These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Aegis] More balance! - Ishtars, DDAs and the Tempest

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#681 - 2015-07-06 09:40:45 UTC
Yeng Constantine wrote:
It would have been better to buff other ships to counter drone boats. The SP investment on drones affects alot.


Powercreep is bad.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#682 - 2015-07-06 09:42:42 UTC
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#683 - 2015-07-06 12:01:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronson Hughes
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/afJycoE.png?1

Some people are just oblivious. Smile

What's telling is that whoever made that chart didn't eve bother with missiles....

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Natalia Abre-Kai
#684 - 2015-07-06 13:52:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Natalia Abre-Kai
Funny how there is no one that is saying the Myrm, Eos, or the Prophecy are "OP" yet still get hammered with the DDA nerf. Also how about those drone related implants that seem to not exist. Ya, some "balance". Roll

Edit: Lets not even mention that drones are destructible or that they have to travel to target (aside from sentries).
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#685 - 2015-07-06 14:30:24 UTC
Natalia Abre-Kai wrote:
Funny how there is no one that is saying the Myrm, Eos, or the Prophecy are "OP" yet still get hammered with the DDA nerf. Also how about those drone related implants that seem to not exist. Ya, some "balance". Roll

Edit: Lets not even mention that drones are destructible or that they have to travel to target (aside from sentries).


2% per mod on a damage mod is hammered now? What was it called when HML got nerfed then?
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#686 - 2015-07-06 14:57:58 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Natalia Abre-Kai wrote:
Funny how there is no one that is saying the Myrm, Eos, or the Prophecy are "OP" yet still get hammered with the DDA nerf. Also how about those drone related implants that seem to not exist. Ya, some "balance". Roll

Edit: Lets not even mention that drones are destructible or that they have to travel to target (aside from sentries).


2% per mod on a damage mod is hammered now? What was it called when HML got nerfed then?

Your first statement/question is valid. The DDA nerf is not a hammering. It would have been better if they had kept to Ishtar specific remedies. That is without killing the sentry Ishtar.

As to your second question, the answer is hammered, and rightly so. This was because Tengus, Drakes, and HMs were everywhere and dominating the game for three years.

As to your included stealth whine about the new missile mods, I have confidence that team Fozzie and Rise will figure it out. The missile formula and the current speed and signature stats in the game do not leave much room between missiles being OP or still underperforming. This is especially so with a lack of effective specific targeted anti-missile ewar, and the semi-removal of firewalling as a counter to volley missile spam.

It is a shame that the Ishtar slots are being pushed more toward lows. It was one of the longstanding unique things about the Ishtar. Shield fits may still be possible, but not as durable. The real fix to the HAC/Ishtar or Tech III metas though would be to buff BC and BS agility and warp speed a little. Then a slight hp buff for each would also make them more attractive. Those little things along with the bomber/warp changes would breath some new life into those two classes of ships and reduce the prevalent use of HACs and Tech IIIs.

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

Utopia Atheras
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union
#687 - 2015-07-06 16:26:47 UTC
The major problem with the Ishtar is that it is the only cruiser size hull capable of fielding a full set of battleship grade weapons. There might be other minor issues, but it's the full flight of sentry drones that throw everything out of balance.

To me, logically the solution should center around the removal of Sentry Drones. An incredibly simple solution would be nerfing the bandwidth down to a 100MB/s. This would help as it would limit the number of deployable sentries to 4, but not impact any of the other aspects of the ship and how it's used in fleets. With the DPS reduced by 20% it could still do more DPS at a longer range than some AHACs, but it's a start and further tweaks could be implemented from there.

I don't understand why, instead of a relatively simple solution CCP opted to make a great number of changes with increasing complexity and nerf around the issue?

Considering rebalancing is happening all the time, I expect some of the proposed changes will be reverted at some point, which will be a massive pain due to the myriad of introduced changes.
Utopia Atheras
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union
#688 - 2015-07-06 16:31:46 UTC
Panther X wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Alexander McKeon wrote:
Rise, I believe at this point that you're deliberately missing the root cause of the problem: the Ishtar breaks the rule regarding size-appropriate weapons on hulls. Sentry drones are fundamentally a battleship-sized weapon system, and aren't game-breaking when used on such; perhaps in need of tuning like the DDA effectiveness reduction, but that's all. The combination of cruiser-class signature and speed, T2 resists (remember that no T2 battleships are viable for fleet combat) and the long-range projection of sentries are what push the Ishtar over the top in combat situations.

For whatever it might be worth, making the Ishtar into an improved version of the VNI, with fast enough drone travel times to be useful, seems a more practical situation, and allows for fleets deploying heavy smartbomb contingents to be an effective counter.


This is suggested so often but it just isn't the case. Drones not being locked to the size of their owner ship is one of the most consistent and distinct things about them. Vexors, VNIs, Myrmidons, Eos's, and Ishtars (at least) all use 'battleship sized' drones, and everything bigger than a destroyer can use 'frigate sized' drones. This flexibility is part of what makes drones really interesting and while sentries have become a big part of what makes certain hulls so strong, we don't want to lock drone ships into drones that match their ship size.


I think that you are looking at it the wrong way though Rise. Drone ships should be bandwidth restricted, but downwards compatible, not upwards. If you don't want to lock classes, which is ok with me, (as long as you can't go up) adjust the bandwidth of drone capabilities. You did it once already with Guristas ships, now finish the job by overhauling all ships so that only battleships and carriers can use 5 sentries (or more).

Ishtars would still be able to use sentries and heavies, but restricted to 3 because of bandwidth etc.


+1 on this.

Many moons ago, when everyone realized the Ishtar is OP, my very fist thought was, restrict the bandwidth to a 100MB/s.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#689 - 2015-07-06 16:59:09 UTC
Utopia Atheras wrote:
Many moons ago, when everyone realized the Ishtar is OP, my very fist thought was, restrict the bandwidth to a 100MB/s.

Or, restrict the drone bay to 200m^3 like the VNI. When you can't carry two full sets of spares, killing the sentry drones becomes a far more viable counter. Not to mention it would keep with the general trend of Amarr drone boats having lower bandwidth but bigger bays than Gallente drone boats. Ishtar gets both? WTH?

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#690 - 2015-07-06 17:07:18 UTC
Utopia Atheras wrote:
The major problem with the Ishtar is that it is the only cruiser size hull capable of fielding a full set of battleship grade weapons. There might be other minor issues, but it's the full flight of sentry drones that throw everything out of balance.

To me, logically the solution should center around the removal of Sentry Drones. An incredibly simple solution would be nerfing the bandwidth down to a 100MB/s. This would help as it would limit the number of deployable sentries to 4, but not impact any of the other aspects of the ship and how it's used in fleets. With the DPS reduced by 20% it could still do more DPS at a longer range than some AHACs, but it's a start and further tweaks could be implemented from there.

I don't understand why, instead of a relatively simple solution CCP opted to make a great number of changes with increasing complexity and nerf around the issue?

Considering rebalancing is happening all the time, I expect some of the proposed changes will be reverted at some point, which will be a massive pain due to the myriad of introduced changes.


When the sentry damage bonus was nerfed from 10%/level to 5%, it had pretty much the same effect than removing a sentry from them. Look at what it did to their usage.

The number of sentries is not the problem. It never was anyway. There is nothing inenrently wrong with fielding sentry from a cruisers as long as you don't also let it kite around it, field a rather strong tank for a cruiser, range and application choice over a rather wide spectrum AND make their effective counter a faction BS because their engagement range is mostly covered only by weapon that shoot in their natural T2 resist. (Missile with cerberus kinetic damage bonus or rails with kinetic/termal damage profile.)

A monster was spawned because too many cards just fell exactly in the spots they could to make it worse.
Steven Hackett
Overload This
Escalation Theory
#691 - 2015-07-06 18:00:33 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
This flexibility is part of what makes drones really interesting and while sentries have become a big part of what makes certain hulls so strong, we don't want to lock drone ships into drones that match their ship size.

*Looks at Rise*
*Looks at the Gila*
*Looks at Rise*
CCP Rise wrote:
Gila:
  • Medium drone powerhouse (remember the Medium Drone buff in the above linked Dev Blog)

*Keeps looking at Rise*
Gingergirl Redhead
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#692 - 2015-07-06 18:25:03 UTC
What kind of population increases can we expect as a result of the (obviously wise) decision to nerf all droneboats because one of them was overpowered? A thousand or eleventy thousand?
T'l Deem
Doomheim
#693 - 2015-07-06 18:45:04 UTC
Midori Tsu wrote:
Bienator II wrote:
have you considered splitting the dps bonus into dps+rof bonus like all other damage mods do? I guess thats also the reason why the DDAs have those non integer dps boost values.

one of the reasons why ships like the worm are so silly in frig fights is because of the insane alpha. On paper they would project worse than an algos, but IF worm drones hit the frig is half dead - no time to rep against that.


due to ~legacy code~ you can't change the drone rof, only damage.



So EVE is like the power grid across north america? We know it works, just not exactly how it works? Did they fire the programmers that knew? Or did they leave for greener pastures?

Interesting indeed!
Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#694 - 2015-07-06 18:48:02 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Powercreep is bad.


People keep justifying this questionable change with "powercreep is bad," but at some point all choices need to remain viable. If they nerf drones too hard, drones become unviable.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#695 - 2015-07-06 18:55:14 UTC
Andreus Ixiris wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Powercreep is bad.


People keep justifying this questionable change with "powercreep is bad," but at some point all choices need to remain viable. If they nerf drones too hard, drones become unviable.


If they buff everything, it ONLY leed to powercreep. That is where the issue is. If you buff all Hacs to Ishtar elvel,t hen you ahve to take a look at eevry ship they were designed to counter and get countered by at the very minimum. THen you ahve to do apsses on all ship that also interact with the newly balanced slasses.

Or you nerf drones because they overperform on a few hull class anyway. Drones are not getting killed because of a 2% damage nerf on the damage mod.
Diana Kim
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#696 - 2015-07-06 20:55:58 UTC
Ishtar still very powerful, they match battleship weapon systems (dominix).
IMHO drones should be nerfed as themselves, not by DDA.

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.
Tunox Teekaix
TT Express
#697 - 2015-07-06 21:47:02 UTC
I can't see how nerfing drones in general is going to solve any issues. What seems obvious from an objective standpoint, is that the entire system of weapons calculation has become massively convoluted by years of adjustment, such that even CCP can no longer gauge the outcome until they've had time to stand back and see it for themselves. This clearly says the people who should have control don't have control, at least not to the extent they need to have. And then after making adjustments they're up against players who will find every which way they can to adapt to and circumvent those adjustments. It's a little bit like trying to sculpt custard. Nice idea, but the whole thing is eventually going to largely regain its original shape as before. You can also see how massively convoluted it is by reading the vast number of diverse points being made by players, all of which are either right, wrong or at some place between those two extremes, simply because the game accommodates that kind of infinite diversity. It just means that there really can't ever be a definitive solution to anything under the current system. So ultimately, you can only do one of two things : rethink the entire system from scratch, or just leave it alone. Fiddling with it may justify paying some clever people good salaries, but it only ever generates more work for itself that way and in the end, just leaves heck of a confusing mess.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#698 - 2015-07-06 22:01:34 UTC
Tunox Teekaix wrote:
I can't see how nerfing drones in general is going to solve any issues. What seems obvious from an objective standpoint, is that the entire system of weapons calculation has become massively convoluted by years of adjustment, such that even CCP can no longer gauge the outcome until they've had time to stand back and see it for themselves. This clearly says the people who should have control don't have control, at least not to the extent they need to have. And then after making adjustments they're up against players who will find every which way they can to adapt to and circumvent those adjustments. It's a little bit like trying to sculpt custard. Nice idea, but the whole thing is eventually going to largely regain its original shape as before. You can also see how massively convoluted it is by reading the vast number of diverse points being made by players, all of which are either right, wrong or at some place between those two extremes, simply because the game accommodates that kind of infinite diversity. It just means that there really can't ever be a definitive solution to anything under the current system. So ultimately, you can only do one of two things : rethink the entire system from scratch, or just leave it alone. Fiddling with it may justify paying some clever people good salaries, but it only ever generates more work for itself that way and in the end, just leaves heck of a confusing mess.

You are describing how most R&D departments work. Just look at how early space programs worked. There were dozens if not hundreds of failed launches and modules throughout the early stages. And even today there are still bugs and problems. You don't wait until you have a perfect solution. Nothing would ever get done.

And starting from scratch is essentially harder and more prone to failure than tweaking and adjusting.
Danmal
TYR.
Exodus.
#699 - 2015-07-06 23:49:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Danmal
CCP Rise wrote:
Alexander McKeon wrote:
Rise, I believe at this point that you're deliberately missing the root cause of the problem: the Ishtar breaks the rule regarding size-appropriate weapons on hulls. Sentry drones are fundamentally a battleship-sized weapon system, and aren't game-breaking when used on such; perhaps in need of tuning like the DDA effectiveness reduction, but that's all. The combination of cruiser-class signature and speed, T2 resists (remember that no T2 battleships are viable for fleet combat) and the long-range projection of sentries are what push the Ishtar over the top in combat situations.

For whatever it might be worth, making the Ishtar into an improved version of the VNI, with fast enough drone travel times to be useful, seems a more practical situation, and allows for fleets deploying heavy smartbomb contingents to be an effective counter.


This is suggested so often but it just isn't the case. Drones not being locked to the size of their owner ship is one of the most consistent and distinct things about them. Vexors, VNIs, Myrmidons, Eos's, and Ishtars (at least) all use 'battleship sized' drones, and everything bigger than a destroyer can use 'frigate sized' drones. This flexibility is part of what makes drones really interesting and while sentries have become a big part of what makes certain hulls so strong, we don't want to lock drone ships into drones that match their ship size.


CCP Rise, this statement is, unconditionally, false. Correct is that drones are not locked to the size of the ship conditional on the drone bandwidth of the ship. Hence, no, I cannot fit an Ogre II, a Sentry, or a Gecko in my Maulus. In fact the best counter example to this argument is the Guristas line of Worm, Gila, Rattlesnake. No, I cannot fit a Gecko in my Gila. Nor would a person of sane mind fit anything but small drones in a Worm or medium drones in a Gila.

The implication for Drone rebalancing would be straightforward. It would be perfectly possible to restrict sentries to any ship class by adjusting the drone bandwidth sentries require (and by adjusting the drone bandwidth and drone bays of intended ships accordingly). That you do not want to is a different story and perhaps the right thing. But water hold, your argument does not (I think Master Yoda said that).
Natalia Abre-Kai
#700 - 2015-07-07 00:54:27 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Natalia Abre-Kai wrote:
Funny how there is no one that is saying the Myrm, Eos, or the Prophecy are "OP" yet still get hammered with the DDA nerf. Also how about those drone related implants that seem to not exist. Ya, some "balance". Roll

Edit: Lets not even mention that drones are destructible or that they have to travel to target (aside from sentries).


2% per mod on a damage mod is hammered now? What was it called when HML got nerfed then?

So you are saying the nerf is not going to effect said ships? Okay.