| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Beep BeepCLick
    |
Posted - 2009.04.23 06:00:00 -
[691]
THis is a issue
|
Drad Lord
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 06:33:00 -
[692]
1) Large Artillery - its a big broblem
2) Add to TC and TE falloff same as optimal
3) Tempest - increase PG and do 7th place for gun and remove one missile
4) minmatare's recons need increase web strenght
|
SDragoon
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 07:03:00 -
[693]
1. Level 4s being too profitable
2. Low sec not very attractive for the risk. Give people an incentive to band together and defend themselves from pirates.
3. Ships with bonuses to multiple weapon types. I'm talking ships like the Lachesis and the Gila. A 5% bonus to hybrid and a 5% bonus to missile is effectively just a single 5% bonus. Not to mention it's a nightmare trying to stack damage mods for these ships as they need twice as many to get the same effective damage increase as a single weapon type ship. There is no real upside to multiple different weapon types and a myriad of downsides.
|
RedClaws
Amarr
Dragon's Rage
Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 07:09:00 -
[694]
Edited by: RedClaws on 23/04/2009 07:09:06
1) Titans
- Make the doomsday very expensive.
- Make titans unable to be repaired/regenerated in any way except in a "drydock".
- Drydock repair should take time and capital parts so that the damaged titan is "out of action" for a while after a failed attempt to destroy the ship.
- Increase their HP by lots to rebalance for this feature.
2) Moons
Awefull game mechanics. Rich get richer and poor get their asses handed to them. Needs a total remake.
- The old "System Scanning Array" POS module can be remade into a "Moon Scanning Array".
- A "Moon Scanning Array" needs to scan the moon surface before minerals can be mined.
- Each day/hour/week the scanner will add a pile of random minerals to the "can be mined" list of the moon.
- Once scanned these minerals can be mined by a moonminer.
- More scanners will get you more minerals so your moonminer will never run out of minerals in case your scanner has a streak of bad luck.
- Minerals detected by the "Moon Scanning Array" will be influenced by the system security (-1.0 being the best).
This way an alliance can chose between building an outpost in the -1.0 with few moons which is easy to defend, or the -1.0 with lots of moon and higher profits at an increased risk/cost.
3) Small gang warfare
Small gangs should be able to do some damage and steal some money from the enemy.
- Disabling moon miners (and looting the last few hours)
- Deactivating station services much more easily (not millions of HP)
- Deactivating jumpbridges (not millions of HP)
- ... Pretty much anything that allows a smaller alliance to cause mayham to a bigger alliance.
 |
Lydia Brightlance
Gallente
V.O.C
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 08:27:00 -
[695]
1. Sovereignty. The current system only keeps the big alliances in place and the universe static. It also encourages blob warfare.
2. Defender missiles and Ewar. I put defender missiles in with this since it seems to be the missile counter option as opposed to tracking disruption for guns.
3. CONCORD mechanics need good documentation. When are you flagged, when aren't you. What happens when people with different standings and different corporations remote repair, jam, help, oppose others.
|
Tiuwaz
Minmatar
No Paradise
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 09:09:00 -
[696]
1) projectiles
- artillery as a whole needs a rework
- large acs need some sort of boost
- there is no module to increase falloff as opposed to optimum while there does exist ew to reduce fallofff, thisis not balanced
2) minmatar BS and capitals
- worst capitals of all espcially the naglfar needs work
- weak BS line with little to no focus and role differentiation among them
3) Titans
- boring and tedious gameplay once Titans are involved
- remove insurance payouts from all Supercaps
___________________________________
 |
Yukiko Matsuo
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 10:11:00 -
[697]
1. Destroyer
Not even rookies use them(expect dedicated salvaging)
2. Fleet Warfare
Shooting at each other with a distance of 150km+ isnt fun, ships <BS cant compete, EWAR is more or less useless...
Shorter distances, more useful ships, more dynamic.
3. T1 Mods, more or less the same as with destroyers. They are just used if no named modules are avaible.. |
1Of9
Gallente
The Circle
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 10:23:00 -
[698]
- blasters (needs a boost)
- supercaps (needs a massive boost)
- jump clones (24hrs delay /o\)
|
D'Artagnan
Bladerunners
KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 14:05:00 -
[699]
Originally by: isdisco3
Edited by: isdisco3 on 22/04/2009 22:37:24
1. minmatar projectiles (artilleries, autocannons, regardless of size - 102
2. minmatar ships (capitals, bs, recons, and so on) - 93
3. general re-balance of regions (complaints about risk / reward of highsec, lowsec, and 0.0, mostly missions) - 62
4. blasters - 61
5. t2 ammunition (typically short-range, but complaints were about it in general) - 57
6. rockets - 31
7. sov, pos, and the resulting 0.0 warfare - 27
8. non-ECM ewar (typically, boost it) - 27
9. ecm drones specifically - 20
10. types of tanking (passive vs armor vs shield vs hull) - 20
11. titans - 18
12. assault ships - 17
13. pos setup and logistics - 16
So according to this the first thing to get its discussion thread is issue number 9 
What happened to the top 3 ?
 |
MicroWarpdrive II
Disorder.
Shock Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 14:31:00 -
[700]
are you serious? you picked ecm drones as the top issue? what the ****....
seriously, if the naglfar and large projectiles don't get fixed this patch, im going to unsub.
|
|
Tyby
Viper Squad
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 15:21:00 -
[701]
Quote:
Create a Top 3 list of what you believe is unbalanced. Based on how many people are unsatisfied with a given subject weFll create separate threads (limited amount) where we analyze the problem and try to figure out a solution.
sorry but what happened with TOP 3 list? why are the first problem that will be adressed "the number 9" one? i hope this thread is not some sort of "write what you think is unbalanced here, and we will look at what WE think it's unbalanced" like CCP had did before on many ocassions 
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 15:34:00 -
[702]
Originally by: isdisco3
Edited by: isdisco3 on 22/04/2009 22:37:24
1. minmatar projectiles (artilleries, autocannons, regardless of size - 102
2. minmatar ships (capitals, bs, recons, and so on) - 93
3. general re-balance of regions (complaints about risk / reward of highsec, lowsec, and 0.0, mostly missions) - 62
4. blasters - 61
5. t2 ammunition (typically short-range, but complaints were about it in general) - 57
6. rockets - 31
7. sov, pos, and the resulting 0.0 warfare - 27
8. non-ECM ewar (typically, boost it) - 27
9. ecm drones specifically - 20
10. types of tanking (passive vs armor vs shield vs hull) - 20
11. titans - 18
12. assault ships - 17
13. pos setup and logistics - 16
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep.
I am always here.
Watching.
Waiting.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
it does get progressively longer.
|
Rip Striker
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 15:44:00 -
[703]
ECM Drones? 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
|
Illectroculus Defined
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 16:01:00 -
[704]
1) Hi-sec lvl-4 missions should be a depletable resource, just like asteroids can get mined out, so can missions. Agents should sometimes say 'Sorry, got nothing for you here, maybe try agent **** in ***'. Furthermore do something about mission loot to make mining viable of something other than Veldspar and Arkonor viable.
2) Ewar drones are rubbish, except for ECM drones, give them some love.
3) Make faction ships better (and maybe add some more, I'd love a sisters scanning frigate)
|
Zhula Guixgrixks
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations
Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 16:15:00 -
[705]
Edited by: Zhula Guixgrixks on 23/04/2009 16:27:11
1) frigates - missing some love
It seems to me, frigates are the stepchilds of eve . Let me list some examples to
outline my thoughts.
- rocket "issue" . It's known for ages but nothing happens here.
- AFs. Yes AF were changed and are somehow useful now, but it took (again) ages.
Nozh, please be careful with AFs agility, after all they are frigates and need agility and
speed to survive.
- ECM balancing. Rook/Falcon got 30% ECM streght. Somebody forgot the Kitsune ?
- T2 frigate prices. I will not use exact numbers but magnitudes to explain it.
T1 to T2 frigate price ratio ~ 1:70 (Rifter vs. AF)
T1 to T2 cruiser ratio ~ 1:19 (Rupture vs. HAC)
T1 to T2 bs ratio ~ 1:11 (tier 2 BS vs. Marauder)
T1 to T2 freighter ratio ~ 1:5x (freighter vs. jf)
other comparison
T2 frigate to T1 cruiser ~ 1:3
T2 cruiser to T1 BS ~ 1:1.34
T2 bs to T1 cap ~ 1:1
What's next ? A T2 Titan for a price of a T1 one ? Ok, just kidding but you can clearly see the point.
T2 frigates are supposed to be the initial T2 ships for noobs and newcomers (?). The problem is,
if a typical poor and unexperienced noob wants to upgrade from a Rifter to a Jag, he has pay 70 times the price. Why should he pay ?
After a few (expensive) losses he will realize that a T1 cruiser offers a much more economic way to do PvP. After a while he will probably even end up in a bigger hull.
I think prices between 5-10m would have a good impact on popularity of those fragile but funny ships.
A possibility to push it this way could be a batch increase of T2 frigate BPCs and better ME numbers.
- Why are there no T3 frigates ? Another "frigate=low priority" issue.
My key points are:
- frigates seems to have a very low priority on your agenda.
- T2 frigate price tag seems very high compared with other ship classes.
Nozh&friends, from the perpective of frigate pilot you did a great job in QR. QR really put some
new life into this ship class. Carry on and thank you.
|
Deviana Sevidon
Gallente
Panta-Rhei
Guardian Federation
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 16:56:00 -
[706]
1. Rebalance Active Tanking vs. Passive Tanking.
In PvP a Passive Tank is often far more useful then an active Tank. But things have come to the point were a passive (Shield) Tank is more useful then a Bonus for active Armor Repairers on a Ship. Tier 3 Gallente and Minmatar BS suffer from having received the "poor" tanking Bonus. Passive Tanking should at least be viable again in small Gangs.
2. The range of Blasters is a bit too short and the damage of Projectiles a bit too low, compared to Lasers.
3. Titans. A lot of people wrote about. But this thing is the ultimate stupidity in its current form. Remove the damn Doomsday and make it into a kind of Mobile Outpost with extra defense. But the DD is entirely wrong.
Quote:
Disclaimer: All mentioned above contains my opinion and is therefore an absolute truth (for me anyway, my universe, muhahaha.....ok, done
|
Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 17:01:00 -
[707]
The faction ships deserves a new thread imo. A lot of us got some interesting ideas on how to fix them.
I'd like to make a new 3 list based on the faction ships, but I guess it was meant to be one list per player ^^.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
Casino Alkasar
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 17:06:00 -
[708]
1 bring up forgotten things like:
rockets, bombs, small & medium smartbombs etc
2 Think about the lame ol dock games, and the *local* as intell channel
3
Give some love to the drone interface(its so clunky it makes noises), and think about the gallente droneboats some more loveis needed also after eos and myrm got cut down.
_________________
itze mine
Rock&n roll |
Koniss
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 17:08:00 -
[709]
1- CCP nerfs all around
2- projectile weapons
3- naglfar
|
Illwill Bill
Svea Rike
Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 18:59:00 -
[710]
1) Artillery needs love. Larger clip sizes would allow long-term bombardment and increase the DPS as the reloads would have longer between them. The different ammo types are fine as they are, and changing them would give a boost to autocannons aswell.
2) Rockets are fairly useless in most situation. I like the previous ideas about increasing DPS while making the clip size smaller. While it is true that rockets are not intended as a primary weapons system, rockets should still have some short-term DPS, making them useful to provide that extra boom in close-range slug-fests or to save someone's arse, because that ceptor got a hailstorm coming his way.
At the same time, ships with bonuses to rockets would become masters at hit'n run ops. They would be able to provide high DPS for small periods of time, allowing people to get in, kill, and then get out fast.
3) Destroyers are not really broken, although their current role is so seldom used that they have been reduced to salvagers. At best they are glass cannons; with good damage for their size, but still unable to survive an encounter with two or three interceptors, which is odd considering their anti-frigate role.
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?
|
|
Max Tux
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 20:39:00 -
[711]
Edited by: Max Tux on 23/04/2009 20:41:09
1) Rockets/citadel torps - sort out the explosion velocity,
2) Damage mods- why does a BCU unit require 10 more CPU than any other damage mod? especially considering its not like they boost the damage any more than other mods boost their respective weapons, its 10.5% ROF and 10% damage bonus on all 4 damage mod type
3) Shield transfer CPU usage
- a tech 2 large remote armor rep uses 48tf, and 660MW,
reasonable,
- a tech 2 large shield transfer uses, 154tf, and 192MW,
yes generally shield tanking ships have more CPU than Armor tanking ships, but comparing the Raven, and the Mega,
1 LRAR takes 4% ( no skills) of the Mega's grid and 8% of its CPU,
in comparison:
1 LST takes 22% of the ravens CPU and 2% of its grid.
Reduce the CPU requirement to bring it more inline and allow shield transfers to be fitted without needing to Gimp the fit.
*edit for readability*
|
zacuis
Great Big Research
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 21:07:00 -
[712]
Edited by: zacuis on 23/04/2009 21:07:34
1 moon minerals. specifically the way too hi cost of dyspro and prom. i personally think u should rejig dyspros use in the complex reactions to make thulium and neodyspro used slightly more.
2 mining. my main concerns with mining are that finding velphar in large amounts shouldnt be an issue like it currently is system wide astroid belts or at least much large belts would go along way to fix this. also a lower trit price would go a long way to boosting hi end prices and making 0.0 worth the time again. also the fact that so many minerals come from missions is bs. u should remove t1 loot drops from missions in fact remove all mod drops would be better.
3 pos i generally like how pos work im sure im one of the few. what i do hate tho is building them. why oh why do u think taking 12 hours to put up a fully fit deathstar is fun for anyone. while i understand the needfor the time sink i think u should add a que system so u can say where u want everything then let the que handle the timers.
also titans need a major rethink
|
VoiceInTheDesert
Zebra Corp
Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 21:16:00 -
[713]
Very few people care about ewar drones. It's an issue, but meh.
Why are we starting at #9? You said "create a top 3 list" and then one of the least suggested ideas. I realize your guys' job is hard and I give you a lot of props for taking so much undeserved flak...but come on. If you ask for input and then choose the issue no one really cares that much about, you're going to get flamed and for good reason.
|
LordVodka
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 21:33:00 -
[714]
1) T2 ammo (close range mainly) ever since the webs have been nerfed T2 ammo has basically become useless, tracking shouldn't be nerfed using it, or not nearly as much.
2) High sec lvl 4's basically.... move them all to low sec.
3) Agility vs. Scan resolution, ever since Agility was boosted in order to increase acceleration it's been incredibly hard to catch ships without using tons of sensor boosters and then you lose your web and they get away, anywho (in gatecamping situation). Therefor I believe Scan Resolution should be boosted across the board so that a Hac can catch a cruiser, a Bs can catch a BC/Cmd Ship, etc.
 |
Mara Kell
Steel Beasts
Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 23:49:00 -
[715]
1) Rockets need to be looked at, ships with rocket specific bonuses are doing abysmal low damage
2) Javelins T2 ammunition (rockets and HAMs) were turned useless with the missile reballance patch
3) Amarr Drones need a role, they are currently worse than other types in doing whatever
|
Gwen Khora
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 01:10:00 -
[716]
1. ) Active tanking. Active shield tanking isn't seen all that much in pvp and it is much rarer in armor tanking than shield tanking.
Reasons- I'll use battleship sized T2 mods for an example. Xlarge shield boosters boost 600 shield per 5 seconds while a large armor repair reps 800 every 11.25 seconds on unrigged setups. In other words (since I'm lazy and don't feel like using a calculator an X large shield booster will boost 1200 shield hp in 10 seconds, 400 more hitpoints 1.25 seconds less. Add in a shield boost amp and its 1632 in 10 seconds, twice the rate of the large armor rep and with 2 it does 2142 every 10 seconds. This makes dual reps on armor tanks the only viable option which takes too much fitting space in comparison to a few shield boost amps and xlarge booster to be viable in most setups. The lack of a shield boost amp like module for active armor tanking is a big problem with this and should be added with the rep amount and cycle time for armor reps to be more in line with the Xlarge shield boosters.
2.) T2 ammo, since the web nerf the short range T2 ammo needs loving as I see no reason to take T2 over faction ammo
3.) falcons and caldari recons in general, hybrid bonus on the falcon just sounds like ccp couldn't think of a useful bonus to give it so here is an idea, create a new form of ew to be in line with the other races that each have 2 forms of ewar that they can deploy while caldari have been reduced to 1 with 1 racial bonus. Personally i would like to see a tracking disruptor like module for missile users because it seems unbalanced that missile users face one less form of ew than turret based ships
|
Zaisen Abarai
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 04:39:00 -
[717]
Seriously now.
1. Large Artillery Cannons
2. Projectile Ammo
3. Minmatar BS +
Minmatar bleeding. Minmatar revisited.
|
Gilbert T
Gallente
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 04:58:00 -
[718]
First of all, let me start by saying that I think this whole "balancing" process is crap. It seems like you're on a mission to just make everything weak and effectively "dumb down" the game.
But since you've started and can't be stopped, here is what you asked for:
1) Lasers are too strong. They have way more range and do way more damage than any other type of weapon. Coupled with the bonuses on Amarr ships for them and the tank bonuses on those ships, they just make the Amarr ships superior to all others in pretty much every way. I think the real problem is in the lasers, though.
2) Invention is basically screwed up. The chances on invention success for most cruisers and larger are too low, which makes the cost of making the BPC unreasonable to use them in manufacturing, and the existence of BPOs for most T2 items and ships makes it completely useless to do inventions on much of anything, since the costs of building from "invented" blueprints is 150% of that from an unresearched BPO. Allowing research on BPCs would probably fix that problem. Making it possible to "invent" faction/officer stuff would probably make it useful again, as well.
3) Fix insurance. The payouts should be based on market values, not material costs. The material cost method doesn't even make sense. Imagine if your house could only be insured for the cost of the raw materials that went into it, and none of the contents could be insured... Really we should be able to insure fittings as well as ships, but at the very least the payouts on ships should be realistic.
*) The first thing wouldn't really be a problem except that all of the other ships are taking loads of nerfbat damage, leaving the laser wielding ships more powerful than the others. The other 2 are just major failures it seems. The invention was destroyed by the introduction of T2 BPOs if I understand it correctly, and I don't know if the insurance ever made sense for anything other than T1 ships.
I hope to see all of this fixed soon!
|
Clueless Alt
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 11:30:00 -
[719]
Edited by: Clueless Alt on 24/04/2009 11:33:23
Originally by: isdisco3
1. minmatar projectiles (artilleries, autocannons, regardless of size - 102
2. minmatar ships (capitals, bs, recons, and so on) - 93
3. general re-balance of regions (complaints about risk / reward of highsec, lowsec, and 0.0, mostly missions) - 62
4. blasters - 61
5. t2 ammunition (typically short-range, but complaints were about it in general) - 57
6. rockets - 31
7. sov, pos, and the resulting 0.0 warfare - 27
8. non-ECM ewar (typically, boost it) - 27
9. ecm drones specifically - 20
10. types of tanking (passive vs armor vs shield vs hull) - 20
11. titans - 18
12. assault ships - 17
13. pos setup and logistics - 16
Quoting for new threads.
|
Amberle Vale
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 12:26:00 -
[720]
Greetings,
1. Battleship class missiles are getting a 50%+ DPS loss against ships in their intended class range, when said ship has an afterburner fit. Torpedoes and Cruise Missiles should be doing at least 80% of their damage against their intended targets regardless of the afterburner.
- Torpedoes and Cruise Missiles need a buff against their intended targets.
2. Capital class missiles: carriers, dreads and titans are speed tanking Citadel torpedoes. This makes the phoenix strictly an installation attacker, which is out of alignment with the other dreads capabilities.
- Citadel torpedoes need a buff, other capitals should not be able to speed tank them.
3. The Nighthawk could use a slight PG boost.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |