 - 2014-04-08 23:20:22 UTC
Muestereate wrote:
Is that gimp reference a personal attack?

Compliment. Continue!

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day

Muestereate
Minions LLC
#50 - 2014-04-08 23:20:43 UTC
Ahh yes of course :)
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#51 - 2014-04-08 23:22:14 UTC
masternerdguy wrote:

The same argument can be made for other mechanics too. For example, you used to be able to send an area of effect doomsday via a cyno kestrel. Building on this game mechanic could have given some frigs a bonus to doomsday damage via cynoLol

The main reason for nerfing torps was they stepped on the toes of cruise missiles. This is similar to how rarely HAMS were used instead of Heavies before the rebalance to those missiles.

Finally, long range high DPS weapons are unbalanced, even if they are realistic.

I'm not against adjusting stats of weapons to keep things new and balanced, I am against trying to arbitrarily limit emergent gameplay to satisfy the people who are not intelligent, creative, or social enough to participate.

The cyno doomsday is a little different to a years old functioning weapons system.

Also they didn't step on the toes of cruise missiles, cruise are very fast, have twice the range, are easier to fit and do more damage to smaller ships. Range is irrelevant given they're totally different weapons systems.

Torps were arbitrarily nerfed to have almost as poor range as rockets for no reason other than blasters were short range high dps therefore all high damage dps weapons must be now short range. Irrespective of blasters and all other weapons being instant while torps took a long time to hit and could be out run easily.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

masternerdguy
Doomheim
#52 - 2014-04-08 23:25:43 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
masternerdguy wrote:

The same argument can be made for other mechanics too. For example, you used to be able to send an area of effect doomsday via a cyno kestrel. Building on this game mechanic could have given some frigs a bonus to doomsday damage via cynoLol

The main reason for nerfing torps was they stepped on the toes of cruise missiles. This is similar to how rarely HAMS were used instead of Heavies before the rebalance to those missiles.

Finally, long range high DPS weapons are unbalanced, even if they are realistic.

I'm not against adjusting stats of weapons to keep things new and balanced, I am against trying to arbitrarily limit emergent gameplay to satisfy the people who are not intelligent, creative, or social enough to participate.

The cyno doomsday is a little different to a years old functioning weapons system.

Also they didn't step on the toes of cruise missiles, cruise are very fast, have twice the range, are easier to fit and do more damage to smaller ships. Range is irrelevant given they're totally different weapons systems.

Torps were arbitrarily nerfed to have almost as poor range as rockets for no reason other than blasters were short range high dps therefore all high damage dps weapons must be now short range. Irrespective of blasters and all other weapons being instant while torps took a long time to hit and could be out run easily.



The balance in this game is that closer range weapons do more damage and longer range weapons do less damage but project damage better. This is good balance, even if it is unrealistic.

Believe me, I'd love to have the old torps back. But they were overpowered. Personally, I think blasters are currently the most OP weapon system, but blaster fans continue to deny this.

Things are only impossible until they are not.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#53 - 2014-04-08 23:53:05 UTC
Muestereate wrote:
Eliminate this ability by tweaking the max amount of the same ship to the number in a fleets wing (50). This would force no more than 50 of the same ship in each fleet. when carried into the logical conclusion of blob balancing. Each fleet would end up with 5 ship types.

As a card-carrying member and representative of the 16M-Leaderhsip-SP cabal, I approve of this very silly and completely ineffectual change. Lol

Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
It is not some dark conspiracy.
It is pretty straightforward.
…it is also completely devoid of any connection to reality or facts or logic or reasoning. It assumes a secret plan towards some strange goal, neither of which have any support in what actually goes on in the game. That's why it's just a pretty silly conspiracy theory.

Quote:
As for T3's being over-powered, that is silly.
Always has been. They have never been OP.
…aside from the very get-go, and aside from how they were intended to work. For a long time, they obsoleted numerous ships that they had no business even being near, for no particular reason other than “omg, we must make people want them”. They were destined for a proper rebalance from the second they were released because they fundamentally failed to live up to their purpose.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#54 - 2014-04-09 00:23:41 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Muestereate wrote:
Eliminate this ability by tweaking the max amount of the same ship to the number in a fleets wing (50). This would force no more than 50 of the same ship in each fleet. when carried into the logical conclusion of blob balancing. Each fleet would end up with 5 ship types.

As a card-carrying member and representative of the 16M-Leaderhsip-SP cabal, I approve of this very silly and completely ineffectual change. Lol

Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
It is not some dark conspiracy.
It is pretty straightforward.
…it is also completely devoid of any connection to reality or facts or logic or reasoning. It assumes a secret plan towards some strange goal, neither of which have any support in what actually goes on in the game. That's why it's just a pretty silly conspiracy theory.

Quote:
As for T3's being over-powered, that is silly.
Always has been. They have never been OP.
…aside from the very get-go, and aside from how they were intended to work. For a long time, they obsoleted numerous ships that they had no business even being near, for no particular reason other than “omg, we must make people want them”. They were destined for a proper rebalance from the second they were released because they fundamentally failed to live up to their purpose.

It's arguable now that T3s don't need a major rebalance in terms of obsoleting other ships. From what I see they're pretty rare these days in PvP. I haven't used one in months because there are better cheaper options that don't cost skill points.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#55 - 2014-04-09 00:34:19 UTC
The real issue is this following cycle:


1. Update a ship or release new ship that is marginally (say 5%) better at a particular job like mishing or bluesec blobbing or tournaments

2. Because basically EVE is a spreadsheet game and 5% is enough to matter, the updated/new ship becomes a ship of choice and everyone spends a few months training relevant skills

3. Eventually the new ship begins to dominate PvE or fleet doctrines or whatever and forum trolls begin to complain it is OP.

4. CCP then nerf the ship to the point of being useless.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#56 - 2014-04-09 00:36:27 UTC
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
The real issue is this following cycle:


1. Update a ship or release new ship that is marginally (say 5%) better at a particular job like mishing or bluesec blobbing or tournaments

2. Because basically EVE is a spreadsheet game and 5% is enough to matter, the updated/new ship becomes a ship of choice and everyone spends a few months training relevant skills

3. Eventually the new ship begins to dominate PvE or fleet doctrines or whatever and forum trolls begin to complain it is OP.

4. CCP then nerf the ship to the point of being useless.


You forgot step 5.

"5. And then they nerf Caldari again too."

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#57 - 2014-04-09 00:42:50 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
"5. And then they nerf Caldari again too."
Caldari is too Stronk!

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#58 - 2014-04-09 00:50:39 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
The real issue is this following cycle:


1. Update a ship or release new ship that is marginally (say 5%) better at a particular job like mishing or bluesec blobbing or tournaments

2. Because basically EVE is a spreadsheet game and 5% is enough to matter, the updated/new ship becomes a ship of choice and everyone spends a few months training relevant skills

3. Eventually the new ship begins to dominate PvE or fleet doctrines or whatever and forum trolls begin to complain it is OP.

4. CCP then nerf the ship to the point of being useless.


You forgot step 5.

"5. And then they nerf Caldari again too."



Same basic fallacy ... the idea that popular = OP

In the case of Caldari:
1. potential new players read ancient EVE help guides claiming Caldari are the optimal race and all go Caldari.
2. Hence Drakes and Caracals and Ravens are disproportionally popular.
3. Popular means OP
4. Hence Caldari ships are OP and need a nerf.
Greyscale Dash
Doomheim
#59 - 2014-04-09 00:53:50 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Muestereate wrote:
Eliminate this ability by tweaking the max amount of the same ship to the number in a fleets wing (50). This would force no more than 50 of the same ship in each fleet. when carried into the logical conclusion of blob balancing. Each fleet would end up with 5 ship types.

As a card-carrying member and representative of the 16M-Leaderhsip-SP cabal, I approve of this very silly and completely ineffectual change. Lol

Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
It is not some dark conspiracy.
It is pretty straightforward.
…it is also completely devoid of any connection to reality or facts or logic or reasoning. It assumes a secret plan towards some strange goal, neither of which have any support in what actually goes on in the game. That's why it's just a pretty silly conspiracy theory.

Quote:
As for T3's being over-powered, that is silly.
Always has been. They have never been OP.
…aside from the very get-go, and aside from how they were intended to work. For a long time, they obsoleted numerous ships that they had no business even being near, for no particular reason other than “omg, we must make people want them”. They were destined for a proper rebalance from the second they were released because they fundamentally failed to live up to their purpose.


Tippia, you are an inspiration to us all.

Your logic is so good I am going to base a character off you in my next Star Trek: The Next Generation / My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic crossover fanfiction.
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#60 - 2014-04-09 17:44:29 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
The real issue is this following cycle:


1. Update a ship or release new ship that is marginally (say 5%) better at a particular job like mishing or bluesec blobbing or tournaments

2. Because basically EVE is a spreadsheet game and 5% is enough to matter, the updated/new ship becomes a ship of choice and everyone spends a few months training relevant skills

3. Eventually the new ship begins to dominate PvE or fleet doctrines or whatever and forum trolls begin to complain it is OP.

4. CCP then nerf the ship to the point of being useless.


You forgot step 5.

"5. And then they nerf Caldari again too."


Caldari have definitely seen better days. They might consider just removing Caldari from the game and being done with it.

Drake? The battlecruiser that all the elite PVPers made fun of because it has nothing going for it but buffer tank? Nerf clearly needed.

Rokh? Chosen because it had a good resist profile and good damage projection? Nerf clearly needed.

Naga? Pre nerfed. Letting it fire missiles would be just unfair.

Falcon? Capable of doing its job as an expensive T2 recon projecting electronic warfare? Nerf clearly needed.

I've always wondered, why do CCP hate Caldari so much? They seem to like nerfing Caldari and buffing the Minmattar counterpart.

Things are only impossible until they are not.