This come once in a while. As some people mentioned before:

• Tier 2 Battlecruisers already are extremely versatile and popular. Introducing yet improved hulls based on them without looking at tech1 battlecruisers first is in direct contradiction with the tiericide initiative.


• We already have troubles having diverse, interesting hulls roles on this particular level. HACs, tech3 cruisers, battlecruisers and command ships currently are very close of each other on that field. Introducing a Navy Battlecruiser would aggravate the issue even further.

What needs to be done before having Navy Battlecruisers, in no particular order:


• Have a look at tech1 cruisers and bring tiericide to their sorry little sad faces.
• Fix tech1 battlecruisers as a whole. Most tier1 BCs are not good enough, some tier2 are just too good. You know we know you know which ones we are talking about
• Make sure Command Ships have a viable role next to Battlecruisers (Nighthawk versus drake for example). Look at gang links. Eos. Eos. Eoseoseoseoseos.
• HACs, they need love too.
• Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line. It doesn't necessarily means nerfing them to oblivion and beyond, but making sure that each subsystem configuration has a use and they don't overlap on other ships by making them different in role and purpose.

When that's done, and if the need for it is true, righteous in the divine gospel of the ship balancing light, then let's have Navy Battlecruisers, maybe. Pirate and new tech2 battlecruisers though are less of a problem if the roles aren't overlapping. Hmmmm spiky bikini Sansha battlecruiser with lazors pewpewnomnomnomnom. But errrr drifting out of topic here, we'd need to make sure current Sansha ships are tiericidead before that happens - we've heard horror stories about the Succubus and Phantasm being left to rot for all eternity in station hangars. That is not right.

This come once in a while. As some people mentioned before:

• Tier 2 Battlecruisers already are extremely versatile and popular. Introducing yet improved hulls based on them without looking at tech1 battlecruisers first is in direct contradiction with the tiericide initiative.


• We already have troubles having diverse, interesting hulls roles on this particular level. HACs, tech3 cruisers, battlecruisers and command ships currently are very close of each other on that field. Introducing a Navy Battlecruiser would aggravate the issue even further.

What needs to be done before having Navy Battlecruisers, in no particular order:


• Have a look at tech1 cruisers and bring tiericide to their sorry little sad faces.
• Fix tech1 battlecruisers as a whole. Most tier1 BCs are not good enough, some tier2 are just too good. You know we know you know which ones we are talking about
• Make sure Command Ships have a viable role next to Battlecruisers (Nighthawk versus drake for example). Look at gang links. Eos. Eos. Eoseoseoseoseos.
• HACs, they need love too.
• Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line. It doesn't necessarily means nerfing them to oblivion and beyond, but making sure that each subsystem configuration has a use and they don't overlap on other ships by making them different in role and purpose.

When that's done, and if the need for it is true, righteous in the divine gospel of the ship balancing light, then let's have Navy Battlecruisers, maybe. Pirate and new tech2 battlecruisers though are less of a problem if the roles aren't overlapping. Hmmmm spiky bikini Sansha battlecruiser with lazors pewpewnomnomnomnom. But errrr drifting out of topic here, we'd need to make sure current Sansha ships are tiericidead before that happens - we've heard horror stories about the Succubus and Phantasm being left to rot for all eternity in station hangars. That is not right.

Dear Ytterbium,
*snip!*
Sincerely,

LiLu

Ooops, made a wall of text , well, hope that helps a bit.

This come once in a while. As some people mentioned before:

• Tier 2 Battlecruisers already are extremely versatile and popular. Introducing yet improved hulls based on them without looking at tech1 battlecruisers first is in direct contradiction with the tiericide initiative.


• We already have troubles having diverse, interesting hulls roles on this particular level. HACs, tech3 cruisers, battlecruisers and command ships currently are very close of each other on that field. Introducing a Navy Battlecruiser would aggravate the issue even further.

What needs to be done before having Navy Battlecruisers, in no particular order:


• Have a look at tech1 cruisers and bring tiericide to their sorry little sad faces.
• Fix tech1 battlecruisers as a whole. Most tier1 BCs are not good enough, some tier2 are just too good. You know we know you know which ones we are talking about
• Make sure Command Ships have a viable role next to Battlecruisers (Nighthawk versus drake for example). Look at gang links. Eos. Eos. Eoseoseoseoseos.
• HACs, they need love too.
• Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line. It doesn't necessarily means nerfing them to oblivion and beyond, but making sure that each subsystem configuration has a use and they don't overlap on other ships by making them different in role and purpose.

When that's done, and if the need for it is true, righteous in the divine gospel of the ship balancing light, then let's have Navy Battlecruisers, maybe. Pirate and new tech2 battlecruisers though are less of a problem if the roles aren't overlapping. Hmmmm spiky bikini Sansha battlecruiser with lazors pewpewnomnomnomnom. But errrr drifting out of topic here, we'd need to make sure current Sansha ships are tiericidead before that happens - we've heard horror stories about the Succubus and Phantasm being left to rot for all eternity in station hangars. That is not right.

Another anecdote: the insane falloff we get on particular Angel Cartel ship fits was because I failed to properly communicate with CCP Nozh when rebalancing the Machariel while he was looking at Tracking Enhancers.

Ooops, made a wall of text , well, hope that helps a bit.

And don't let me fool anyone here by trying to put the blame on other Devs, for this isn't the case: I know this for a fact for doing this very mistake myself several times. I was the one overbuffing the Dramiel to insane speeds in the first place (and to an extend all Angel Cartel Pirate ships).

That's why I tend to be cautious and recommend the balancing guys to do the same when dealing with such problems. Balancing ship hulls on their own is already difficult, but add module balancing into the fray and the complexity blows out of proportion. Another anecdote: the insane falloff we get on particular Angel Cartel ship fits was because I failed to properly communicate with CCP Nozh when rebalancing the Machariel while he was looking at Tracking Enhancers.

*snip*

We would also like to reply on the comments about tech3 ships being balanced for their cost and skill requirements. This should not be a factor for balancing most EVE vessels, because it breaks the purpose of a sandbox game which offers differently shaped tools for you to use as you see fit. And that's without even saying that, with time, as your playerbase gets older and accumulate resources, entry requirements are more and more easily reached, thus resulting in everyone getting their hands on the ship that was initially restricted to a few. And before you ask, some ships, like the Navy/PIrate hulls were designed to be plain better than tech1, others, like tech2/tech3 were not. Tech2 are supposed to be specialized, and tech3 more generalized - performance gap should not be so great that you can forget about tech1 entirely.

Also, we are aware of the number of used tech3 ships in general, and how far the repercussions could go for tweaking them. We know this would be a hot discussion from our playerbase as nobody wants to see their assets changed. That is normal human reaction. We can guarantee you that no matter what happens here, we will definitely do our very best to be as diplomatic, open minded and communicative as we have been in the past to ensure we hear all ends of the arguments and annoy the less amount of people.

I can't wait for the tears when the rebalancing program gets to supercaps!

I can't wait for the tears when the rebalancing program gets to supercaps!

I don't get it: the falloff is insane cause of Mach or cause TE is so ridiculously good?

For instance, both Locus coordinator and ambit extension rigs buff optimal and falloff by 15%, while TE impacts fallof twice as much. How is it balanced and how long does it actually take to tune this a bit, given your own words of smaller iterations?

Heh, the falloff is insane because the devs didn't communicate when balancing the two things. That is to say that Nozh was balancing TEs and added +30% falloff and Ytterbium was looking at the same problem from another angle and simultaneously gave the Mach a falloff bonus. I think what this may mean is that Angel ships are going to lose their falloff bonus - which I'm actually a fan of.

Also, regarding the 15% vs 30% of optimal/falloff. I think it's the correct choice. Optimal is a MUCH stronger mechanic than falloff is.

-Liang

Yeah, because if there is anything we want its homogenization. And there is totally no other weapon system that relies on optimal rather than falloff already...oh wait.

I don't understand what you're getting at. Even with 30% falloff TEs, optimal bonuses are still much stronger than falloff bonuses. High optimal ships are still much stronger than high falloff ships. What is your point?

-Liang

Ed: Seriously, just lose the snark and try to say what you meant to say. I honestly don't know wtf you are getting at.

Nevermind me, i misunderstood your post. I thought you were saying autocannons should rely on optimal and ships should get an optimal bonus rather than falloff because optimal is the better mechanic.
Im bad and i should feel bad.

Also, regarding the 15% vs 30% of optimal/falloff. I think it's the correct choice. Optimal is a MUCH stronger mechanic than falloff is.

It'll only help as long as you don't nerf the Drake or any other ship I own.

Falloff rigs should provide 30% (40% for tech2) bonus then. That's kinda the whole point.

Wish in one hand and **** in the other and see which one fills up first. The Drake is in need of some balancing, as are a bunch of other hulls. I'm looking forward to what their tiercide does for the cruiser and BC line.

If CCP nerf it then they can suck my **** TBH.