Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Benedictus de Suede
Norsewing Naval Command
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 18:56:20 -
[1] - Quote
Much effort is currently put into balance this game. A dont question the fact that a balanced game is important but rather the way CCP does it.
Some stuff get buffed while some get nerfed. In general I think nerfing stuff is a bad approach which also tends to **** people off. If a weapon system or a ship is inferior to another you basically have two options. 1) Throw the **** a side and invent something new and better or.. 2) Improve it to be competitive This is the way hardware & weapon systems evolves in real life, why shouldn't this simple logic work in EVE?
Tweaking every asset in the game consumes time. Time that could be spent on delivering even more depth and content to the game. My suggestion is straight forward - buff the stuff that are "out of balance" and let the rest be.
Today I looked at the zKillboard and did a little comparison regarding how efficient the different Battleships and Cruisers are in the game. Eff. based on reported kills and losses.
Battleships Standard 90 % - Rokh 90% - Tempest 89% - Abaddon 88% - Hyperion 88% - Apocalypse 88% - Armageddon 88% - Typhoon 87% - Megathron 84% - Maelstrom 84% - Scorpion 79% - Dominix 73% - Raven 85% - Mean efficiency
Faction Battleships 95% - Armageddon Navy Issue 94% - Typhoon Fleet Issue 94% - Tempest Fleet Issue 92% - Apocalypse Navy Issue 91% - Megathron Navy Issue 83% - Dominix Navy Issue 76% - Scorpion Navy Issue 66% - Raven Navy Issue 89% - Mean efficiency
Most ships are balanced pretty well but some (the bottom 3) still need SERIUOS buffing right? Btw the Ishtar, according to zKillboard, have the lowest efficency (89%) and it got nerfed??? HAC ships look very well balanced so I can-¦t see a need to rebalance them at all. In general if you also look at the other cruisers; Gallente could use some buffing and Caldari even more to bring them up to the Minmatars and Amarrs very even scores.
CCP - care to comment? |
Mizhir
Matari Exodus
74167
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 18:58:57 -
[2] - Quote
Efficiency on killboard is a feally bad metric for how good someone / something is.
One Man Crew - Collective Solo PVP - Video is out!
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
2761
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 19:26:12 -
[3] - Quote
Two things First what you are proposing is called power creep and that is bad. Second a ship can have a poor ratio if it is popular and gets used a lot.
Added quip, if a ship has a 100% efficiency it is probably OP and needs needed not the other ships buffed.
One more thing try posting how many ships were destroyed vs survived to get your percentage for each ship.
Roleplaying Trinkets for Explorers and Collectors
|
Benedictus de Suede
Norsewing Naval Command
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 19:28:20 -
[4] - Quote
Mizhir wrote:Efficiency on killboard is a feally bad metric for how good someone / something is.
Agree to some part of that statement. But balancing ship must be based on something right? So what do you have in mind?
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Snuffed Out
7775
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 19:31:11 -
[5] - Quote
Benedictus de Suede wrote:Some stuff get buffed while some get nerfed. In general I think nerfing stuff is a bad approach which also tends to **** people off. If a weapon system or a ship is inferior to another you basically have two options. 1) Throw the **** a side and invent something new and better or.. 2) Improve it to be competitive This is the way hardware & weapon systems evolves in real life, why shouldn't this simple logic work in EVE? Because...
- "power creep" causes more balancing problems than it solves because the rest of the game (including structures, missions, and gameplay content) has to be changed as well. Better to polish and improve things so everything "has a place" than just waste effort creating something that will be "obsolete" in a few development cycles (which is what many other games do, and results in a plethora of content and tools that clutters up the database).
- when one thing (or general class of things) is out of balance compared to everything else, it is easier to nerf that one thing (or general class of things) than going over EVERYTHING else and buffing them to the same level.
- it's a game... not real life. Things have to make sense from a game perspective first because real-life comparisons often don't translate well into a virtual setting where people are playing for "fun."
Also...
Benedictus de Suede wrote:Battleship rebalence what happened - CCP care to comment? http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/balance-changes-coming-in-scylla/
Basically...
CCP Rise wrote:Problem: Strong community sentiment that battleships and battlecruisers are not viable currently and that the biggest reason is warp speed changes.
...
We took a fresh look at this issue to make sure we were on the same page as a game design department and this is how we approached it: we started by going over usage metrics and once again saw that clearly that both classes are getting heavy use and are being effective by any measure we have available.
...
Proposed change: None. We are pretty happy with the state of class variation right now and see no reason to make changes.
How did you start?
The SP System
IFW
|
Jack Hayson
Atztech Inc. Ixtab.
124
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 19:31:36 -
[6] - Quote
Benedictus de Suede wrote:Btw the Ishtar, according to zKillboard, have the lowest efficency (89%) and it got nerfed??? This should have been your first clue that the metric you are using is completely useless. |
Benedictus de Suede
Norsewing Naval Command
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 21:37:06 -
[7] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Two things First what you are proposing is called power creep and that is bad. Second a ship can have a poor ratio if it is popular and gets used a lot.
Had to look up the term "Power Creep" never herd of it.
"Power creep is the gradual unbalancing of a game due to successive releases of new content." (Wikipedia)
No, that-¦s not what I-¦m proposing.
Second statement. So if a ship is "unpopular" and it-¦s seldom get used it-¦s more likely to have a good ratio? I can-¦t see the logic in that. However the Raven-¦s popularity as a PVE mission boat could explain some but not all.
If you don-¦t think that the kill/Death ratio is a good measure. Let-¦s have a look at ISK dmg given versus taken (t ISK). Let-¦s focus only on the offensive damage. The same 3 ship are at the bottom.
The extreme "Isk damage taken" for the Raven Navy Issue may be explained in some part due to it-¦s popularity as a PVE mission ship. Still the lack of ISK Damage given suggest that these 3 ship at the bottom arn-¦t the natural choice for offensive PVP . Then you must ask yourself why arn-¦t they more often considered a good choice for PVP.
Dmg Given / Taken 17 / 5...... Megathron Navy Issue 16/ 2...... Armageddon Navy Issue 13/ 2...... Tempest Fleet Issue 13/ 4.......Apocalypse Navy Issue 10/ 2...... Typhoon Fleet Issue 4/ 14.......Raven Navy Issue 4/ 3.......Dominix Navy Issue 4/ 4.......Scorpion Navy Issue |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Snuffed Out
7779
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 01:04:13 -
[8] - Quote
Benedictus de Suede wrote:Had to look up the term "Power Creep" never herd of it.
"Power creep is the gradual unbalancing of a game due to successive releases of new content." (Wikipedia)
No, that-¦s not what I-¦m proposing. Oh really?
Benedictus de Suede wrote:If a weapon system or a ship is inferior to another you basically have two options.
2) Improve it to be competitive This is also called "power creep."
Also... I will also chime in to say that killboard and general numerical metrics should not be solely used to rate or judge a ship. A ship being "viable" or "useful" has more to do then the numbers they pump out.
For example: Tech 2 Logistics ships have no real "metric" to rate their usefulness. They don't kill anything (no weapons)... they don't die in large numbers (which is rather the point of them)... and yet they are considered SUPREMELY useful. So useful in fact, that every so often a few people grumble that they need to be nerfed a bit.
Battleships are the same way. The metric that make them unpopular to many (sentiment-wise) has nothing to do with their actual stats. Their problems are... - they are slow. Painfully slow. - they are perhaps too vulnerable to a swarm of small ships (which was intended, but perhaps could use a bit of tweaking) - many smaller (and cheaper) ships have capabilities similar to battleships.
This makes them unattractive options for most day to day operations. But then again... that might be the point. One does not bring out their capital ship every day unless there is a "special reason" to.
In my opinion... battleships need an extra "edge" or something to make up for their terrible mobility and/or limited use in smaller groups. Nothing drastic, mind you. They are already plenty powerful when used in conjunction with support ships (like logi).
Maybe an extra fitting slot? Maybe more rigging calibration (so you can fit it up with three Tech 2 weapon rigs)? Or maybe reduce the MicroJumpdrive cooldown timer? Let them use it once a minute like Marauders do and let Marauders be able to use it every 30 seconds?
All battleships need is a good, USEFUL, tweak.
How did you start?
The SP System
IFW
|
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4240
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 01:27:06 -
[9] - Quote
Benedictus de Suede wrote:Today I looked at the zKillboard and did a little comparison regarding how efficient the different Battleships and Cruisers are in the game. Eff. based on reported kills and losses. I can almost guarantee these are largely fleet statistics. Outside of a fleet environment and PvE, battlecruisers and battleships are sorely lacking. Of interest to note is that most missile battleships are completely absent from that list, and those that do appear are more or less dead last.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Benedictus de Suede
Norsewing Naval Command
37
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 02:38:03 -
[10] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Benedictus de Suede wrote:Had to look up the term "Power Creep" never herd of it.
"Power creep is the gradual unbalancing of a game due to successive releases of new content." (Wikipedia)
No, that-¦s not what I-¦m proposing. Oh really? Benedictus de Suede wrote:If a weapon system or a ship is inferior to another you basically have two options.
2) Improve it to be competitive This is also called "power creep." NO IT`S NOT. I-¦m NOT talking about introducing new stuff. Every balancing effort involves either buff or a nerf of an attribute - right? Call it a tweak if you like. Also I-¦m not comparing the usefulness of Battleships in general and in relation against other ships types. I do think that the ship within the same class in this case Battleships should be balanced. Sorry but I don-¦t feel that all battleship has the same opportunities. Actually I think we are talking about the same thing.... In my opinion... battleships need an extra "edge" or something to make up for their terrible mobility and/or limited use in smaller groups. Nothing drastic, mind you. They are already plenty powerful when used in conjunction with support ships (like logi). Maybe an extra fitting slot? Maybe more rigging calibration (so you can fit it up with three Tech 2 weapon rigs)? Or maybe reduce the MicroJumpdrive cooldown timer? Let them use it once a minute like Marauders do and let Marauders be able to use it every 30 seconds? All battleships need is a good, USEFUL, tweak... a "lateral buff" if you will. Something to make people WANT to use them that doesn't involve "MOAR POWER!"
Even if your last quote is a discussion concerning the usefulness of Battleship in general I would agree with you 100%. |
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
1003
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 05:00:59 -
[11] - Quote
I took a look at my zkillboard stats and they are pretty decent, and all I've really done in the last few years was disco some small ships/pods in jita. all I really did was graze another ship that was about to do the same, and a slightly shiny pod.
I mean I have no idea how efficient an ishtar is, but for every fleet ishtar there are a few dozen stupid semi-afk ratting ishtars, so I have trouble concluding how good ishtars are by their simple efficiency stats on some killboard.
@ChainsawPlankto
|
Brea Lafail
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 05:08:00 -
[12] - Quote
You have a very poor understanding of this game and should stop posting.
[img]lion biting guy's face[/img] |
Samwise Everquest
Run and Gun Mercenary Corps Forsaken Asylum
119
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 05:34:52 -
[13] - Quote
bottom 3 are mission running morons who get raped in pvp.
Blog Currently Under Construction
http://everyoneonthedomi.blogspot.com/
|
Tiddle Jr
Galvanized Inc.
86
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 09:17:36 -
[14] - Quote
you are not the forst and the last person who don't like current BS (not sure why pirat SB got missed in stats)
anyway what is your proposal in regard of buff stats? Shah has already linked CCP comments about it, so time to seriously think about what you want and put all together vs finger pointing
waiting... |
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4247
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 12:24:59 -
[15] - Quote
Samwise Everquest wrote:bottom 3 are mission running morons who get raped in pvp. Ouch, that's a tad harsh...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Justin Zaine
219
|
Posted - 2015.03.30 23:28:35 -
[16] - Quote
Quote:Some stuff get buffed while some get nerfed. In general I think nerfing stuff is a bad approach which also tends to **** people off. If a weapon system or a ship is inferior to another you basically have two options. 1) Throw the **** a side and invent something new and better or.. 2) Improve it to be competitive This is the way hardware & weapon systems evolves in real life, why shouldn't this simple logic work in EVE?
Tweaking every asset in the game consumes time. Time that could be spent on delivering even more depth and content to the game.
So...you're proposing that once something becomes outdated, CCP trash it entirely and create something brand new in it's place?
Yeah, that won't take more resources and a ship/weapon/module being taken out of the game entirely wouldn't **** people off AT ALL...
He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.
He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.
|
Orlacc
853
|
Posted - 2015.03.30 23:40:26 -
[17] - Quote
You used a bad metric, you didn't know what "power creep" was and yet I am to assume this is a valid thread? Nice try.
You also must know some ships have more kills because they are more "popular." Nothing to do with empirical data.
Not everyone that plays is into theorycraft (ever hear of that?).
"Measure Twice, Cut Once."
|
Phig Neutron
Rubicon Cubism
118
|
Posted - 2015.03.31 05:59:11 -
[18] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:All battleships need is a good, USEFUL, tweak... a "lateral buff" if you will. Something to make people WANT to use them that doesn't involve "MOAR POWER!" They probably just need a bit more tank, or a bit lower price tag.
|
ChromeStriker
Out of Focus Odin's Call
864
|
Posted - 2015.03.31 07:50:13 -
[19] - Quote
Worse Ship Balanace tread ive seen in a long time -_-
You cant base anything off of a single (very narrow minded) metric. You have to look at a much larger picture... what is each ship used for? theyre balance against other ships?
As an example the Bhaal is somewhere around the second least used ship in the game... that doesnt mean its unbalanced... its increadibly powerful but the meta relegates it to this position.
CCP hinted at fanfest theyre going to take another look at BS's and balance generally with a bit more open minded'ness. (whatch the ship balance vid)
No Worries
|
Justin Zaine
219
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 02:49:51 -
[20] - Quote
Quote:CCP - care to comment?
The only CCP-related comment that this thread might be worth is a lock.
He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.
He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.
|
|
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4270
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 03:07:30 -
[21] - Quote
Phig Neutron wrote:They probably just need a bit more tank, or a bit lower price tag. Pirate Battleships have actually dropped quite a bit in price, to the point where I think they're reasonably priced for what you get (the Nestor could stand to see an increase in BPC drops to bring the cost down a few hundred million ISK). Where I think Battleships could really benefit is with a 50% reduction in the LP/associated cost for Faction variants so that they're available around the mid three hundred million ISK mark.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
erg cz
Tribal Core
153
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 07:43:54 -
[22] - Quote
Benedictus de Suede wrote: Eff. based on reported kills and losses.
Battleships Standard 90 % - Rokh 90% - Tempest ...
95% - Armageddon Navy Issue 94% - Typhoon Fleet Issue
Smart bomb ships will always have bigger nimber of kills. Yes, it is that simple. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
95
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 10:36:55 -
[23] - Quote
CCP happened.
Current tech 1 battleship use is limited either to:
1) PVE carebearism in highsec; 2) dedicated neuting platforms; 3) or smartbombing in lowsecks.
Tech 2:
1) Carebearing; 2) Solo White Knight camp break up in lowsecks, but then one tech 1 logi shuts down your damage and you /uninstall.
Black Ops:
1) They want to act like battleships, but they can't. 2) Limited to heroic hotdrop combat; 3) Users /cry for reduced fatigue because -> See point 1.
Enjoy Heroic Cruiser combat Online.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Huttan Funaila
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
376
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 15:30:59 -
[24] - Quote
Benedictus de Suede wrote: Btw the Ishtar, according to zKillboard, have the lowest efficiency (89%) and it got nerfed???
You need to consider how the ships are used.
My alliance uses huge amounts of Ishtars and Dominixes in fleet battles (such as the recent war in Fountain and Delve). Our opponents use huge numbers of ishtars and Maelstroms. For fleet battles they are well balanced (when "herding cats" is required) which is why they are used so frequently. They're fine, don't nerf them.
Ishtars are also so commonly used for ratting (nicknames for the ship include "isktar" and "afktar") that some roamers fit their ships specifically to optimally blow up ishtars. Any ship with a nickname that includes "AFK" anywhere in it is overpowered. Nerf them. |
Lost Greybeard
Drunken Yordles
555
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 18:14:02 -
[25] - Quote
Regarding "efficiency":
Overall, PvP encounters necessarily have a kill:death ratio of 1:1 just because of the law of averages.
Dips below this correspond to PvE-fit ships getting jumped, baited in high sec, etc. Thus, Ishtar, Raven, and other common L4 boats hit the bottom of the list and it has little to do with PvP effectiveness when actually PvP-fit. |
dark man Skord
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 20:06:46 -
[26] - Quote
I will never understand how people will always complain about something being better than something else. The second there is more than one thing, one thing will be the best, even if it's marginal. It's especially confusing for me in VIDEO GAMES where players can use EVERYTHING if they so choose to. Fact of the matter is, this game has been good for a long while. Only losers complain. But I'm sure the horde of butt hurt losers with misinformation are gonna come on here and "prove" me wrong. Go ahead, I personally don't care either way.
I only came on here to share my opinion since people with bad ones are allowed to. And if I offended you, you needed it. |
Tiddle Jr
Galvanized Inc.
91
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 23:28:58 -
[27] - Quote
If gou want to see more accurate data you should take a monthly cut of all bs's purchases in high/low sec and then compare with zkill stats of kills. Eventhough that gives you a very raw numbers cause some of those lost ships could be purchased long ago. So your delta will show you approx. usage at pve. But again some of those could be purchased for re-sell or still be docked up without usage. |
Amanda Guido
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
16
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 03:56:07 -
[28] - Quote
I have said it once and I will say it again, I don't care what garbage CCP comes up with, Battleships are not worth fielding. Their effectiveness per cost is terrible. They are huge, hulking, snail paced, slow locking, big fat targets, with great on-paper stats, but in reality are not able to apply half of their dps to anything that's not stationary and of equal size.
When I can buy a HAC or even faction cruiser that has similar stats and better applied dps, over a wider range of targets, that is not slow as hell, and can lock stuff in under a months time, for much less cost, why would I ever bother with a battleship? It is common sense. Battleship are obsolete in the current meta game. Only a fool says the ship balance is in an adequate state. Their statistics are fabricated, almost nobody pilots a BS outside of a capital fleet, and even then there are much better vessels for the task.
They are simply too vulnerable and expensive for their poor performance. |
Tiddle Jr
Galvanized Inc.
92
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 04:04:59 -
[29] - Quote
Amanda Guido wrote:I have said it once and I will say it again, I don't care what garbage CCP comes up with, Battleships are not worth fielding. Their effectiveness per cost is terrible. They are huge, hulking, snail paced, slow locking, big fat targets, with great on-paper stats, but in reality are not able to apply half of their dps to anything that's not stationary and of equal size.
When I can buy a HAC or even faction cruiser that has similar stats and better applied dps, over a wider range of targets, that is not slow as hell, and can lock stuff in under a months time, for much less cost, why would I ever bother with a battleship? It is common sense. Battleship are obsolete in the current meta game. Only a fool says the ship balance is in an adequate state. Their statistics are fabricated, almost nobody pilots a BS outside of a capital fleet, and even then there are much better vessels for the task.
They are simply too vulnerable and expensive for their poor performance.
I hear you bro, it's always bad to lose your afk pimped faction BS. You have my regrats on that. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15561
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 08:37:15 -
[30] - Quote
Amanda Guido wrote:I have said it once and I will say it again, I don't care what garbage CCP comes up with, Battleships are not worth fielding. Their effectiveness per cost is terrible. They are huge, hulking, snail paced, slow locking, big fat targets, with great on-paper stats, but in reality are not able to apply half of their dps to anything that's not stationary and of equal size.
When I can buy a HAC or even faction cruiser that has similar stats and better applied dps, over a wider range of targets, that is not slow as hell, and can lock stuff in under a months time, for much less cost, why would I ever bother with a battleship? It is common sense. Battleship are obsolete in the current meta game. Only a fool says the ship balance is in an adequate state. Their statistics are fabricated, almost nobody pilots a BS outside of a capital fleet, and even then there are much better vessels for the task.
They are simply too vulnerable and expensive for their poor performance.
I beg to differ.
The only problem with battleships is that cruiser and frigate pilots have no idea how to use them.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |