EVE Search - Balancing - Identifying problems

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)
Boosted	Posted - 2009.04.26 19:49:00 - [751] Edited by: Boosted on 26/04/2009 19:53:05 1) Beam Lasers; Why have them if NO BATTLESHIP can fit eight w/o powergrid mods? 2) Beam Laser Tracking; It's a BEAM LASER! If you miss, you adjust. There should be no missing after the first volley. Also, why do beam lasers even turn off? They're supposed to be like flame throwers. 3) T2 battleship and HAC market prices. 3x normal BS prices should be high enough. Please look into adjusting seeding of req'd goods to lower prices to reduce these prices. 1 Billion isk for a BS that's barely 2x as good as a regular BS is kinda steep (talking about the paladin).
Gael Itrus	Posted - 2009.04.26 22:45:00 - [752] Originally by: CrestoftheStars Originally by: Gael Itrus Missiles They were severely degraded with the QR Patch, they are now easily speed tanked by ships in their class range. Level 5 Missions Level 4 missions should remain untouched in high sec, and Level 5 mission rewards should be substantially buffed. I'd go so far as to have them possibly drop faction loot, have the agents offer faction ships for the tougher varieties, and have the missions average 30-40 million isk each, unsalvaged. The number and quality of Level 5 agents, and the value of the rewards should be increased the closer you get to 0.0, with the best possible agents and missions being in 0.0 Low Sec Moon-mining It would be nice to see an increase in the number of R2 and R3 moons in low-sec, to offset rising T2 costs post exploit. Also along those lines, remove the faction standings requirements to put up a low-sec POS. With the Level 5 buff this will serve the secondary role of substantially increasing traffic in low sec. i agree with the lvl 5 missions needs althoring, although i do not agree with the closer too 0.0, under 0.2(or is it 3) where there is no guns, there shouldn't be any agents. and i do not think buffing the reward is the right way too go, rather removing some of the neut towers and rebalancing the missions and giving the rats bounties instead of tags. Greater risk should always give potentially higher rewards. If players are going for Level 5 agents in .1 or 0.0 that could potentially give them hundreds of millions of isk, the odds should be stacked against them. Cooperation rules the day in these scenarios and it's the direction CCP is going vis-a-vis wormhole space, and high quality ores/rats in low sec. Missions should be no different eh?
CrestoftheStars Caldari Violent Force Productions	Posted - 2009.04.26 23:02:00 - [753] Originally by: Gael Itrus Originally by: CrestoftheStars Originally by: Gael Itrus Missiles They were severely degraded with the QR Patch, they are now easily speed tanked by ships in their class range. Level 5 Missions Level 4 missions should remain untouched in high sec, and Level 5 mission rewards should be substantially buffed. I'd go so far as to have them possibly drop faction loot, have the agents offer faction ships for the tougher varieties, and have the missions average 30-40 million isk each, unsalvaged. The number and quality of Level 5 agents, and the value of the rewards should be increased the closer you get to 0.0, with the best possible agents and missions being in 0.0 Low Sec Moon-mining It would be nice to see an increase in the number of R2 and R3 moons in low-sec, to offset rising T2 costs post exploit. Also along those lines, remove the faction standings requirements to put up a low-sec POS. With the Level 5 buff this will serve the secondary role of substantially increasing traffic in low sec. i agree with the lvl 5 missions needs althoring, although i do not agree with the closer too 0.0, under 0.2(or is it 3) where there is no guns, there shouldn't be any agents. and i do not think buffing the reward is the right way too go, rather removing some of the neut towers and rebalancing the missions and giving the rats bounties instead of tags. Greater risk should always give potentially higher rewards. If players are going for Level 5 agents in .1 or 0.0 that could potentially give them hundreds of millions of isk, the odds should be stacked against them. Cooperation rules the day in these scenarios and it's the direction CCP is going vis-a-vis wormhole space, and high quality ores/rats in low sec. Missions should be no different eh? have you done lvl 5 missions? the LP alone is over 100mill ( if taking the correct lp rewards). the lack of bounty + the neut towers (which is just totally silly how they suddenly came in with a ton of neut towers in missions, just ******ed) is what makes them not worth doing. if the neut towers where removed, and there was a bounty on rats instead of tags in there wracks, it would be worth doing.. or put them into highsec so that people would actually do them :P (but don't think this would be good, another type of missions with a ton of bs and bc rats where comming at you) ___________________________________________ Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded
Necronus Amarr Monks of War United Legion	Posted - 2009.04.27 04:56:00 - [754] 1. Supercapitals / Capitals need revising taking into account ammount of them deployed these days. 2. Sensor dampeners need loving (slight one , not like returning them to overpowered past , but making sense in using them at all, nerfing of ECM range have helped dampers a bit but i think more love is neccesary) 3. Safe travels should be nerfed. (making logistics easier is a good way but making them safe is not. With sizes of jump gates increased it became harder to catch people, with introducing of almost safe jump bridges, jump freighter (and carriers/titans) and nerfing of stealth bombers "blink" tactics it became almost too safe transporting valuables from 0.0 to Empire space. Anyone seen freighter convoys recently? :)
Paper Clips	Posted - 2009.04.27 07:54:00 - [755] 1. Artillery's role (Sucks or is average in every way at the moment) 2. ECM drones 3. More specialty mining ships! :3
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.04.27 09:13:00 - [756] Originally by: isdisco3 /me listens to the tumbleweeds as CCP abandons the thread to fix what they wanted to fix all along.
Lijhal FrEE d00M Fighters	Posted - 2009.04.27 10:21:00 - [757] 1) npc corps in general people are running missions for them, preventing themselfs for any wardec and collect isk after isk ... thats a real problem with the entire isk amount currently in eve ... and as far i know, the main aspect of eve is pvp ... not collecting isk to dominate the market Solution: increase the tax of npc corps up to 90% ... or scale the tax for any npc hugger, lets say up to + 10% tax for each month they will stay in a npc corp ... joining a pc corp and leaving her after a day or two should result in 90% tax in any npc corp, to prevent corp jumping and farming isk again .. people should be forced to join a PC corp, not to stay for years in a npc corp .... 2) Missiles 3) 0,0 Sov
CrestoftheStars Caldari Violent Force Productions	Posted - 2009.04.27 11:14:00 - [758] Originally by: Valorous Bob 1) Blasterboats need web bonus 2) Faction ships need unique models (ex: Vindicator) 3) Fix Rockets!!!! blasters don't need a boost just learn how to use them, instead of just "approach+F2=web+F3= scramble+F1=guns. :) ___________________________________________ Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded
Trimutius III Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.27 12:56:00 - [759] 1) Blockade Runners have disbalance. Minmatar Prowler have 2 high-slots and can fit Covert Ops Cloak + Core Probe Launcher and so it can easily travel through wormholes. 3 Other don't have them and can't travel solo in W-space. So give a second high-slot to all blockade runners. 2) Their is no drone implants (i know that CCP aware of that problem, but still...) 3) Assault frigates have no good role anywhere. ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius
honey bunchetta	Posted - 2009.04.27 12:58:00 - [760] Originally by: CrestoftheStars blasters don't need a boost just learn how to use them, instead of just "approach+F2=web+F3= scramble+F1=guns. Interesting?. So if directly approaching and webbing a target to get into blaster optimal and to reduce its transversal so you can get as much of your DPS on it as possable, along with scramming it so it cannot warp are the wrong tactics to use. Or if their are some other super duper piloting manouvers that are available to them how about you post them instead of just making pointless, vague and stupid referances to them.
RedSplat RennTech	Posted - 2009.04.27 13:08:00 - [761] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: isdisco3 /me listens to the tumbleweeds as CCP abandons the thread to fix what they wanted to fix all along. I'm going to keep quoting posts like this till CCP responds as to why this is the case. Secretly MirrorGod. Apparently Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting. Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
Temitten	Posted - 2009.04.27 14:06:00 - [762] 1) Rockets This is easily the worst, least powerful, of all weapon systems. They were terrible before the general missile nerf and now they're even more useless. Rockets should be the high damage/short range missile launcher for frigates. Now it is poor damage/short range, but easy to fit. A ship like the vengeance will perform better with lasers/blasters/autocannons/standard launchers than with its bonused weapon system. 2) Short range t2 ammo I believe that short range t2 missiles work pretty well (though missiles suck overall), but short range t2 charges/projectiles/crystals are really poor compared to faction for almost any situation (conflag L is decent for shooting caps, I assume the same goes for blaster and ac ammo). 3) E-war and recon ships Tracking disruptors, warp disruptors/scramblers and ecm work pretty well on amarr, gallente or caldari recons. Minmatar recons could use a web strength bonus, but they're pretty useful either way. Sensor dampeners are quite crummy, gallente recons should get a rather significant strength bonus to these. Now target painters and minmatar recons.. maybe they're more useful now when working with the improved stealth bombers, I wouldn't know, also target painters are slightly underrated, but even so this is easily the worst form of e-war.
VoiceInTheDesert Zebra Corp Circle-Of-Two	Posted - 2009.04.27 15:55:00 - [763] Originally by: RedSplat Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: isdisco3 /me listens to the tumbleweeds as CCP abandons the thread to fix what they wanted to fix all along. I'm going to keep quoting posts like this till CCP responds as to why this is the case. And I'll be quoting this guy in a similar fashion. Seriously CCP, what gives here? I'm glad you started a thread like this, but if you're just going to cherry pick the easy ideas that aren't bothering many people, then I'm seriously disappointed.
miss Hail	Posted - 2009.04.27 20:52:00 - [764] 1)projectile weapon 2)blaster 3)active vs passive tanking
Typhado3 Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Aeternus.	Posted - 2009.04.28 00:38:00 - [765] Originally by: VoiceInTheDesert Originally by: RedSplat Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: isdisco3 /me listens to the tumbleweeds as CCP abandons the thread to fix what they wanted to fix all along. I'm going to keep quoting posts like this till CCP responds as to why this is the case. And I'll be quoting this guy in a similar fashion. Seriously CCP, what gives here? I'm glad you started a thread like this, but if you're just going to cherry pick the easy ideas that aren't bothering many people, then I'm seriously disappointed. a faint glimmer of hope ccp fix mining agent missions % pls
Phidell Chaos Reborn Rote Kapelle	Posted - 2009.04.28 02:02:00 - [766] 1. Tanking. Armor tanking needs a big nerf. Well, not so much, but I hate that as a caldari pilot, I'm pretty much unable to fly in a BS gang without totally gimping the ship. Boost shield tanking somewhat. Shield buffer is great for smaller engagements but active tanking is costly, and tackle mods are often needed in the precious midslots. Not sure what can be done, but I'd like to see Remote transport shield gangs, without all of the gang being goddamn caldari. 2. Blockade Runners:Uncatchable. It's BS. Think about what is actually needed to catch one. Just look at blockade runners killed. I'd bet first that the number is tiny, and second that it was pilot error. They warp quickly, fine. They covops cloak, fine. Put them together with ships that can fit an mwd, and you have yourself a pretty much uncatchable ship. Even a large bubble on a gate won't contain the BR. Cloak + mwd and it can get out of the bubble right away. Decloak it? Sure, you try that yourselves. See how often you can do it before it burns out and aligns for warp. 3. Falcon nerf is alright I'm having fun in a blaster falcon, but 1 ship deserves to get a range bonus. I mean, I'd rather use a blackbird at range then a falcon close up.
Mister Xerox	Posted - 2009.04.28 02:06:00 - [767] Originally by: Finnroth Edited by: Finnroth on 17/04/2009 10:38:14 1.) ECM Drones and EW Drones in general Heard this a lot, and I use ECM drones plenty... I don't see them being all that great. In 1v1 situations they're viable... otherwise there is no point at all in using them. With a total jam Str of 2 they [larges] usually get one or two cycles on something like a T1 frig or cruiser but most often utterly fail to jam anything that they can catch up with (BS). Originally by: Finnroth 2.) Rockets, they're just horrible. ALL small missiles suck utterly. Rockets are pointless entirely considering how many ships depend on them (Flycatcher, et al), and light missiles only slightly better. FoF also need some serious examination to be at all viable, as do laugh Defenders. Originally by: Finnroth 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 imbalance at the moment). The short long-rage ammo is also pretty much across the board utter trash - in dire need for some love. Agreed 100%, and I've been saying this for years. Faction ammo has zero nerfs, but does exactly the same (if not more) damage than it's T2 version. Faction ammo should recieve some nerfs, or the idiot nerfs on T2 need to be reduced considerably and made so that they *don't stack!* as they currently do.
Tekki Sandan Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Aggression.	Posted - 2009.04.28 03:21:00 - [768] 1) Motherships - Before Hic's they had a point, now that they can be tackled so easy, can we give them a use because they are just a carrier with more buffer and to be fair would you be willing to pay that much for a ship that cant dock if it doesnt have any real use now other than defending cyno jammers? 2) Missiles - Dont see a point in training them because they are useless currently! 3) Black Ops Jump Portals Because of the Ships that can use it being restricted i dont see why the range should be reduced so much. I think instead of the >5 ly jump range they should make it more like 7ly. just my ideas
Phidell Chaos Reborn Rote Kapelle	Posted - 2009.04.28 05:03:00 - [769] 1,2,3) covops cloaks Try killing just about any ship that can fit them. Frigates can be smartbombed, but that means setting up a bubble or having the ships warp into one. Simply put, any halfway decent pilot that knows to warp to another planet first, means that their is just about no chance to catch a cov ops, stealth bombers, Recons, and Blockade Runners. Seriously CCP, try to catch a ship on a gate or warping to it. They are much more invulnerable than they should be, and probing cloaked ships won't change that.
Ecky X SniggWaffe	Posted - 2009.04.28 06:51:00 - [770] My top 3 (after reading that you're fixing the Nag) are for: 1. Shield transporters - use way too much CPU. No battleship can effectively fit them, and the Chimera runs out of CPU with 3 remote reps while the Archon can fit 5. Transporters need a cpu decrease on all variants. Also, capital shield transporters use more cap than armor RR. This might be an acceptable tradeoff for repping at the beginning of the cycle, but shields also generally have lower resistances, which I always considered to be an equivalent balancer. This problem is probably one reason shield tanks are not used much in remote rep gangs, or pvp in general. 2. Projectiles - specifically large artillery, and maybe medium. There is no reason why it should be idiotic to fly any minmatar cruiser or BC sized ship with artillery over ACs - and idiotic to fly the Muninn, period. Also, Matar do not have a competitive sniper battleship, possibly due to the shortcomings of the Tempest. Mael is not a sniper (big dronebay, active rep bonus) and the Phoon can't fit arty anyway. 3. Overhaul the entire UI Other stuff I agree with: Rockets? Sensor damps - shouldn't be useless Defender missiles? remove or boost? *Torpedos - reduce explosion radius to 400, bringing them inline with guns Active tanking bonuses - rep amount vs resistance, rep amount isn't "bigger enough" *T2 close range ammo - useless? Faction ships ewar drones - useless boost Caracal remove local in 0.0 LP for factional warfare change sov mechanics away from POSes Nighthawk sucks
Ihara Rika	Posted - 2009.04.28 07:03:00 - [771] Edited by: Ihara Rika on 28/04/2009 07:06:08 Edited by: Ihara Rika on 28/04/2009 07:04:57 Originally by: Ecky X My top 3 (after reading that you're fixing the Nag) are for: 1. Shield transporters - use way too much CPU. No battleship can effectively fit them, and the Chimera runs out of CPU with 3 remote reps while the Archon can fit 5. Transporters need a cpu decrease on all variants. Also, capital shield transporters use more cap than armor RR. This might be an acceptable tradeoff for repping at the beginning of the cycle, but shields also generally have lower resistances, which I always considered to be an equivalent balancer. This problem is probably one reason shield tanks are not used much in remote rep gangs, or pvp in general. 1. I AGREE WITH THE ABOVE // Shield Transporters - use way too much CPU and capacitor (The above examples plus the thanatos fitting 3 shield transfers AND 2 armor transfers, while the Chimera can only fit 3 shield transfers period.) This also partly applies to Capital Shield Boosters as well. 2. Torpedoes - reduce explosion radius to 400 or less, bringing them inline with guns - Explosion Velocity could use some additional looking at however. 3. T2 close range ammo - useless? There is virtually no existing reason why any pilot should fit T2 close range ammo on a ship when the faction equivalent can do it better. Other things I agree with: Boost the Caracal - no reason to fly compared to other t1 cruisers Remove local in 0.0 // Hoist the Jolly Roger!
Kreptus Gallente Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2009.04.28 10:48:00 - [772] Edited by: Kreptus on 28/04/2009 10:51:10 Some on else already expressed my thoughts... 1. Empire warfare through wardeccing. Entirely based around station camping on the very very very few occasions when either side doesn't simply evade the wardec by jumping corps. Economic and counter-logistical warfare is a fools errand. Again, not stats-based balancing but rather gaming mechanics that makes the (supposed) fighting non-existant because the balance between what means are available to the attacker are not in synch with what's available to the defender. 2. 0.0 warfare, in particular POS-Based Sovereignty. Too easy to create and maintain vs. soul-crushing boredom to attack. Not so much a classic stats-balance issue, but one of motivational balance: there is little disincentive against spam POSes all ove the place, whereas on the other side, POS spam create huge disincentives against attacking due to tedium rather than actual difficulty. 3. Sensor dampers need a little bump up, they were dialed down a little too much.
Gordan 23	Posted - 2009.04.28 11:04:00 - [773] Edited by: Gordan 23 on 28/04/2009 11:04:59 1) Artillery 2) Rockets 3) Rapier (give it web strength bonus?)
Den McConan Caldari Free Space Pilots aka Banderlogs Red Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.28 13:21:00 - [774] 1) Missiles. Make them close to gunnery 2) Black Ops and other Jump Ship, give'em fuel bay 3) Shiled tanking and electonic devices (Caldary so bad for real PvP, make them good)
Amerilia	Posted - 2009.04.28 14:30:00 - [775] Boosts: 1. Artillery 2. Rockets 3. Faction Ships
Astal Atlar Caldari Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.28 15:07:00 - [776] 1- sov mechanics,in the moment sov 3 and 4 are pain in the ass,towers shooting towers harden poses ect,fleets with 300+ lag nerves boring... 2- sniping bs,in the moment there is 3 viable ships in sniper fleets in 0.0 tempest megathron apocalypse,there is other good bs but they are either too expensive or underpar a bit,for example caldari bs in sniping fleet is nowhere to be seen,eve is game of variety but in the moment if you want to be in big 0.0 alliance you need to fly 3 certain ships... 3- Cloaked afk scouts,you just log it cloack it and all day you are there anoying and getting intel also cloaking ships with not intended bonuses alike cloaking bses ect,i would like to see change in this area.
Midge Mo'yb Antares Shipyards Hoodlums Associates	Posted - 2009.04.28 16:19:00 - [777] 1. Sov mechanics, once in place it is very difficult to uproot an alliance, control should be governed by pressence/activity in the area... not who can spam the most towers 2. Moon Minerals should be alot more Dynamic and not "infinite" this would create a new mini proffession within eve. 3. Empire/0.0 Risk/Reward needs looking into level 4 missions are way too profitable or 0.0 needs a buff to make it more proffitable to live in, and thus draw players from empire. -----------------------------------------------
Sopherin	Posted - 2009.04.28 20:00:00 - [778] 1. Large Projectile Artilery 2. Minmatar BS (Tempest/Malestorm) 3. Minmatar Caps.
Project Twilight	Posted - 2009.04.28 20:03:00 - [779] 1. Destroyers, they need a complete overhaul. I would suggest removing the rof penalty. There is nothing wrong with a big, fat, slow glass cannon. 2. ECM is chanced based, which means it can fail in the most critical moment. all other Electronic warfare works all the time. rapidly reducing the ranged at which ECM works introduces a whole host of problems. 3. Drones. They use no cap, they are very tough to destroy, they work even when the drone ship is jammed....
Zarak1 Kenpach1 R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.04.28 20:48:00 - [780] 1. Naglfar needs additional low or additional mid and more cpu. 2. Give us back our faction propulsion mod velocity boni. 3. Arties can no longer compete with other races range wise due to the locus nerf. this needs a rethink.

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.