EVE Search - Balancing - Identifying problems

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Balancing - Identifying problems

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 47 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)

CCP Nozh C C P	Posted - 2009.04.17 09:13:00 - [1] Hi, Balancing is an ongoing process; there will always room for improvement. This pursuit for maximized fairness and stability will always be disputed, one way or another. Everyone has an opinion; this is where I want you to voice them in a very simple manner. Create a Top 3 list of what you believe is unbalanced. Based on how many people are unsatisfied with a given subject weÆll create separate threads (limited amount) where we analyze the problem and try to figure out a solution. With Apocrypha changes authored and checked in IÆve got some breathing room. During this time IÆm going to be more active on the forums and follow this thread through. Please note this is not a discussion thread. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Miyamoto Uroki Caldari Katsu Corporation	Posted - 2009.04.17 09:36:00 - [2] Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:42:15 Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:37:32 1. High Sec lvl 4 missions (needs to be adressed, way too much profit for no risk, this ruins so many other activities as they cannot compete in ish/h and risk vs reward. Also the loot from missions screws mining. PLUS it injects too much isk into the economy, making things too expensive so that you cannot compete with the activities that earns you less isk/h) 2. Projectile Artillery (cause everyone says they suck...) 3. Tech1 Mods (who uses tech1 stuff apart for invention? It simply has no use anymore imho, as even noobs can afford named stuff and tech2 mods are ridiculously low in terms of skill requirements. Though I guess some database mining would be needed to prove that tech1 is still used)
Grez Minmatar Core Contingency	Posted - 2009.04.17 09:42:00 - [3] 1) ECM drones (compared to other EW drones, they are superior) 2) Armour tanks vs. shield tanks (in a large majority of cases, a shield tanking ship is superior to an armour tanking one) 3) DCU - has CPU requirements akin to a passive module (make it passive <3) --- Grez: I shot the sheriff Kalazar: But I could not lock the Deputy BECAUSE OF FALCON
Finnroth Caldari The Guardian Agency Guardian Federation	Posted - 2009.04.17 09:53:00 - [4] Edited by: Finnroth on 17/04/2009 09:53:40 1.) ECM Drones and EW Drones in general ECM is the only really useful, and they're quite a bit too strong. On the contrary. the other EW drones lack any utility at all and nee to be looked over again. No Tech2 versions aswell 2.) Rockets, they're just horrible. 3.) Most of the T2 ammunition suck hard. Sniper ammo is fine, and some close-quarter long-range ammo (namely scorch) is more or less fine, but the high dps short-short-range ammo sucks in comparison with faction ammo (i don't care if you want to do something about faction ammo or boost the normal T2 ammo, eitherway there's an unbalance at the moment). The short long-rage ammo is also pretty much across the board utter trash - in dire need for some love. Those are the things i feel can be done pretty easy. There're other things i would like to see adressed aswell, like faction ships, but this would probably take alot more effort than to fix the three entrys above.
Aylara	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:17:00 - [5] 1. Hybrid Turrets, mostly the Blasters 2. Drones a) management: the UI is horrible; b) Gallente drone bays too small -> there are Amarr ships with more drone capacity and bandwith (Amarr recons first comes to mind?) 3. Fix the Gallente, make them again the top damage dealers in everyday combat situations, not only special instances; atm Amarr are top tankers and damage dealers in PVP engagements. Bonus: Hull tanking, not really an option; I think this was first intended for Gallente in the development phase, since Gallente have strong hulls
Kaileen Starsong Amarr Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:18:00 - [6] Edited by: Kaileen Starsong on 17/04/2009 10:22:08 Hmm... 1) Overloading being stacking penalized with module effects. BAD [This is not about guns, but about mods like ABs/MWDs/Reps/Shield Boosters, etc]. Especially bad when you think about T3 being so heat-focused... 2) T2 Ammunition, especially close-range T2 ammo. 3) Overall balance of some T3 subsystems. AB speed boost one comes to mind when compared to overall speed boost one(as in, the latter is superior even if you use AB - it affects base speed too, is just as fast with AB running, is not limited to AB for propulsion, etc...). Slot decisions on some are also weird - in most cases we get Legion with less lows and more mids than Proteus Last) ECM Drones PS. Almost forgot.. Zulupark promised that Sentry drones would benefit from racial specialization skills. When?
Kerdrak Big Guns Inc. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:23:00 - [7] 1¦ Some weapons like large artilleries and rockets are a bit unbalanced. 2¦ Naglfar is very sub par, not only because the weird slot layout (tempest with typhoon bonus), the 4 weapons are bad for overloading compared to the other dreads with 3 weapons: less damage even with 4 weapons and less overload time because more weapons. 3¦ High damage T2 ammo, simply too many drawbacks for the benefit compared to faction ammo. Nobody really uses conflagration, gleam and the other races homologues. ________________________________________ [img]http://www.atlas-alliance.com/killboard-new/sig.php/4652/alliancerank/signature.jpg[/img
Jovoich Kleinrock Heavy Industries The Kadeshi	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:29:00 - [8] My one and only wish! Bring ECM in line with other EW. Remove the chance based factor. I call 'Bull****' CCP. Isn't it great that the alchemy process was introduced & can 'take up the slack?'
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:31:00 - [9] 1) T2 ammo. Nuff' said. 2) Black ops(Can has fuel bay?) 3) Maybe have a look at command-ships. They could use a shake-around and maybe some tier-2 BC models, T2-ified.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:33:00 - [10] Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:42:15 Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:37:32 1. High Sec lvl 4 missions (needs to be adressed, way too much profit for no risk, this ruins so many other activities as they cannot compete in ish/h and risk vs reward. Also the loot from missions screws mining. PLUS it injects too much isk into the economy, making things too expensive so that you cannot compete with the activities that earns you less isk/h) This is the biggest single issue I have in EvE, alongside with 0.0 POS-grind-for-sov. Seriously, every single time you see some economic activity discussed you always see the same "meh makes thr same/less ISK than level 4s for more effort". Missions URGENTLY need reforming. Yes there will be huge floods of tears on the forums, but the problem will get worse the longer it is left. It has been left too long already. 0.0 class rewards, collected with no danger, no competition, no real effort or skill, have no place in hi-sec.

Another Forum'Alt Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:34:00 - [11] Edited by: Another Forum''Alt on 17/04/2009 10:35:36 Remove insurance, I thought EVE was supposed to have a harsh penalty for death. Boost damps. Nerf HACtors at gatecamps in lowsec. malcanis, you do realise EVE probably won't survive without mission runners, right? They pay a lot in subscriptions to CCP, CCP won't want to make them all quit. BECAUSE OF FALCON. Guide to forum posting
Clone 1 Laughing Leprechauns Corporation Pioneer Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:40:00 - [12] 1) ECM Drones, so overpowered that they are manditory fit now. 2) Increase base jump range of black ops to 2.5au 3) Agility but thats being sorted, right ? Also why dont you tell us what you think is unbalanced? -------------------------------------------------- The Angels Have the Phone Box
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:41:00 - [13] Balance Issue 1. Sovereignty Under present rules there is no real way to take down a large alliance. They in truth can only be taken down from within such as what happened to BoB. In order to make EVE more exciting we need a revamp of Sov rules to enable medium and small alliances a chance at having Sov which is impossible under current rules. 2. Let me think about it. 3. Thinking about it. Comments: Keep in mind balance is an illusion, you can never truly achieve balance in any game unless everyone is absolutely the same...which is boring. Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal
Whineroy	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:42:00 - [14] Originally by: Malcanis This is the biggest single issue I have in EvE, alongside with 0.0 POS-grind-for-sov. Seriously, every single time you see some economic activity discussed you always see the same "meh makes thr same/less ISK than level 4s for more effort". Missions URGENTLY need reforming. Yes there will be huge floods of tears on the forums, but the problem will get worse the longer it is left. It has been left too long already. 0.0 class rewards, collected with no danger, no competition, no real effort or skill, have no place in hi-sec. Also get rid of GTC/PLEX trade if you want to get rid of "0.0 class rewards collected with no danger". It isn't exactly lvl 4 mission runners that keep GTC/PLEX prices up. Missions do need reforming but it is far more complex issue than "just move L4s to lowsec" or similar.
Darth Felin	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:45:00 - [15] 1. med and large blasters, large AC, rockets. 2. half of t2 ammo is useless 3. shield vs armor tank for higher metalevels.
Doomed Predator The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:46:00 - [16] 1. Missiles are fine for missions and all that but in pvp missiles are ineffective against their intended targets if that target moves at full speed(god forbid he has an AB). -T1 missiles should do 80-90% damage to targets of their intended size while he is using an afterburner -T2 precisions should do 80-90% damage to targets while MWD is active -T2 Rage/Fury should do 80-90% damage to a target one tier larger than their intended -T2 Javelin should have 70% range of it's long range counterpart 2. Truesec 0.0, basically most of 0.0 has poor truesec and thus suck, an non-NPC 0.0 region should have 80% of it's systems with truesec lower than -0.80, in addition all 0.0 belts should have spawns in them,when you find every second belt empty it gets old very fast. 3. Level 4 missions generating too much ISK. The ISK per hour from a level 4 mission in hi-sec at least should never exceed the ISK per hour of a half decent 0.0 system. So either boost 0.0 NPC bounties or preferably reduce hi-sec mission rewards and NPC bountys The 'Fendahlian Collective' strikes again
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:47:00 - [17] 1. Buffer tank modules. BS size modules should NOT fit on cruiser hulls, if they do no other "useful" cruiser size mod should fit. Bring back skill by re-introducing active tanks. 2. T2 Close range ammo. Introduction of readily available navy munitions have completely nullified the T2 version. Reduce damage, keep range and give a huge boost to tracking. 3. ECM Drones. The chance based nature makes them godly, a single flight of mediums require a maximum of 1 minute to get a jam on a dual-ECCM Guardian. Either remove them or reduce their HP to mining drone levels to allow for smartbombs to function as counter (smarts have huge fitting requirements and generally useless unless on dedicated disco ships).
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:47:00 - [18] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:42:15 Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:37:32 1. High Sec lvl 4 missions (needs to be adressed, way too much profit for no risk, this ruins so many other activities as they cannot compete in ish/h and risk vs reward. Also the loot from missions screws mining. PLUS it injects too much isk into the economy, making things too expensive so that you cannot compete with the activities that earns you less isk/h) This is the biggest single issue I have in EvE, alongside with 0.0 POS-grind-for-sov. Seriously, every single time you see some economic activity discussed you always see the same "meh makes thr same/less ISK than level 4s for more effort". Missions URGENTLY need reforming. Yes there will be huge floods of tears on the forums, but the problem will get worse the longer it is left. It has been left too long already. 0.0 class rewards, collected with no danger, no competition, no real effort or skill, have no place in hi-sec. Nerfing level 4 missions is not the answer, you have to understand that. If you move them to low sec they'll move to Level 3 missions. You have to boost low sec and 0.0 to make them more enticing, and sadly you will never get a majority to leave empire. The main problem with isk making in 0.0 and wormhole space is time commitment those who can't play full time, are at a very distinct disadvantage whereas they can hop on in empire and do a mission in the time they have. Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal
Deva Blackfire D00M.	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:48:00 - [19] 1. Rockets 2. T2 ammo (closerange one being balls) 3. destroyers (uber balls) and a bit dictors (survivalability on those due to huge sig radius)
Virgo I'Platonicus Zoners Frontal Impact	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:49:00 - [20] 1) artillery long range alpha strike (imo too low for tanks today) 2) ecm drones too good for the skill requirements. 3) black ops need fuel bay .... V. <3

5pinDizzy	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:50:00 - [21] If there was a limit of 20 I'd still easily fill it, so it's really hard picking a top three. 1. Energy Neuts - Rebalance 2. Passive Tanking - Rebalance 3. Eccm modules - Not useful enough like cap injectors and sensor boosters. if you disagree with me then you should probably post a response and stop reading my signature.
Jay T	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:51:00 - [22] 1. High Sec Lvl 4 Missions (Risk verse Reward ratio sucks) 2. Bookmarking Inflight missiles (Because shooting missiles that can compromise sniper fleets is BS) 3. Amarr Pulse Range (Becuase that stuff is way to good)
Rellik B00n	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:57:00 - [23] (1) racial EW. Got to be a way to balance this across the board, it would be fun to have a real rock, paper, scissors type situation with EW rather than the current FOTM, FOTM, FOTM one we have. (2) shield tanking tackler. I fly both armor and shield ships but whenever i look through the slot layouts its kinda: Armor: LOW - tank/damage MED - tackle/propulsion/ewar HIGH - f1 f2 f3 Shield LOW - damage MED - tank/tackle/propulsion/ewar HIGH - f1 f2 f3 This disparity has always bugged me since it effectively means people than cant rely on always having a blob to help them must inevitably choose armor. Less choice is bad. (3) Black-ops BS. Please help them!
Count Helmchen	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:58:00 - [24] T1 Ships 1) Slot layout on most Battleships, cruiser etc are not inline ...for example, the Armageddon & Typhoon (tier1) get 19 slots where the Dominix & Scorpion only have 18 .. give the last two ships the missing slot 2) Faction Ships like the Ashimmu, need a cpmplete overhaul and redesign (btw, give the bhallgorn its own unique model!) 1) tier 1 Battlecruisers ... where do i start? they are the worst ships n term of damage, fitting, bonus etc in the hole galaxy!!!!! T2 Ships 1) Give the Rook & Falcon the same amount of drone bandwith and cargo bay like the other recons ships .. without the 10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints they are still weaker with drones like the other ones 2) Commandships (Nighthawk f.e.) need some love, speaking of give them more pg and cpu to allow them to fit a proper fitting 3) BlackOps ; whats the entire idea behind a ship, which cannot jumps complete on his own into one system to another ? why does we need another "alt" to bring him first into a cynojammed system to be able to jump with our BO ship into it ? Infiltration does not need any support.. got it ? T3 Ships 1) Give EVERY t3 hull 25 drone bandwith/cargo base attributes ... goddamn, they are t3 ships! 2) redesign the model of the ECM & Scan Electronic Subsystem for the Tengu!! ugly! 3) Propulsion Subsystem are a joke, espacially the new one (bubble imunnuenity) in combination with covert ops cloak Weapons 1) Lasers to strong, to high optimal & tracking 2) Hybrids to weak , worst tracking and optimal 3) Projectiles subpar, dont even speak of Artys 4) Missiles, currently the worst form of damage mechanism in eve RR Gangs 1) to strong in its current form Snipers 1) to strong in its current form more to come
Toramii Le Moulin Rouge	Posted - 2009.04.17 11:03:00 - [25] 1. Buff medium and large blasters (or dedicated blaster ships) The above need improvement since the web nerf. Remember, 90% webifiers were originally designed to enable blaster ships to track targets at their abysmal short range, the web nerf nerfed some blaster ships to mediocrity. The webifier nerf was needed to make smaller ships usable and is welcomed by most people, myself included, but blasters were never re-balanced to compensate. Blasterships were not classed as overpowered before the web nerf, blasters are supposed to be the most feared short range weapons ingame, please fix them. 2. T2 Ammo Re-balance T2 ammo and remove the stacking penalties to make it an alternative to faction ammo. 3. TBC
Willy Nerfalot	Posted - 2009.04.17 11:11:00 - [26] [1] blasters. not overpowered before web nerf, definitely suffering from 400% tracking nerf. [2] blaster ships in general. they need a large dps advantage and the ability to reliably hit their target once in range, in order to overcome the typical damage incurred from closing range. a mere 10% advantage (or worse once shots start missing due to poor tracking) over equivalent missiles is simply not good enough. [3] gallente recons. need much better bonus to damps to be worth flying compared to other recons.
Seishi Maru M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.04.17 11:15:00 - [27] 1- Minmatar large and XL weapons. 2 - Naglfar and Nidhogur (omg those are sinferior in every frickign possible way to their counteparts .. just compare directly to the gallente ones,, ) 3 - SHield transporters need a MASSIVE reduction on fittings.
baltec1 Antares Shipyards Hoodlums Associates	Posted - 2009.04.17 11:16:00 - [28] The ashimmu needs help with CPU and Powergrid so you can actualy get a fit on it, Its a great ship both in stats and looks but at the moment it is impossible to fit anything on it. Also the Amarr navy slicer needs some help. At the moment it is a ship that doesnt know what it wants to be which means you cant fit it very well. And finaly could you alter the retri so that I can fit the following. It is my favorate of all ships but I wish I could solo in it. [Retribution, If only] Small Armor Repairer II Adaptive Nano Plating II Capacitor Power Relay II Armor Thermic Hardener II Heat Sink II 1MN Afterburner II Warp Scrambler II Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Scorch S Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Scorch S Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Scorch S Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Scorch S Small Nosferatu II [empty rig slot] [empty rig slot]
Wang Jing	Posted - 2009.04.17 11:18:00 - [29] Edited by: Wang Jing on 17/04/2009 11:18:22 1) Faction ships, other than the Sanshas, need to be updated, as many suffer from huge fitting problems, or awful bonuses/slots (i.e. the dramiel with 3 turret bonuses yet only 2 out of 5 high slots able to fit turrets, the cruor with a bonus to stasis webifiers yet only 2 midslots). 2) Assault Frigates deserve to have their 4 bonuses, in line with the other T2 ships. For example, the Wolf and Jaguar do not get the 7.5% bonus to turret tracking that the rifter has, making them laughable for use with autocannons either against other frigates, or in the tight orbit necessary when fighting "under the guns" of a cruiser. I have recently made a thread to discuss this: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1050315 3) Rockets need to be rebalanced. They do laughable dps to start with, especially considering their fitting requirements; compare a vengenace with any other assault frigate (other than the hawk ), plus their explosion velocity means they are rendered almost useless against frigates, when they are a frigate class weapon.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.04.17 11:19:00 - [30] Originally by: Mecinia Lua Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:42:15 Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:37:32 1. High Sec lvl 4 missions (needs to be adressed, way too much profit for no risk, this ruins so many other activities as they cannot compete in ish/h and risk vs reward. Also the loot from missions screws mining. PLUS it injects too much isk into the economy, making things too expensive so that you cannot compete with the activities that earns you less isk/h) This is the biggest single issue I have in EvE, alongside with 0.0 POS-grind-for-sov. Seriously, every single time you see some economic activity discussed you always see the same "meh makes thr same/less ISK than level 4s for more effort". Missions URGENTLY need reforming. Yes there will be huge floods of tears on the forums, but the problem will get worse the longer it is left. It has been left too long already. 0.0 class rewards, collected with no danger, no competition, no real effort or skill, have no place in hi-sec. Nerfing level 4 missions is not the answer, you have to understand that. If you move them to low sec they'll move to Level 3 missions. You have to boost low sec and 0.0 to make them more enticing, and sadly you will never get a majority to leave empire.. So increase income from 0.0/lo-sec then increase ISK sinks to compensate? That's just nerfing level 4s via inflation. Why wreck the economy even further to disguise what you're doing?



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 47 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.