These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Alexis Nightwish
#101 - 2015-02-27 22:01:58 UTC
I said it before, and I'll say it again. The T3 changes are not NEARLY harsh enough.

Why is CCP so afraid to do it? Did Greyscale take the balls with when he left?

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers
Dedbforucme
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#102 - 2015-02-27 22:08:05 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
Dedbforucme wrote:
In which he elaborates exactly the reasons why Skynet needed to die


The risk of dead capitals is the entire point and purpose of this nerf.



But with this nerf the risk is so high that it is no longer worth the risk of flying capital ships, there is a certain risk of having capital's in a system with neutrals and hostiles in the first place even if they aren't "on the field" they can still be scanned down and attacked and forced into a POS and then they are useless and no longer assigning fighters. It also seems that the main problem is fighters are being assigned to fast ships like frigates and cruisers, so why not make them only assignable to battleships and above for their bandwith values. Or possible making ships require modules to have fighters assisted to them or even making it a skill to be able to assist fighters. I am just trying to say that getting rid of Skynet instead of trying to change will make capital ships useless.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#103 - 2015-02-27 22:10:24 UTC
Dedbforucme wrote:
Evelgrivion wrote:
Dedbforucme wrote:
In which he elaborates exactly the reasons why Skynet needed to die


The risk of dead capitals is the entire point and purpose of this nerf.



But with this nerf the risk is so high that it is no longer worth the risk of flying capital ships, there is a certain risk of having capital's in a system with neutrals and hostiles in the first place even if they aren't "on the field" they can still be scanned down and attacked and forced into a POS and then they are useless and no longer assigning fighters. It also seems that the main problem is fighters are being assigned to fast ships like frigates and cruisers, so why not make them only assignable to battleships and above for their bandwith values. Or possible making ships require modules to have fighters assisted to them or even making it a skill to be able to assist fighters. I am just trying to say that getting rid of Skynet instead of trying to change will make capital ships useless.


why not just field proper combat ships you risk averse baddie.

this is actually nearly as bad as links.
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#104 - 2015-02-27 22:12:29 UTC
Dedbforucme wrote:
Evelgrivion wrote:
Dedbforucme wrote:
In which he elaborates exactly the reasons why Skynet needed to die


The risk of dead capitals is the entire point and purpose of this nerf.



But with this nerf the risk is so high that it is no longer worth the risk of flying capital ships, there is a certain risk of having capital's in a system with neutrals and hostiles in the first place even if they aren't "on the field" they can still be scanned down and attacked and forced into a POS and then they are useless and no longer assigning fighters. It also seems that the main problem is fighters are being assigned to fast ships like frigates and cruisers, so why not make them only assignable to battleships and above for their bandwith values. Or possible making ships require modules to have fighters assisted to them or even making it a skill to be able to assist fighters. I am just trying to say that getting rid of Skynet instead of trying to change will make capital ships useless.


Forcing the ship into the forcefield forces the DPS off the field, but does nothing to discourage people from fielding ships in this manner. If you have to come up with special rules to keep a risk mitigation technique, or other kinds of game mechanics in place, one should think long and hard about whether or not it's a good mechanic to have in the first place.
Adilily Arzi
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#105 - 2015-02-27 22:19:50 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Dedbforucme wrote:
Evelgrivion wrote:
Dedbforucme wrote:
In which he elaborates exactly the reasons why Skynet needed to die


The risk of dead capitals is the entire point and purpose of this nerf.



But with this nerf the risk is so high that it is no longer worth the risk of flying capital ships, there is a certain risk of having capital's in a system with neutrals and hostiles in the first place even if they aren't "on the field" they can still be scanned down and attacked and forced into a POS and then they are useless and no longer assigning fighters. It also seems that the main problem is fighters are being assigned to fast ships like frigates and cruisers, so why not make them only assignable to battleships and above for their bandwith values. Or possible making ships require modules to have fighters assisted to them or even making it a skill to be able to assist fighters. I am just trying to say that getting rid of Skynet instead of trying to change will make capital ships useless.


why not just field proper combat ships you risk averse baddie.

this is actually nearly as bad as links.


Consider for a moment that you don't share the mentality of a carrier pilot. Perhaps Flying carriers are... fun? Maybe some people have been waiting and training to fly carriers their entire eve career, because we think they are cool. I feel like when it comes down to it the GAME, its about having fun, and this is gutting that.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#106 - 2015-02-27 22:22:07 UTC
Adilily Arzi wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Dedbforucme wrote:
Evelgrivion wrote:
Dedbforucme wrote:
In which he elaborates exactly the reasons why Skynet needed to die


The risk of dead capitals is the entire point and purpose of this nerf.



But with this nerf the risk is so high that it is no longer worth the risk of flying capital ships, there is a certain risk of having capital's in a system with neutrals and hostiles in the first place even if they aren't "on the field" they can still be scanned down and attacked and forced into a POS and then they are useless and no longer assigning fighters. It also seems that the main problem is fighters are being assigned to fast ships like frigates and cruisers, so why not make them only assignable to battleships and above for their bandwith values. Or possible making ships require modules to have fighters assisted to them or even making it a skill to be able to assist fighters. I am just trying to say that getting rid of Skynet instead of trying to change will make capital ships useless.


why not just field proper combat ships you risk averse baddie.

this is actually nearly as bad as links.


Consider for a moment that you don't share the mentality of a carrier pilot. Perhaps Flying carriers are... fun? Maybe some people have been waiting and training to fly carriers their entire eve career, because we think they are cool. I feel like when it comes down to it the GAME, its about having fun, and this is gutting that.


fun is just your opinion. how fun is it to be on the receiving end?
Adilily Arzi
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#107 - 2015-02-27 22:25:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Adilily Arzi
My point exactly, so they should be balancing for the receiving end, not just removing the functionality completely.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#108 - 2015-02-27 22:31:32 UTC
that's not possible though
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#109 - 2015-02-27 22:35:41 UTC
Adilily Arzi wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Dedbforucme wrote:
Evelgrivion wrote:
Dedbforucme wrote:
In which he elaborates exactly the reasons why Skynet needed to die


The risk of dead capitals is the entire point and purpose of this nerf.



But with this nerf the risk is so high that it is no longer worth the risk of flying capital ships, there is a certain risk of having capital's in a system with neutrals and hostiles in the first place even if they aren't "on the field" they can still be scanned down and attacked and forced into a POS and then they are useless and no longer assigning fighters. It also seems that the main problem is fighters are being assigned to fast ships like frigates and cruisers, so why not make them only assignable to battleships and above for their bandwith values. Or possible making ships require modules to have fighters assisted to them or even making it a skill to be able to assist fighters. I am just trying to say that getting rid of Skynet instead of trying to change will make capital ships useless.


why not just field proper combat ships you risk averse baddie.

this is actually nearly as bad as links.


Consider for a moment that you don't share the mentality of a carrier pilot. Perhaps Flying carriers are... fun? Maybe some people have been waiting and training to fly carriers their entire eve career, because we think they are cool. I feel like when it comes down to it the GAME, its about having fun, and this is gutting that.


Fly...? Flying carriers?

Safes up....Assigns fighters.....

FLYING....


You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Adilily Arzi
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#110 - 2015-02-27 22:41:19 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
that's not possible though


Fair enough i suppose.
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#111 - 2015-02-27 23:25:14 UTC
Adilily Arzi wrote:

Consider for a moment that you don't share the mentality of a carrier pilot. Perhaps Flying carriers are... fun? Maybe some people have been waiting and training to fly carriers their entire eve career, because we think they are cool. I feel like when it comes down to it the GAME, its about having fun, and this is gutting that.

the carrier pilots in my alliance do not wet themselves at the idea of placing their carriers in harms way
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#112 - 2015-02-27 23:28:57 UTC
I've seen Warp Speed talked about regarding CBC's all the time. I've never heard it mentioned as a problem with battleships.

Overhaul Dscan!
Oreb Wing
Last Rites.
#113 - 2015-02-28 00:00:04 UTC
Now remove a high slot from the Guardian and we can fight those t3 blobs.
Oreb Wing
Last Rites.
#114 - 2015-02-28 00:02:41 UTC
Oreb Wing wrote:
Now remove a high slot from the Guardian and we can fight those t3 blobs.


...and Basi
Melek D'Ivri
Illuminated Overwatch Group
#115 - 2015-02-28 00:03:25 UTC
Of frigging COURSE you jackanapes would nerf medium rails and proteus tank right after I train two of my pilots for a proteus for NOT PVP. Because of the few, the multitudes get to suffer.
snorkle25
Interstellar Ventures LLC
#116 - 2015-02-28 00:22:15 UTC
These are all well and good but we're STILL waiting on a Black Ops Battleship rebalance...

Any patch now would be nice!
Alexis Nightwish
#117 - 2015-02-28 00:33:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexis Nightwish
CCP Rise wrote:
THE END PART

That’s what I have for you for now. Even though there is so much more to do (hello bombers...


Gilbaron wrote:
The only buff battleships really need is a nerf to bombers


Some warp speed would be nice to have though

Will you and Rise and everyone else please stop? There is nothing wrong with bombers. Well there wasn't until Fozzie got ahold of them a while ago. The problem lies 100% with BOMBS.

BOMBS are horribly broken and need to be redesigned.

BOMBERS are great ships that need their agility and warp speed back.

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers
Skir Skor
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#118 - 2015-02-28 01:02:02 UTC
Is that it? 10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage becomes 5% bonus to Sentry Drone hitpoints and damage.fml. Your game is drones online :/
Ramius Decimus
Daitengu Fleet
#119 - 2015-02-28 01:04:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Ramius Decimus
CCP Rise wrote:
By lowering the % hp bonuses from 10% to 7.5% for the Proteus/Legion and from 10% to 5% for the Tengu we expose a little more tradeoff for that added flexibility


This doesn't quite seem fair/balanced. Shouldn't the Tengu also have a 7.5% bonus just like the Proteus/Legion, if they had previously shared the same value for the Supplemental Screening subsystem? I'd much rather have that extra 2.5% per level to shield hitpoints than the 3% recharge bonus.

Seems like a kind of biased nerf, in my opinion. What?

I do, however, like the reduction to the signature radius for the Tengu's Adaptive Shielding subsystem.

Rear Admiral

Commander-in-Chief

90th Fleet

Caldari Navy
Dalilus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#120 - 2015-02-28 01:41:44 UTC
CODE and others gank high sec with impunity 23.5/7 but the fearsome pvpers of null, low and k space do not want to put their big, bad caps in harms way because that would mean risk. Roll Figures.