Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1098
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:04:41 -
[31] - Quote
also think some battleships are too weak in general,
Maelstrom its bonuses suggest small scale PvP, but it only excels as a fleet shield arty boat, needs work
Abbadon has multiple flaws, cap being a strong one but also could use a megathron slot layout, less turrets/higher damage bonus and utility high
Geddon/Domi nerfing the geddon to 4 heavies would make more sense here, nerf the neut range aswell, would also like too see drone HP as a separate bonus from damage, particularly at higher drone HP levels (sentries, heavies), and some racial drone bonuses instead of omni being another droneboat speciality.
Tempest also needs work too be a proper attack battleship -more speed/ mobility - stronger turret falloff application/damage/extra turret
raven/rokh - could use some mobility and better cap - would also like too see rokh having equal mids as raven
Attack bc's -moved too T2 bc class -would then allow more diversity in the CBC class by moving 4 into ABC's, mainly looking at brutix/drake/cane/harbinger - would allow drake too lose resist bonus for some application bonus, would go well with missile rebalance, HAM range is mad atm.
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone/fighter assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
|
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
13
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:06:12 -
[32] - Quote
Does the change to the T3 subsystem warfare processors make it possible for off grid boosters to be probed without the need for the probing implants? |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
13
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:10:45 -
[33] - Quote
I also want to point out that I am very happy with your conclusion not to mess with warp speed on the battleship and battlecruiser. Not every ship is meant to be a 'roaming' ship. And as per your data, both ship classes are doing very well.
Overall this looks to be a very good update. |
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1143
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:19:48 -
[34] - Quote
Ab'del Abu wrote:Harvey James wrote:nerfing T3's resists/HP and removing rigs would certainly help bc's and battleships become more viable, but also some HAC's are a little strong and also some pirate cruisers (looking at gila and gurista ships in particular) need a nerf.
I would love an explanation why T3's in general should have T2 resists at all??? Because without they would be shyt.
Proof? Numbers? Something?
Querns wrote:Regarding the image for PVP damage per class: http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66946/1/STEVE_7.png Over what time period does this graph cover? I find the battleship damage quite hard to believe if it covers a period of time over a year or so. e: also, if it isn't too much to ask, could you expand the battleship and combat battlecruiser graphs to show which colors represent which ships?
This. Can we get more details on the time scale and amounts? How were those numbers accumulated? What criteria were used to determine if a certain quantity of damage should be added to the total?
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Retarded Noob
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:27:58 -
[35] - Quote
maybe the ships are not getting utilzed because there are not enough people playing EVE. just saying. |
LT Alter
Adversity. Psychotic Tendencies.
135
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:28:35 -
[36] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:Just to highlight that Eve is the only game I have ever played where inconveniencing the end user/player is a valid balancing decision Twisted It's pretty inconvenient for me to have to run back to lane in League, or wait for units to finish in Starcraft, or not see through walls in Counterstrike, yet for some reason the developers insist on not changing it.
This response is oddly satisfying. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
186
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:29:44 -
[37] - Quote
Does your PVP damage include shooting POS's? |
ArmyOfMe
Alekhine's Gun The Periphery
415
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:30:18 -
[38] - Quote
Im guessing both the bc's and battleship damages comes mostly from high sec station games, wich explains why they can come that high on the list tbh.
We all know how station games now dictate how ships are balanced correctly.
QUOTE CCP Dolan and the EVE Online development team:-áThe battle was relatively even for some time with CFC and Russian forces holding moderate lead at first and only have a slight lead in Titan kills. Then came a turning point in the battle. Manfred Sideous, the initial Fleet Commander for PL/N3, handed over command to the CEO of Northern Coalition., Vince Draken
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1098
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:31:07 -
[39] - Quote
******** Noob wrote:maybe the ships are not getting utilzed because there are not enough people playing EVE. just saying.
its more likely a few selection of ships make the majority not worth using (obsoletes them), a case of why fly a-f when x or y will do the job better.
also some weapon systems need some work, looks at lasers and missiles and ammo in general being far too reliant on big bonused ammo rather than the weapon system carrying most of the range.
would like too see ammo penalties/buffs capped at 30%
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone/fighter assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
|
Narkashima
No Fixed Abode The Kadeshi
6
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:32:40 -
[40] - Quote
"Rather than a data based decision, this one is really about design philosophy. In general, we want there to be risk associated with power. We also want to promote active gameplay as much as possible."
Agreed! Good point!
..so when can we expect AFK cloaky camping to be dealt with? |
|
Funless Saisima
Strange Energy The Bastion
58
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:33:00 -
[41] - Quote
T1 frigates are doing more cumulative DPS than BCs and this isn't a problem? Ok. |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1102
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:35:19 -
[42] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote:"BATTLECRUISER AND BATTLESHIP VIABILITY
Problem: Strong community sentiment that battleships and battlecruisers are not viable currently and that the biggest reason is warp speed changes."
So I was with you until I read this.
Put the decloak mechanic back on bombers and you'll suddenly see increased use of Battleships.
A lot of people raged against this not too long ago.
I actually don't mind the change back, but the community backlash was pretty significant.
This was prior to the ISboxer changes.
The battleships need a way to absorb some of the bomb damage. Bc's somewhat.
Tweaks are needed.
Yaay!!!!
|
Esme Moya Mencken
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:37:31 -
[43] - Quote
"Warp speed" is the reason people were concerned about BC/BS viability?
I have never heard that before, from anyone, anywhere. Sure, they're slow in warp...but that is certainly not the primary reason they're underutilized. That's hogwash. Loads of it.
More likely, no one wants to tackle nerfing the HAC meta and buffing the BC/BS's in one patch. Maybe that's a good idea, too...see where the dice land after the Ishtars fall out of favor. But still...don't serve up this "warp speed" nonsense as why it's not being addressed. |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1628
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:37:50 -
[44] - Quote
Did I read the devblog right?
Mynna says weapon system is balanced, ships aren't.
Fozzie aknowledges, and decides to nerf weapon system because its simpler.
What?
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1102
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:37:50 -
[45] - Quote
Funless Saisima wrote:T1 frigates are doing more cumulative DPS than BCs and this isn't a problem? Ok.
Actually I see that as a good thing. Also fleet warfare.
Yaay!!!!
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
652
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:39:08 -
[46] - Quote
Good changes, this will definitely be a patch nobody can claim lacked content.
That said, we'll see what this does to Ishters. Fingers crossed we can finally fly something else (I'm looking at you Napocs, I didnt train large energy turret 5 for nothing!)
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1102
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:40:05 -
[47] - Quote
Altrue wrote:Did I read the devblog right? Mynna says weapon system is balanced, ships aren't. Fozzie aknowledges, and decides to nerf weapon system because its simpler. What? It would be a slope of falling ships of all the railgun boats out there. I get their reasoning for it. Else they would have to rebalance half a dozen ships because of the outward potential of 1.
Ultimately they all have to be retweaked, but the decision on rails isn't a bad one.
Yaay!!!!
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1628
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:45:27 -
[48] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Altrue wrote:Did I read the devblog right? Mynna says weapon system is balanced, ships aren't. Fozzie aknowledges, and decides to nerf weapon system because its simpler. What? It would be a slope of falling ships of all the railgun boats out there. I get their reasoning for it. Else they would have to rebalance half a dozen ships because of the outward potential of 1. Ultimately they all have to be retweaked, but the decision on rails isn't a bad one.
They literally nerf the rails because of tengu usage. Eagle use remains minor, and Vultures... Never saw a Vulture fleet, have you? (given the skill requirements around Vultures, I don't see any problem with their balance...)
They were THAT CLOSE to balancing the offensive subsystems, since they touched defensive subsystems, which would have solved the problem just fine. Instead they nerf the whole weapon system.
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
|
Cr Turist
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
39
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:45:46 -
[49] - Quote
First off sentry's need a tracking nerf hardcore. most Ishtar or sentry based comps don't even use tracking mods. this is because they don't need to. you make all these cool drone mods but don't force anyone to use them.
Second Ishtar's, why do they have sentry's at all? is this not a battle ship sized weapon? maybe look into making different sized sentry's like every other drone class. small, medium, large, xl large. with differences in both optimal falloffs and TRACKING.
Third rails. bring out the nerf bat not the nerf nuke. smalls and med need some tracking adjustments and maybe a small damage hit but other than that they are fine.
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
278
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:47:31 -
[50] - Quote
Clearly Skynet is a risk free use of fighters and needs to be nerfed (as announced in the o7 Show today).
However, a uncomfortable development question comes up I believe: (as posed in Slack #csm)
"But what is unclear to me is why the addition to removing warp from fighters if they are already not going to be able to be assigned?"
If there is a clear reason CCP has for removing warp entirely from fighters, then please just be upfront and clear about it; otherwise, the perception is left of lazy fixes that simply relegate an iconic piece of EVE Online into obsolescence.
My thought is that the ability for fighters to warp after targets should remain - but an exception should be added that if a Carrier warps off grid, or enters warp at all, the fighters become "Abandoned"; and upon re-connection will auto return to the Carrier in the same system.
This will prevent Carrier groups warping in at a tactical on grid, dropping fighters and then leaving grid to Skynet at a POS (where anyone to think to do so).
That's my input, as I think CCP's announced nerf that also removes warp from fighters and turns them into giant lumbering drones is a over-reaching and misguided attempt to fix Skynet (which needs to be dealt with); but this is too broad, without clear enumeration by CCP as why this extra step is needed.
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
|
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1144
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:51:31 -
[51] - Quote
ArmyOfMe wrote:Im guessing both the bc's and battleship damages comes mostly from high sec station games, wich explains why they can come that high on the list tbh.
We all know how station games now dictate how ships are balanced correctly.
This is actually a legitimate point imo. There are no bombs outside of hisec. I'd really like to see separate graphs based on sec-status (hi/low/nul-sec). I'd be willing to bet there is a vast difference between them.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Inslander Wessette
Killers of Paranoid Souls Universal Paranoia Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:51:48 -
[52] - Quote
@ 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 .
|
Halycon Gamma
Perkone Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:52:17 -
[53] - Quote
Esme Moya Mencken wrote:"Warp speed" is the reason people were concerned about BC/BS viability?
I have never heard that before, from anyone, anywhere. Sure, they're slow in warp...but that is certainly not the primary reason they're underutilized.
Hogwash. Loads of it.
No, it's not. It's mixed fleet composition on roams. Waiting on battleships is Teh Suck(technical term) when also flying with frigates, destroyers and cruisers. If they gate off ahead the battle could, and has, been over before the battleships could get to it. If you wait on the battleship, you're going to spend a lot of cumulative time waiting on the battleships for the gates in the roam. You also hit an engagement problem. The long warps mean smaller hulls can choose to engage or not if the fleet is waiting on battleships, the scout can find targets of opportunity that will be gone by the time battleships can make them to it.
There is a reason right now cruiser sized hulls are the defacto class of choice for roams. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1013
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:52:39 -
[54] - Quote
I'm ok with no battleship buff, as long as the T3 nerfs continue, and if you fix dread blapping and logistics. |
Cr Turist
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
39
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:53:59 -
[55] - Quote
Esme Moya Mencken wrote:"Warp speed" is the reason people were concerned about BC/BS viability?
I have never heard that before, from anyone, anywhere. Sure, they're slow in warp...but that is certainly not the primary reason they're underutilized. That's hogwash. Loads of it.
More likely, no one wants to tackle nerfing the HAC meta and buffing the BC/BS's in one patch. Maybe that's a good idea, too...see where the dice land after the Ishtars fall out of favor. But still...don't serve up this "warp speed" nonsense as why it's not being addressed.
No my carrier can warp gate to gate faster than a battleship and that's just comical latterly my Aeon can warp faster than a raven. I suggest if you have the means to test this you do. it will give u a chuckle.
Bombs to strong!!!! that's why people don't fly anything bigger than a HAC. |
Nami Kumamato
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
541
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:55:08 -
[56] - Quote
So how exactly did the shuttles damage... anything ?!
" And now my ship is oh so cloaked and fit -
I never felt so good, I never felt so hid ! "
- Ramona McCandless, Untitled
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
5891
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:56:40 -
[57] - Quote
Esme Moya Mencken wrote:"Warp speed" is the reason people were concerned about BC/BS viability?
I have never heard that before, from anyone, anywhere. Sure, they're slow in warp...but that is certainly not the primary reason they're underutilized. That's hogwash. Loads of it.
More likely, no one wants to tackle nerfing the HAC meta and buffing the BC/BS's in one patch. Maybe that's a good idea, too...see where the dice land after the Ishtars fall out of favor. But still...don't serve up this "warp speed" nonsense as why it's not being addressed.
Ok, I'll say it for you if you haven't heard it yet.
Warp speed changes have killed the usefulness of battlecruisers and battleships in roaming gangs and small gang warfare.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
Freelancer117
so you want to be a Hero
265
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:57:06 -
[58] - Quote
Quote:First, we wanted to establish whether the problem was more about the Ishtar or more about Sentry Drones. The data makes a pretty convincing case that it really is mostly the Ishtar. While several other ships (Dominix, Navy Vexor, Archon, etc.) are making use of sentries, none of them are anywhere near as sentry reliant as the Ishtar and none of them are coming close to the overall damage that Ishtars represent on TQ.
Well done for showing an intelligent and surgical approach to the matter, CCPgames is changing from it old ways
The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg
GÇÖChilde Roland to the Dark Tower came.GÇÖ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY3oMRLfArU
|
Cr Turist
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
39
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 17:02:08 -
[59] - Quote
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. |
Valterra Craven
514
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 17:03:42 -
[60] - Quote
Honestly, I think a lot of CCPs balance issues are born out of laziness. Ships and weapons needs to be balanced at the same time and the simple solution is to have "profiles" for an entire class of things.
Aka something like this (these numbers are not meant to be representative of actual gameplay, just examples)
Frigs Range: Min Max ~2km ~10km
Damage ~20dps ~150dps
EHP ~1000 ~6000
Do that for all classes and make sure that the variation falls within the values that you set. In the end this back and forth is going to continue until you decide to balance the game as a whole around all possible choices. Laziness only creates more work in the future. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |