These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Rethinking Cruiser Balance

Author
James Zimmer
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2017-03-05 23:25:37 UTC
Rethinking Cruisers.

Right now, there are a ton of combat cruisers that generally do very similar things. In a lot of ways, T1, navy, and T2 cruisers share exactly the same space in the balance of the game with navy and T2 just being better. This has led to a stale meta, where only a few cruisers are truly competitive. This is an idea to differntiate cruisers into distinct categories. It is not designed to balance individual ships and I realize that more changes will have to be done to specific ships to get them to fit into this construct. It also leaves out Navy and Pirate cruisers. They can probably be integrated into this later if needed.

Here is the construct:

Split cruisers (T1/2) into 4 classes, with T2 cruisers operating on the extreme and specialized ends of the spectrum. From one extreme to the other, this is what it would look like:
1. T2 Heavy Tackle Cruisers. Tackle bonuses, MWD speed bonuses, but absolutely no long range weapons.
2. T1 Tackle cruisers. MWD Speed bonuses, enough PG to use long-range weapons, with sacrifices
3. T1 Assualt Cruisers. Generally good balance. Enough PG to comfortably use long-range weapons.
4. T2 Heavy Assualt Cruisers. Web and paint resistance (for sig-tanking), enough PG to comfortably use long-range weapons, penalty to tackle modules.

Now for some numbers. I realize that something in here is probably going to be broken bad, so just bear with me; this is a starting place.

T1 short-range cruisers (Stabber, Thorax, Caracal and Omen)
- 5% increase to speed per racial cruiser level while using an MWD.

T2 short-range cruisers (Vagabond, Deimos, Cerb and Zealot)
- 5% increase to speed per racial cruiser level while using an MWD
- 5-7.5% (one or the other, not a range, I'm just not sure which it should be) tackle module range increase per HAC level
- 50% reduction to short-range weapon powergrid requirements.
- Weak powergrids to essentially drive them out of using long range weapons.

T1 heavy cruisers (Rupture, Vexor, Moa and Maller) more or less stay as is.


T2 heavy cruisers (Muninn, Ishtar, Eagle and Sacrilege)
- 50% resistance to webs
- 10% resistance to paints per HAC level
- 50% range penalty to tackle modules.

Now have fun at tearing this apart!
Lugh Crow-Slave
#2 - 2017-03-06 00:12:19 UTC
James Zimmer wrote:
Rethinking Cruisers.

Right now, there are a ton of combat cruisers that generally do very similar things. In a lot of ways, T1, navy, and T2 cruisers share exactly the same space in the balance of the game with navy and T2 just being better. This has led to a stale meta, where only a few cruisers are truly competitive. This is an idea to differntiate cruisers into distinct categories. It is not designed to balance individual ships and I realize that more changes will have to be done to specific ships to get them to fit into this construct. It also leaves out Navy and Pirate cruisers. They can probably be integrated into this later if needed.


what game have you been playing?


cruisers are probably the most diverse ship class full of E-war logi DPS utility ect

you have


HICS
HACS split into high dps and tank/dps
Logi split into solo and fleet
Recon split into combat and force

the only area there is really any overlap is T1 cruisers and that is because there is supposed to be. T1 is meant to do a job but be general enough to spill over. even Navy ships are not often a direct upgrade generally with subtle differences that push them further into some role but sometimes out right change the role of the ship. Navy logi are a good example of this.

the reasons some ships bubble to the top of the meta is not because they are all the same across the classes but because the classes are the same across races. This means that there are ~4 identical but flavored ships for each job many times the flavoring is enough to keep them separate. Like with Logi and recon. Other times the flavoring does not differentiate the role enough and a clear better or worse ship will emerge. Most common place for this is DPS the reason why is simple there are not many ways to uniquely do it so each one will step on the others toes only place in eve i have seen ccp manage this is in BLOPS but the nature of battleships makes it much easier to do than with cruisers who by nature are more flexible.


to be honest considering the vast number of cruisers i would say CCP has done a pretty damn good job I can't think of many I fly more or less based on the hull. The biggest issue by far with cruisers is the current state of medium weapons. the only ones that seem to be in a good place are hybrids. Auto cannons are a joke HAMs and HMs seem to be afraid to actually hurt anyone. RLML are out of control on anything with a range bonus. lasers have similar application issues with heavies but are a bit better
Lugh Crow-Slave
#3 - 2017-03-06 00:19:26 UTC
James Zimmer wrote:
[
T1 short-range cruisers (Stabber, Thorax, Caracal and Omen)
- 5% increase to speed per racial cruiser level while using an MWD.

yeah thats what i want in a short range cruiser MWD Roll
Quote:

T2 short-range cruisers (Vagabond, Deimos, Cerb and Zealot)
- 5% increase to speed per racial cruiser level while using an MWD
- 5-7.5% (one or the other, not a range, I'm just not sure which it should be) tackle module range increase per HAC level
- 50% reduction to short-range weapon powergrid requirements.
- Weak powergrids to essentially drive them out of using long range weapons.

yeah so now rather than just having a good guess i know EXACTLY what weapons will be fit to my target
Quote:


T1 heavy cruisers (Rupture, Vexor, Moa and Maller) more or less stay as is.


T2 heavy cruisers (Muninn, Ishtar, Eagle and Sacrilege)
- 50% resistance to webs
- 10% resistance to paints per HAC level
- 50% range penalty to tackle modules.

Now have fun at tearing this apart!


well this one is just broken... and i guarantee you i would use this one for brawling more than the other one you listed.

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#4 - 2017-03-06 01:00:27 UTC
What two T1 cruisers are you thinking do the same thing? Cause I'm kinda at a loss..

Def not keen on the 'short weapons only' and 'penalised tackle' concepts. Stifles creativity with those ships by saying you will/wont fit these mods. Also wonder if it can even be done. Artillery and auto-cannons are both projectile weapons. They have different ranges but i don't think the game recognises 'long range' or 'short range' weapons, just optimal and fall-off.

I'd maybe make hacs 'heavier' but i think things outside of t3's are mostly fine.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Lugh Crow-Slave
#5 - 2017-03-06 01:05:35 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:

I'd maybe make hacs 'heavier' but i think things outside of t3's are mostly fine.



They did that and called them hics
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#6 - 2017-03-06 12:07:06 UTC
I like the result of the tiericide project just fine as it turned out. Maybe some cruisers can use a little closer look but that's about it.

The special snowflake case ships turned out more or less okay and with the t2 logi someone inversed the difference between shield and armor tanking.

And while the cruiser class is fine-ish, bigger ships suffer a lot from increased firepower of the small ones.

To this day since the day a Raven hurt someones feelings in nullsec in the Band of Developers the Caldari suffer the consequences.

If someone would rename the Caldari minmatar and vice versa, the lore would be accurate.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

James Zimmer
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2017-03-06 20:37:10 UTC
The deal with the higher speed for the short range ships is to reinvigorate a brawling vs. kiting meta. I feel brawling is at a substantial disadvantage when compared with kiting right now, and that kiting is just a smarter thing to do. Giving the brawler a way to consistently close the gap makes it more of a tradeoff and balances out the two styles of gameplay.

The slow ships would certainly be better brawlers in most situations if fit for brawling. However, this really wouldn't be a change. I mean, when was the last time you heard of a Thorax out-brawling a Vexor? The Vexor can either nuet out the Thorax and turn off its guns and reps, or just go with DPS and win the DPS race. The slow ships don't have range control, so they have to be better brawlers or they would just get torn to shreds. This concept gives that Thorax a role that is different than the Vexor, not better.

I know I drove the T2 ships heavily toward specialization, but that's because I think that's more interesting game design and prevents the high-speed T2 ships from being broken good at kiting. You could do this in a somewhat more gentle way if you wanted, but I personally like the harsh specialization for T2 ships, which is consistent with most T2 ships in the game. I'm not as sure with the tackle range penalty, but I wanted something to prevent the T2 from being T1 but better, and it was the best thing I could think of at the time.
James Zimmer
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2017-03-06 20:52:00 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
I like the result of the tiericide project just fine as it turned out. Maybe some cruisers can use a little closer look but that's about it.

The special snowflake case ships turned out more or less okay and with the t2 logi someone inversed the difference between shield and armor tanking.

And while the cruiser class is fine-ish, bigger ships suffer a lot from increased firepower of the small ones.

To this day since the day a Raven hurt someones feelings in nullsec in the Band of Developers the Caldari suffer the consequences.

If someone would rename the Caldari minmatar and vice versa, the lore would be accurate.


I personally think the special snowflake ships are a blast. For example, command destroyers are so specialized that try as you may, you just can't make them good combat ships. However, they're a blast to fly because you have a unique place and purpose in a fleet. If someone wants to fly a high-end, well-rounded ship, pirate faction (and to a lesser extent, navy faction) exists to fill that niche.

I agree with the statement about larger ships suffering from increased firepower from small ships, which is why I didn't adjust damage amount at all for this. To me, battleships in particular feel unimpressive. I think that in general they should track worse but hit harder. However, that rabbit hole is probably better left for another thread.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#9 - 2017-03-06 21:04:55 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:

Def not keen on the 'short weapons only' and 'penalised tackle' concepts. Stifles creativity with those ships by saying you will/wont fit these mods. Also wonder if it can even be done. Artillery and auto-cannons are both projectile weapons. They have different ranges but i don't think the game recognises 'long range' or 'short range' weapons, just optimal and fall-off.


They did torp launcher only for bombers so it obviously can be done. At worst they would need to add long/short range classification to all weapon to follow the torp/cruise system.
Cade Windstalker
#10 - 2017-03-06 23:28:44 UTC
James Zimmer wrote:
The deal with the higher speed for the short range ships is to reinvigorate a brawling vs. kiting meta. I feel brawling is at a substantial disadvantage when compared with kiting right now, and that kiting is just a smarter thing to do. Giving the brawler a way to consistently close the gap makes it more of a tradeoff and balances out the two styles of gameplay.

The slow ships would certainly be better brawlers in most situations if fit for brawling. However, this really wouldn't be a change. I mean, when was the last time you heard of a Thorax out-brawling a Vexor? The Vexor can either nuet out the Thorax and turn off its guns and reps, or just go with DPS and win the DPS race. The slow ships don't have range control, so they have to be better brawlers or they would just get torn to shreds. This concept gives that Thorax a role that is different than the Vexor, not better.

I know I drove the T2 ships heavily toward specialization, but that's because I think that's more interesting game design and prevents the high-speed T2 ships from being broken good at kiting. You could do this in a somewhat more gentle way if you wanted, but I personally like the harsh specialization for T2 ships, which is consistent with most T2 ships in the game. I'm not as sure with the tackle range penalty, but I wanted something to prevent the T2 from being T1 but better, and it was the best thing I could think of at the time.


Brawling vs sniping/kiting has changed around several times since Eve started.

The general problem is that anything that makes brawling "viable" probably also makes it better.

Like your general idea here: "Giving the brawler a way to consistently close the gap"

The problem with this, fundamentally, is that if I can consistently and easily get within brawling range then why would anyone ever bring a sniping setup? They deal significantly less damage and have worse tracking, so they need to be able to get their licks in before the enemy can close range or they just straight up lose.

Of course you could make it not automatically easy to close range, but at that point you're putting the lynch pin of the entire operation on a single move, and if that fails you're a bit screwed, which means you have to hit a knife's edge balance point to make both kiting and brawling viable and that's basically impossible.

In fact if you look at the Command Destroyers they're basically entirely range control. The reason they haven't lead to a brawling renaissance is because it's hard to actually land on top of someone, and the snipers can use them to keep range just as easily as the brawlers can use them to drop on top of the snipers.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#11 - 2017-03-06 23:49:05 UTC
James Zimmer wrote:


I personally think the special snowflake ships are a blast. For example, command destroyers are so specialized that try as you may, you just can't make them good combat ships.



the stork would like to have a word with you....
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#12 - 2017-03-07 02:22:45 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:



They did torp launcher only for bombers so it obviously can be done. At worst they would need to add long/short range classification to all weapon to follow the torp/cruise system.



Missiles are very different to turrets. Take note that torp launchers are a different item to other launchers in the market window, for skill books, for implants AND for bonuses.

A torp launcher is a torp launcher.
A cruise launcher is a cruise launcher.

Artillery and auto cannons are both large projectile turrets. Though their separations in the market may allow it to work i suppose.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Scipio Artelius
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2017-03-07 02:25:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
James Zimmer wrote:
The deal with the higher speed for the short range ships is to reinvigorate a brawling vs. kiting meta. I feel brawling is at a substantial disadvantage when compared with kiting right now, and that kiting is just a smarter thing to do. Giving the brawler a way to consistently close the gap makes it more of a tradeoff and balances out the two styles of gameplay.

Wouldn't the ability to close the gap consistently just negate kiting as a meta completely?

Kiting ships generally have lower DPS, less tank, poorer tracking weapons (missiles aside). They usually can't shut down an MWD because they are point fit, so can't prevent a micro jump.

The two main advantages of kiting is their speed and range.

If brawlers can just cut that, then kiting is finished as a style of play. What's the point of them?
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#14 - 2017-03-07 08:12:40 UTC
James Zimmer wrote:
....I personally think the special snowflake ships are a blast. For example, command destroyers are so specialized that try as you may, you just can't make them good combat ships....


They could be if it weren't for some Ferengi monkeys messing up moon-poo prices because someone didn't love them as a child.

And command destroyers are awesome, my baby-deliver- errm Stork is an amazing rocket boat with excellent speed, nothing wrong with that.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2017-03-07 13:26:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Brilliant post! If I didn't know better, I'd think it was one of mine.


I'm not going to offer very much support, however, because cruisers are actually in a pretty good spot, and also while T2 is specialized, it's silly to marginalize their fitting options.

I have always wanted a baby HIC, so perhaps we could swap one of the bonuses on the fast attack cruisers (omen, caracal, thorax, stabber) for a tackle bonus. Imagine if they could fit the heavy warp disruptors and scramblers, but lost their damage bonus for it. That would really strongly differentiate them from the maller/moa/vexor/rupture and make them of strategic use in group warfare.

I wouldn't change cruisers very much though.

Also, it's nice to have a T2 combat ship. They are similar price to a pirate faction ship, and similar power but very different in style. The T2 will have less HP but such high resists it can be made to have very rapid repping. They are excellent for ratting when you know which rats you'll be up against. The pirate faction ships, on the other hand, have more total slots, more hit points, and excess powergrid which makes their fits very comfortable. They have a strong generalist use and are great both for PVP (or any PVE in which you don't know what the enemies are) and for lazy mission-running in which one fit works on everything. I like having the distinction, and I wish there was a T2 combat destroyer.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

James Zimmer
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2017-03-07 21:27:04 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
James Zimmer wrote:
The deal with the higher speed for the short range ships is to reinvigorate a brawling vs. kiting meta. I feel brawling is at a substantial disadvantage when compared with kiting right now, and that kiting is just a smarter thing to do. Giving the brawler a way to consistently close the gap makes it more of a tradeoff and balances out the two styles of gameplay.

Wouldn't the ability to close the gap consistently just negate kiting as a meta completely?

Kiting ships generally have lower DPS, less tank, poorer tracking weapons (missiles aside). They usually can't shut down an MWD because they are point fit, so can't prevent a micro jump.

The two main advantages of kiting is their speed and range.

If brawlers can just cut that, then kiting is finished as a style of play. What's the point of them?


The balance will be in the fact that the kiter can do damage to the brawler all the way in, while the brawler has to wait until they're on top of the kiter. In addition, the kiter can warp off if they like. The balancing act will be in how quickly can the brawler close the gap. If it's too fast, kiters will be doomed, if it's too slow (as I think it is right now), brawlers are left hugging gates and stations and avoid giving chase to a ship they will never catch.
Cade Windstalker
#17 - 2017-03-07 21:39:40 UTC
James Zimmer wrote:
The balance will be in the fact that the kiter can do damage to the brawler all the way in, while the brawler has to wait until they're on top of the kiter. In addition, the kiter can warp off if they like. The balancing act will be in how quickly can the brawler close the gap. If it's too fast, kiters will be doomed, if it's too slow (as I think it is right now), brawlers are left hugging gates and stations and avoid giving chase to a ship they will never catch.


Which is, in fact, where we're at now, and brawling really isn't used, because if someone's about to get on top of you in a kiting setup you reposition.

Also anything that lets a brawling ship close faster lets a sniper run away faster.

Your argument here is basically that you think CCP can buff brawling, in some way, as to magically make it viable but not eclipse sniping. I'm telling you that's like trying to land a baseball on a knife's edge from orbit blind. It might happen, but it's so amazingly unlikely you'd be better off playing the lottery.
James Zimmer
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#18 - 2017-03-07 21:51:36 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

Also anything that lets a brawling ship close faster lets a sniper run away faster.


Making a ship that can only use short-range weapons faster than a ship that can use long-range weapons would make brawlers faster while not making snipers faster.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
Your argument here is basically that you think CCP can buff brawling, in some way, as to magically make it viable but not eclipse sniping. I'm telling you that's like trying to land a baseball on a knife's edge from orbit blind. It might happen, but it's so amazingly unlikely you'd be better off playing the lottery.


It's not magic at all. You just need to speed up brawlers so you can generally consistently catch up with kiters in a moderately timely manner. If anything gets out of whack, you just tweak a ship's base speed by 5-10 m/s and clean it up. In addition, even if brawlers get really good at chasing down kiters, you can still spread out your gang so it takes a long time for them to go from one ship to the next.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#19 - 2017-03-07 22:01:44 UTC
James Zimmer wrote:
...Making a ship that can only use short-range weapons faster than a ship that can use long-range weapons would make brawlers faster while not making snipers faster....


Jeebus, can you get the message that BLOBBH-FONE is not a tactic.

Nobody cares if you kids climax for the first time when you and your 7000 buddies shoot at one boat.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Cade Windstalker
#20 - 2017-03-07 22:40:22 UTC
James Zimmer wrote:
Making a ship that can only use short-range weapons faster than a ship that can use long-range weapons would make brawlers faster while not making snipers faster.


This is not how anything in Eve works, nor should it. There is not a single ship in the game that is restricted on the range and type of weapons it can use.

James Zimmer wrote:
It's not magic at all. You just need to speed up brawlers so you can generally consistently catch up with kiters in a moderately timely manner. If anything gets out of whack, you just tweak a ship's base speed by 5-10 m/s and clean it up. In addition, even if brawlers get really good at chasing down kiters, you can still spread out your gang so it takes a long time for them to go from one ship to the next.


The thing you seem to be missing here is that your "you just need to" is A. a really really tiny target to hit without making brawling straight up better and B. might not actually solve the problem you want it to solve.

Never mind that if your above comment is any indication the way you would do this is to hard restrict what weapons a ship can fit based on its speed.

This is not, at all, a simple problem. Any general speed buff to brawling that lets you close relatively equally at one fleet size will let you stomp all over a brawling fleet at another, but if there's a size mismatch you're still screwed. Treating this like a simple problem with a simple solution just displays ignorance of how complicated the meta actually is and all the myriad factors that end up distilled down to "nah, lets do a kiting nano fleet, brawling fleets suck" when you ask the FC if you can bring a brawling ship today.

Also spreading out a kiting gang is a terrible plan because it makes it hard to coordinate and risks putting part of your fleet, and thus your DPS, out of range of some targets.
12Next page