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)
Kirmok Foyu Trading World	Posted - 2009.05.08 09:37:00 - [841] 1) Projectile Turrents - DPS is weak, and tracking should be slightly better. 1a) Artillery could fire faster or do more salvo damage. 1b) Auto's are ALWAYS fighting in falloff, where their damage diminishes greatly 1c) I love them otherwise :-) 2) Missles in PvP - not very useful in pvp, RoF is low enough to make them weaker then turrents when taking into account the flight times too. 2a) People can warp away before cruise missles even hit, negating their salvo damage completely 2b) Caldari kinetic missle bonuses are cookie-cutter. Personally I think a 5% or even 3% bonus to all missle damage types would fit Caldari ships better 2c) A large turrent fit ship can pop a frigate at long range as long as there's low/null transversal, yet a cruise missle doesn't to much to a frigate, at any range. 3) Tech 1 Stuff - In the current state of the game, the Tech I basic stuff is almost entirely used in order to make tech2 stuff. 3a) There needs to be a reason to fit a basic tech1 item in the game, maybe make the pg/cpu requirements a little lower?
Alxea	Posted - 2009.05.08 15:56:00 - [842] 1.Gallente T3 needs a boost to drone bandwidth and drone bay. It needs to be brought in line with with its blaster subs witch do way more DPS then 4 heavy drones and 3 guns. Infact, just take off the guns on the drone subsystem and give it a bandwidth for 25bw so we can fit 5 heavy drones. Who the hell uses guns when they are drone dedicated? Specialize in drones... Nobody puts guns on a drone boat. Maybe this can be fixed in a 5th subsystem where a electronics sub can give 5bw per level or something, with more drone bonuses. Plus its a 2bill isk ship. The day it becomes as cheap as a ishtar is never going to happen, it needs to be better then a ishtar or the whole dedicated T3 drone boat fails. And why does T3 have a heat stacking peniltie with mods? Its T3... 2.Armor needs to become regenrative. To be in line with passive shields. Armor is so underpowered because it uses cap to regenerate. Shields don't need cap at all and can't be countered only with more DPS it can tank. Know anybody who can put down 1500 DPS on a every day pvp BS? Thats near maxed skills and no tank. Shields on a drake can out class the tank on any T1 BS, Same with a Rokh. Energy neut them no prob they will tank you all day and ones with missiles will just keep fireing. Armor can't do this, they can't even get half the tanks, and with no cap you have no regeneration, you die fast even with a buffer tank. There is almost no difference between the buffer tank on a shield and a armor tank only a shield gets like on a night hawk or a vulture 100,000 EHP and 1500 DPS tank, you get 100,000 EHP and 0 DPS tank when you have no cap on a gallente command ship oh and your ship becomes useless since you can't shoot anything. A Curse can kill the fallowing, all gallente, all amarr ships but the rocket and HAM missile based ships, all active tanked ships. And this is solo, a speed tanked curse with 4 neuts can be perma runed and cap drain about 1500 every cicle. So should I fly that cus its a automatic win buttion agenst most ships? Once cap is gone you die a slow death. No, I just fly a passive ishtar. Isn't that funny how I have nearly a 1000 DPS tank and the damage of a domi? It appears armor really needs to be fixed or ccp just intended to have a ishtar be the perfect drone bunker in a gate camp for firepower support with a passive shield on it. Its even DD proof. With a armor tank its not possible to even put a tank on this any were close to a passive shield. So it seems a armor revamp is in dire need of consitering. Surly T3 is the anser and has the key. Funny how T3 has nanobots filled to the teeth in the hulls armor but can't self repair on its own. Would be nice to see armor boosted to be in line with shields. 3.T2 ammo needs a boost, because faction ammo is better, regardless of my specialization in T2 ammo?! Hows it specialized if faction ammo out damages it and has no penilties. Get rid of the penilties or put more specialization skills into T2. Its been said many times in here T2 ammo is underpowered. Not sure why faction ammo is so overpowered and easy to get in the 1st place.
Robot Robot	Posted - 2009.05.08 16:09:00 - [843] I've only been playing for a few months, and my top three have already been mentioned by a number of people, but i'll add to the chorus line. The first two both have to do with increasing variation in T1 fittings that people actually fly. 1) Rebalance named/un-named t1 modules. Particularly, I think there should be a more or less steady progression from low-fitting-requirements/low-power to high-fitting-requirements/high-power with the base T1 module somewhere in between. Taking Standard Launchers as an example, if the Meta 0 launcher requires 25 cpu with a Duration of 15, then maybe Meta 1 could require 23 CPU with Duration 16, Meta 2 could be CPU 20/Dur 16, Meta 3 could be CPU 26/Dur 13.5 and Meta 4 could be CPU 28/Dur 12. Suddenly there would be situations in which any of them could be useful depending on your fitting requirements and the T1 standard becomes a solid middle-of-the-road module. Meta 4 will almost certainly still be the most coveted and thus most expensive (as evidenced by Gyrostabilizer prices, where this model is mostly already followed), but they won't completely obsolete the other flavours of the module. Combining this with a simultaneous elimination of T1 standard gear from NPC drop tables, as has been suggested many times elsewhere, would also result in a huge buff to T1 manufacturing. 2) Rebalance of T1 ships. The tier system is a little silly. Everyone can fly tier 3 frigates by their second day and that leaves a bunch of ships that there is no real reason to ever fly. Taking minmatar as an example: Burst: Has a role, i guess. Probe: Astrometrics frigates are fine Vigil: Would maybe be okay if target painters were better. Slasher: This is the problem. Why would anyone fly this ship? Breacher: Tier 3 but ditto. Rifter: Is fine. So we have six frigates, three of which are direct combat ships, but only one of which anyone would ever use after their first day. Slasher and Breacher both need to be buffed to be competitive with the rifter, albeit in different roles. With the Slasher, it might be as simple as giving it a third turret mount and a slight boost to base velocity. The Breacher is a more complicated beast, but I'm sure something can be done. The situation is just as bad with cruisers and, though i don't fly battleships, i suspect it exists there as well. Basically, both of these suggestions amount to moving away from the idea of having anything in the game that is flat out better in every way than something else designed for the same task. and for a third wish: Fix the major known bugs with the scanning interface that were introduced with apocrypha 1.1 (huge lag when probes are moving, unusably opaque and busy scanning bubble, probe moving widgets only appear about half the time and you have to deactivate and reactivate the probe to get them back, filters don't work, when three probes overlap a hit only one dot appears on screen instead of two)
Shana Lioni Destructive Influence KenZoku	Posted - 2009.05.08 16:29:00 - [844] 1)Titans - Multiple DD's within seconds == wtfbbqwin. Counter by requiring Titans to enter a seige cycle 1/2 of a that of a Dread or Carriers. Add a greater risk vs reward to the use of Titans in combat. 2)Sovereignty - Create an objective based system of control points within a system, constellation & region to gain sovereignty. Allow moons to just be resources within these systems, enable POS's to reinforce the objectives, but not claim sovereignty. 3)Better Network response times to TQ from USA WestCoast.
Nichola Kreed	Posted - 2009.05.08 19:04:00 - [845] Originally by: Shana Lioni 1)Titans - Multiple DD's within seconds == wtfbbqwin. Counter by requiring Titans to enter a seige cycle 1/2 of a that of a Dread or Carriers. Add a greater risk vs reward to the use of Titans in combat. 2)Sovereignty - Create an objective based system of control points within a system, constellation & region to gain sovereignty. Allow moons to just be resources within these systems, enable POS's to reinforce the objectives, but not claim sovereignty. 3)Better Network response times to TQ from USA WestCoast. funny thing is kenny never whine about those stuff when you hold space,
Onizuka GTO Caldari Macross crp.	Posted - 2009.05.08 23:24:00 - [846] 1.Rockets It's Broken 2.Missiles It's Broken 3.Stealth Bomber You Broke it 4.Black Op Jump Bridge It's still broken ==== Please note, we have added a consequence for failure.Any contact with the chamber floor will result in an unsatisfactory mark on your official test record, followed by death.Good Luck
place1 Amarr Orion Ore Industries	Posted - 2009.05.09 07:48:00 - [847] 1. Sov 2. Assult Frigs 3. T2 Ammo (DONT NERF FACTION AMMO)
Verys The Black Ops Black Core Alliance	Posted - 2009.05.09 11:22:00 - [848] 1. T2 invention 2. W-space 3. Missiles overall Explanation: 1. T2 invention is in some cases not worth while which is annoying and its all due to people owning t2 bpo's so they can control a set price (just so t2 inventors can't make a profit), the system is broken as a whole and it needs a desperate fix so that not only the people with billions of isk can participate. 2. Wormhole space is very doable when we talk about class 1,2,3,4 and 5 is still manageable (although hard). But above 6 it's just gets odd you need remote repping gangs of 30+ Battleships and I don't think there are many people who take capitals into this space (being afraid of losing them for not much of a reward and being able to be ganked by gangs roaming about.) Also it would be nice to make wormhole exits stand out a little bit so you don't scan 20 plexes down before you finally find the exit signal. 3. Missile have a really hard time catching up with ships which are bigger than the missile which feels odd and makes for stupid gameplay. Anything with an afterburner can easily avoid missiles now and missiles aren't the best weapons around anyway. Either make them more in par with guns (tracking) or boost them over guns again to make up for the travel time (non-existent alpha).
PanKrolik	Posted - 2009.05.09 19:10:00 - [849] Mission imbalace could be changed by removing those t1 and replacing it with some sort of precious loot that could be sold to npc. Low sec and null sec npc would drop more of it because pirates would feel safer soo they whould have larger part of their personal wealth stuffed on their ships instead in a hidden stash. Certainly there are hundreds of thousants of different rare goods that exists in very limited supply. Items that aren't usefull for capsulers for various reasons.(Acquired only from planets surface, too time consuming or trublesome for immortals to bother with etc.) There could be various kinds of it like for example. Normal loot "insert name" alloy bars Extremly flexible but dificult to manufacture. Used for various aplications in planet surface construction. Rare loot uncut "insert name" gems Can be found only just barely under surface of asteroids. Due to very fragile nature it can be only harvested manualy. Then it must pass throu a porcess of cuting and molecular rearangment to make it less fragile. Usualy 9 out of 10 are destroyed in the process. Remaining 10% make what citizens of eve consider most precious jewel in the universe. Unique loot "Insert name" manuscript "insert name" was an ammarian preacher living during Minmatar rebellion. Most of his works are belived to be lost during the uprising. Some sources claim that when a group of slaves stole his personal ship they also took some of his manuscripts he stored in it. Those manuscripts surface on market from time to time. Most of them are fakes but this one appears to be one of the orginals. Ammarians or Minmatars would be wiling to pay a lot for it. First to study it, second to anger the first. Faction loot Sansha medical equipment Sansha nation medical care is still considered to be very advanced. Some experts belive that in fields like neurosurgery or psychiatry they surpass even the jove. While their treatments are usualy very painfull or even considered inhuman it is a last hope for many. Unfortunatly they reqire Sansha's medical equiplent and drugs. So far efforts to copy the technology meet with only a limited success. The loot market could be constelation based and prices would be based on amount of loot sold. It would be necessary to add random patern shift. It would prevent peoples hauling loot to best price location and seling it immediatly after dt to get best possible price. It would also simulate changes in demand besed on trends. In mission hubs prices would be lower. Soo players would have either sell it somewhere else or sell it to a player that would haul them to a different part of eve. There could be also oportunity for industrialists to process some of those loot items to get a better price. Like "insert name" uncut gems-> "insert name" gem -> "insert name" gem jewelry. Some races would be wiling to pay more for certain loot types mosty ones that could be difficult to get in their own space. Some could be faction warfare based. Like for example some kind of compound droped mostly by caladari faction ships that is used in "top secret" process of making navy missiles. Gallente would be wiling to buy them of capsulers even if they have no use for it themself. Perfect oportunity for raid FW missions when militia could raid other faction facilites to steal materials critical for enemies war efort and make some chunk of extra isk in the process.
Enden Assulu Caldari Blood Money Inc. Blood Money Cartel	Posted - 2009.05.10 11:36:00 - [850] There is no such thing as balancing when CCP is doing it. It is just whack it with a nerf bat and move on, please don't touch anything in the game without a lot of though. kthxbai
Spurty Caldari Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2009.05.11 01:56:00 - [851] 1. t2 ammo, drop minuses 2. Missiles lolz 3. Drones. Look at the specs on them, I'd LOVE to fly a drone please! Originally by: Infinity Ziona Thus I AM BETTER THAN YOU.
McEivalley Fallen Angel's Blade.	Posted - 2009.05.11 09:58:00 - [852] 1) Rigs are way too expensive for almost ANY ship. It also means that the very rich and richer always have an advantage in combat. A reduction in salvage parts usage will do the trick without harming the salvage market. Also, someone (forgot who) has previously mentioned in the thread scaling the amount of salvage to the ship size its suppose to be used on. That's definitely a good avenue to explore as well. 2) Some rigs are utterly useless, while others are begging to be invented. E.g. for fail rigs - Liquid cooled electronics I/II. E.g. for a rig begging to be born - The equivalent to the Ancillary current router I/II for electronics (i.e. +10% to CPU output). 3) Some rigs definitely need re-balancing, some in favor while others might need a nerf. E.g. for a rig to be boosted: Engine thermal shielding I/II - They might've been in use if not for the awful armor drawback. Obviously this is a rig for smallish ships (I don't see any BS pilot putting this rig on ever) and the penalty alongside the price tag makes it virtually redundant - not more than an eye candy for an inflated database. Insert clever remark where??
Dru Maal	Posted - 2009.05.12 00:52:00 - [853] 1 balance ewar 2 balance projectile weapons 3 take a look on T2 amunition. bye
Veebora Caldari	Posted - 2009.05.12 02:45:00 - [854] 1 - Minmatar ships - The split weapons system plus projectile low DPS makes it the underdog. 2 - Projectile Weapons. 3 - Minmatar captals.
telorian bonapart	Posted - 2009.05.12 03:18:00 - [855] 1. T2 ammo compared to faction ammo 2. insurance should be based on the market value of the ship 3. the shield tank vs. armor tank is perfectly fine but maybe there should be a way to passively armor tank, that is the only thing that I see that shield tanking has over tanking has over armor
Tekki Sandan Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Aggression.	Posted - 2009.05.12 03:46:00 - [856] Edited by: Tekki Sandan on 12/05/2009 03:47:49 Originally by: McEivalley 1) Rigs are way too expensive for almost ANY ship. It also means that the very rich and richer always have an advantage in combat. A reduction in salvage parts usage will do the trick without harming the salvage market. Also, someone (forgot who) has previously mentioned in the thread scaling the amount of salvage to the ship size its suppose to be used on. That's definitely a good avenue to explore as well. I hate that crap. If you spend more money on a ship you SHOULD have an advantage!! its like low SP pilots "aww thats not fair we dont have a chance with the older guys" yes thats because they spent more time skill training for it to be so. 1. Motherships 2. Titans shouldnt be stuck to racial doomsdays 3. Nano - Speed tanking has been killed. It was ment to be there dont remove it because of the whino's.
Maicman Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.05.12 07:15:00 - [857] 1.Artillery needs to be revised. Alpha damage is more like delta damage now days. 2.T2 ammo (specially short range/high damage). Faction ammo is better (donÆt nerf it) 3.The Caldari recon nerf seemed to be executed in a coffee break. From the typos in a new description to the wired bonuses and the other inconsistencies, was a poor executed exercise. Tune the nerf hammer.
Yakov Draken Minmatar Tides Of War	Posted - 2009.05.12 09:26:00 - [858] 1. T2 short range ammo needs a buff. 2. Tempest/Large AC's. A double damage bonus ship with poor damage? 3. Low sec rats needs another buff as the last one hasn't had meaningful impact to the level of low sec activity.
Galan Undris	Posted - 2009.05.12 12:53:00 - [859] 1. BS sized projectiles, esp. artillery have issues. Smaller ones work, but could use some differentiation between tiers ((i.e difference between 220s and 180s is very small) 2. "Mandatoryness" of Cap Injectors on certain larger ships, ability to run "everything" with a single module. 3. Supercaps (Titans)
Haldir Ravenclaw Tenacious Tendencies	Posted - 2009.05.12 13:15:00 - [860] 1. Sensor dampeners. A joke compared to other forms of e-war (because of Falcon! ) 2. Blasters. See the million or so threads about blasters needing a change/buff. 3. Drones as a (optional) primary weapon. Needs things like T2/faction drone mods, proper faction drones, drone implants and new drone modules (eg a low slot item like a mag stab but increases drone damage) etc. More issues I could put down, but limited to 3 for now --- We want T2/Faction drone modules!
Cutty Carebear	Posted - 2009.05.12 16:00:00 - [861] 1/ Motherships (nothing can be done better then carriers) 2/ ****in Motherships (useless E-peen ship ever) 3/ Damn Motherships (aka, i cost 12b for nothing.)
Hagis McBree Minmatar	Posted - 2009.05.12 23:20:00 - [862] 1 - Minmatar ships larger than a Battle Cruiser, the tear 1 BS Typhoon needs more skill points to fly than some capitol ships, tear 2 BS Tempest has bad DPS for a for a duel damage bonus ship. Tear 3 Maelstrom ... shield tank.... what is up with that.. and I'm not getting into the Capital ship debate, people must think all Minmatar are skitzo, with all the weapon systems and tanking systems they have to learn.. 2 - Projectile Weapons//All T2 ammo.. lets keep beating this dead horse? 3 - Rigs, lets have Small/Medium/Large/XLarge rigs, as it stands it cost the same to rig a frigate as it does a battle ship.. kinda unbalanced.
Wrann Caldari V.O.F.L IRON CORE H E L I C O N	Posted - 2009.05.13 00:44:00 - [863] 1. Insurance for ships should pay out market value. I'm tired of getting bupkiss for a ship I paid 600m for because the Insurance doesn't properly calculate the value of a ship. 2. Large Arty has very few charges in the tubes. I do less damage in my Mael because I'm constantly reloading. 3. Missiles need a slightly positive bump so that they will actually hit a target if it's moving. Doesn't have to be much... just a little.
Thaer Deathor	Posted - 2009.05.13 01:01:00 - [864] 1. Sovereignty warefare - near impossible for small alliances/corps to take space against 0.0 giant alliances. 2. Gallente/Minmatar issues - Artilery sucks, give it extra alpha, and a little more dps - Blasters need a few hugs in the tracking department, same with small rails. - This isnt gallente or minmatar but rockets blow really bad, they should fire 3 at once with the same reactivation timer that they currently have - Dampners are horrible and barely do anything - Ecm is too strong, and is extremely frustrating nerf bat it 3. Interceptors - They arent ballenced very well, with the Taranis easily being the best.
n1con Caldari Chosen Path Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2009.05.13 17:10:00 - [865] Edited by: n1con on 13/05/2009 17:12:55 I think the following need looking at: 1. Missiles 2. Missiles 3. AF I have listed missiles twice because they are that bad. We have yet another weapons system which is completely laughable in PVP. I love missile but due to how bad they have become I have given up any hope of actually making them workable and started to train hybrids
Neu Bastian Minmatar Valklear Guard	Posted - 2009.05.14 00:18:00 - [866] 1)CCP's Nerfbat is in dire need of balancing. 2) see 1. 3) see 1 and 2. Quote: Neu Bastian Valklear Guard - CEO
Liang Nuren No Salvation Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.05.14 16:42:00 - [867] Hey, uh, so... now that we got a patch in with some of the fruits of this thread, can we get to the meatier issues? -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
L0nz0p Insurgent New Eden Tribe Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2009.05.15 09:33:00 - [868] 1) rockets, almost useless rather than going on the killboard "weee i shooted something" 2) missiles in general (cerberus taking dust in my hangar)
Taudia Gallente Sane Industries Inc.	Posted - 2009.05.15 10:11:00 - [869] 1) Mining in general. I know this has been talked about a lot but mining has severe issues which I think need to be addressed. Namely the lack interaction needed and the imbalance of tritanium with regard to low sec and 0.0 ores. I realize it is CCP's policy to never balance anything with cost, but to my mind the problem with tritanium is that it is needed to make just about anything and the best way to get it is veldspar. An immediate solution to this would be to just make some ore in lo1-sec/0.0 that yields more trit than veld, but that would be a rather crude solution, however going the other way around, lowering the trit needed to produce a subset of all the items in eve, strikes me as even more crude. Of course, if my assumption that the unexpected amount of caps being employed in eve atm is the culprit in the price of trit, this could well be solved indirectly in that capital ship revamp I am hearing things about these days. 2) Turrets/missiles across the board pretty much, especially with regard to t2 ammo. Pulse lasers hold the field with regard to pure efficiency due to scorch. Besides the aforementioned scorch, faction variants of ammo are usually employed instead of the t2 variant, as they most often reach approximate dps without the horrid drawbacks (25% reduction to tracking using void ammo is a good way to kill the only vantage blasters have). Missiles are just unreliable and subpar dps at current. 3) Target painters, sensor damps and tracking disruptors currently make little to no sense to fit on ships that do not specifically have bonuses to them. Of course, the same is the case with ECM, but that is actually useful when you fit it to a ship with a bonus ^^
Dart Sirius	Posted - 2009.05.15 10:45:00 - [870] 1. SOV 2. SOV 3. SOV Make the core 0.0 warfare more fun not just shooting and repping like 40 POS / system very rarely have a real fleet fight. I dont care about losing lot of ships or anything i just dont want to warp to POS hit F1 wait like 1 hour then warp to next its not FUN at all...

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.