These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Balance Changes Coming In Scylla

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
ArmyOfMe
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#61 - 2015-02-27 17:04:55 UTC
Oh, and while we are on the subject of ship balancing and all that. And excluding the fact that im a pirate, dirtbag and godknows what else ive been called. Can you explain to me the balancing reason for freighters not being able to fit a damage controll?

As it is, the ship costs well over 1bill, and it costs about 150mill in ships to destroy the damn thing with no hope of it surviving at all. That is to me a bad balancing act, and is caused by dessies being able to put out a massive ammount of damage compared to their price (more then twice the damage of a normal fitted af wich costs about 15-20x more)

Ganking in this game has gone way overboard cause of those things, and its as risk free as you can get, as the freighter hardly has to drop any loot for it to have been worth it.
Im all for piracy, etc etc, but suicide has crossed the limit simply cause its now to much of it, and the freighter pilots carry all the risk.

Ps: no, i dont own any freighters, jf's or otherwise. But i would still love to see the freighter hulls buffed when it comes to cpu, so they can fit dc's and eans or hardners.

GM Guard > I must ask you not to use the petition option like this again but i personally would finish the chicken sandwich first so it won´t go to waste. The spaghetti will keep and you can use it the next time you get hungry. Best regards.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#62 - 2015-02-27 17:08:01 UTC
Inslander Wessette wrote:
@ CCP rise,

What about armor platforms using rails . Thoraxes , Deimoses , Proteuses . The armor platforms dont run a triple Mag stab fits like the shield ( caldari ) counterparts .

Its very disappointing that rails on armor platforms will not stand upto beams ( another armor platform ) .

You are taking back 50 % of the changes that u did in odyssey. the balance to the increase in damage was the reduction in tracking ( -15% ) . So now with less tracking and less ROF . The armor platforms will be affected a lot more than the shield platforms.

Rails are used by 2 races on a very different platform . Considering only one race for the nerf is a very sad .



but gallente ships get tracking bonuses and free mids for TC's

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#63 - 2015-02-27 17:08:08 UTC
Cr Turist wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
I'm ok with no battleship buff, as long as the T3 nerfs continue, and if you fix dread blapping and logistics.



ok a t3 nerf is needed. blap dreads are fine however. you have to drop a big lumbering ship that cant evade fire, that must sit in the same spot for 5 mins at least before it can start to go anywhere, and has zero chance of killing anything smaller than a battleship. I think dreads are fine m8.

fixing logi is easy.
1. medium reps for everybody. no other changes needed.
2. add another class of logistic ship. maybe a battle cruiser, that has something like a triage mod on it. when its giving reps it don't get reps. this will make players make a decision do I wanna risk my ship to save my fleet members or am I gonna bone this dude and gtfo. I think it would make a pretty cool dynamic. also make this ship MJD capable.
3.T2 Logi frigs just cuz that will be cool as hell.


your entire post is wrong or bait
Samuel Outamon
Doomheim
#64 - 2015-02-27 17:08:35 UTC
Look the main problem is you nerfed missile's back to the stone ages long ago , and most t3 cruisers and battle cruisers that use missiles cant keep up with dps output that rails and laser's do hack most cruisers can out dps a missle t3 ship easy , why you ask simple . Time to target damage , its simple make dmg from missiles instant instead of 35s to hit target and wait for the damage to show up . take a nerf bat to shield user's really come on now that craps getting old everyone knows a 3% armor nerf can be made up with hardwires . shields you cant make it up so just keep picking on caldari . Keep this up and guess whats going to happen people are going to keep moving to SC and putting money there instead of here . second the t3 destroyer's should not have rails for caldari you do that nobody will fly the dang thing. nerf the crap out any decent class ship because some one complained about them being to strong or over powered crap . the devs need to stop listen to the fanboy clubs and start listen to players that support the game other wise your gonna end 4th quarter profits in the -25% range .






been support since 2004



elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#65 - 2015-02-27 17:08:43 UTC
Maybe I should keep my opinions about stuff™ in closed quarters for the time being and I'll ask for the Caldari destroyer of worlds and a nice generous heavy missile range and application buff instead?

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Valterra Craven
#66 - 2015-02-27 17:09:26 UTC
ArmyOfMe wrote:

Ganking in this game has gone way overboard cause of those things, and its as risk free as you can get, as the freighter hardly has to drop any loot for it to have been worth it.
Im all for piracy, etc etc, but suicide has crossed the limit simply cause its now to much of it, and the freighter pilots carry all the risk.


I don't think I've ever seen CCP balance anything on the basis of risk vs reward.
Pandora Myuki
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#67 - 2015-02-27 17:14:48 UTC
So you want to reduce Carrier effectiveness even more? Wow Rise, lets change the name to Frigate online.
OutCast EG
Very Industrial Corp.
#68 - 2015-02-27 17:20:57 UTC  |  Edited by: OutCast EG
Quote:
We discussed choosing to expose Skynet carriers to more risk rather than taking away the ability to assist fighters, but in the end this solution felt more convoluted and in reality would probably end skynetting but would still leave a strange and unneeded mechanic in the game.

Lazy balancing of badly designed and extremely skewed in risk-reward ships in unneeded mechanic.
Go back to discussions and come when you have something less lazy.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#69 - 2015-02-27 17:25:59 UTC
That chart is GREATLY at odds with your other one.


http://i.imgur.com/yfeQpc4.jpg

What am I missing?
Flax Volcanus
Montezuma's Revenge.
#70 - 2015-02-27 17:31:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Flax Volcanus
Coming back to EVE after a three-year hiatus, I see that CCP still treats the time and expense that players spend skilling for ships and systems as fungible. If you're going to nerf T3's, in particular, then we should be compensated by not losing skill points -- or as many SPs -- when a ship is lost. Otherwise, it's a double slap in the face.

I have hangars full of ships that took months of training to use, but which nerfs and other exercises in "balancing" rendered frustrating or ineffective to use. I don't get to skill for these by leveling up like a WoW fiend -- training in this game equates to real money invested. I'd appreciate it if someone at CCP eventually internalized that fact.
fredtheevil
No-Mercy
Shadow Ultimatum
#71 - 2015-02-27 17:37:45 UTC
Don't Nerf Bat a ship that has been just about the same though all these years. The other hac's need a boost in effective raneg/dps and the ishtar need's to be left alone or adding 2 mid's to the munin would change the meta up seriously...

Think OUTSIDE THE BOX......
Cr Turist
Arcana Noctis
#72 - 2015-02-27 17:41:27 UTC
fredtheevil wrote:
Don't Nerf Bat a ship that has been just about the same though all these years. The other hac's need a boost in effective raneg/dps and the ishtar need's to be left alone or adding 2 mid's to the munin would change the meta up seriously...

Think OUTSIDE THE BOX......


if you honestly think ishtars dont need nerfing you need to stop go take a cold shower go for a long walk and ponder your life.
159Pinky
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#73 - 2015-02-27 17:44:57 UTC
A few remarks on your awesome graph on damage:

- Is it the total damage done? If so, you need to factor in an average damage output per shiptype to get a more realistic view of the amount of ships used.
- This graph does not adress the main issue: moving them is too slow to be worth it. So, how many of these fights were one group bridging in bs vs another group bridging in bs / fighting from their staging system?


Cr Turist
Arcana Noctis
#74 - 2015-02-27 17:51:55 UTC
OK WHAT EVER PETTY GRIPES WE MAY HAVE WE SHOULD ALL PUT TO REST FOR THE DAY.

SPACE FRIENDS SPOCK HAS DIED AT THE AGE OF 83

https://tv.yahoo.com/blogs/tv-news/leonard-nimoy-dies-at-83-171803235.html


IF CCP DOES NOT DO SOMETHING TO COMMEMORATE THIS TRUE SPACE NERD HERO. WELL SHAME ON YOU
Kel hound
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#75 - 2015-02-27 17:54:55 UTC
Quote:
Proposed change: None. We are pretty happy with the state of class variation right now and see no reason to make changes.



Reddit calls shenanigans on your graph.


Quote:
Edit: In response to comments that this graph is a lie/distortion/incomplete: While this was a "shoot from the hip" response to the original graph, fundamentally the goal was to group ships that are common choices for major fleet doctrines (HACs + T3s + Cruisers makes sense, battleships + blops + marauders does not because nobody considers a fleet of blops and marauder fleets are exceedingly rare). Leaving battlecruisers separate is a more valid criticism, but any choice you make has complex and interrelated variables. So yes, there are a lot of reasons why this "fixed" graph also shows a skewed perspective, and many other ways one could arrange the data for visualization, but I think it shows a less skewed perspective of the meta than CCP's original graph.
I also made it in like 5 minutes after seeing the original, so ¯\(ツ)/¯


Coelmate
Kynric
Sky Fighters
Rote Kapelle
#76 - 2015-02-27 17:57:09 UTC
If battleships had more EHP it would open up some room for them relative to strategic cruisers and would also give some robustness relative to bombers. As it stands now, even after the defensive subsytem nerfs a strategic cruiser can nearly match the battleship in dps while greatly exceeding it in damage application, mobility, and survivability. I would enjoy having battleships as the standard for survivability at the expense of damage application and mobility.
Mary Killigrew
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#77 - 2015-02-27 18:16:00 UTC
(Ending a radio broadcast) This is John Connor. If you are listening to this message, you are the Resistance. Cool
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#78 - 2015-02-27 18:17:03 UTC
Kynric wrote:
If battleships had more EHP it would open up some room for them relative to strategic cruisers and would also give some robustness relative to bombers. As it stands now, even after the defensive subsytem nerfs a strategic cruiser can nearly match the battleship in dps while greatly exceeding it in damage application, mobility, and survivability. I would enjoy having battleships as the standard for survivability at the expense of damage application and mobility.


nerfing T3s achieves the same thing without breaking other things
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#79 - 2015-02-27 18:21:26 UTC
Goddamn it Baltec. I bet it was you who screwed up the BS numbers making them look more used than they are P
SamuelK
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#80 - 2015-02-27 18:22:30 UTC
Remember when "expansions" weren't just updates and actually added meaningful content and a level of excitement?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.