EVE Search - Sticky:Dev Blog: Back to the balancing future!

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Sticky:Dev Blog: Back to the balancing future!

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 28 post(s)
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1061	Posted - 2012.11.07 09:00:00 - [1] - Quote Good changes, best blog I've read in a while, looking forward to this but one thing: COULD YOU PLEASE HURRY UP AND FIX THE T2 SHIPS THAT I SPENT YEARS TRAINING FOR, they kinda all got marginalized and while I do realize they're coming, its taking FOREVER. Inties are largely outshown by faction frigs Hacs are outdone by t3's in almost every case and every way Recons are largely ok, unless you fly an arazu or a pilgrim The rest are pretty much fine once you do this thing you've got planned for command ships but those are the ones I think a LOT of us are waiting for.
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1064	Posted - 2012.11.07 20:40:00 - [2] - Quote @CCP Fozzie: Have you considered a drastic change to the mindlinks with this since we'll be likely running multiple links or is this an attempt to force a choice and an intended consequence that you pick one particular set of leadership mods to boost while the others remain unboosted by the mindlink. I know that we have many people who can and do fly multiple command ships and a gripe about the mindlinks has always been having to rip out an implant and plug in a new one (none too cheap fyi) everytime you shift ships. A weaker universal mindlink, or even replacing the mindlink entirely with a new skill would probably be prefferable to having either A) unboosted leadership links or B) ripping out implants near constantly because if the goal is to get some of the other command ships in use Im curious if this change will exactly get it done, especially if the idea is to have Commands and t3 boosters to run multiple link types, it'll still be more efficient to simply focus on a single type of boosting than to spread the link types out and end up with 2-3 really weak links. I mean, ask yourself, would you like a Damanation fully boosting armor and barely boosting skirmish becuase of the lack of a mindlink affecting the skirmish, or would you rather have a Damnation and a Claymore fully boosting each and which do you think is more likely to happen (you're a smart guy I know you know). I mean if this is an inteded consequence thats fine but I think that you know how things will likely end up.
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1064	Posted - 2012.11.07 20:47:00 - [3] - Quote Harvey James wrote: Multiple jump clones spring to mind mm... How is multiple jump clones going to help you run 2 or 3 differnt types of links on the same ship?
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1064	Posted - 2012.11.07 20:51:00 - [4] - Quote Ranger 1 wrote: Quote: I mean, ask yourself, would you like a Damanation fully boosting armor and barely boosting skirmish becuase of the lack of a mindlink affecting the skirmish, or would you rather have a Damnation and a Claymore fully boosting each and which do you think is more likely to happen (you're a smart guy I know you know). If you have a Damnation and a Claymore pilot already available why would you not utilize them both to the fullest? Your argument makes zero sense. If you don't have both pilots availabe, you can choose which is more valuable to your fleet and use the appropriately mindlinked clone to fly it... as opposed to not having that option at all. My argument isn't an argument, its a question directed at the guys making the change, and its fairly simple: The ships are being redesigned to support multiple links, are the mindlinks going to be altered to follow this or is this intended game design to weaken links across the board on top of the already coming nerf (armor and skirmis boosts for example are going to be weakened on a t3, drastically, coupled with the fact that now some of the bonuses might not be mindlink boosted which means its in effect a double nerf to fully use the ship as designed) I'm asking if this is on purpose or if its under consideration or if they hadn't thought of it as a consequence
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1064	Posted - 2012.11.07 20:53:00 - [5] - Quote Ranger 1 wrote: Pick the appropriate clone (and mindlink) for that particular fleet. By your logic the change is essentially useless then, and will have little to no effect, because in a non shocker thats exactly what you have to do now, so one might wonder whats the point in altering the command ships at all. Why not leave the fleet comman as single bonus ships and instead of double stacking bonuses give the fleet commands the alternate bonus instead. So like the Damnation gets the armor bonus and the Absolution can give a skirmish bonus. The idea of multiple bonuses off one hull seems wasted if they're not going to be fully bonused, eve is full of min maxers, and it seems silly to waste time programing something that simply wont be used.
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1064	Posted - 2012.11.07 21:13:00 - [6] - Quote Irregessa wrote: I rather like Grath's idea of splitting the bonuses between the two command ships for the race. I'm just trying to get my head around it, it feels like they want to get the gallent Command ships out on the field and I back that idea, but why would you bother with unbonused information warfare links since they're not that strong, and as a command ship you'd probably obviously go with the bonus on armored warfare instead. CCP fozzie joked that 7 people have trained for an Eos, this change, while helpful to those 7 people doesn't feel like it would get more people into an Eos unless they changed the midnlinks to affect multiple link types. I do understand the jump clones thing, I mean we have the money to rip out the implants and press in new ones whenever we want, its not really about the cost as much as the functionality and what the players are more likely to do with the bonuses, coupled with the idea behind the changes in general.
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1064	Posted - 2012.11.07 21:31:00 - [7] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: I'm not really seeing the advantage of separating bonuses. As the plan stands one can simply change clones and links and you have a new fully bonused set of links without changing ships while also having a choice of weapons systems which will be more relevant if/when the changes come that force boosters to be on grid. Ok, ask yourself this: Not many trained for an Eos (CCPs own words not mine), CCP are making a drive to get people into hulls that aren't used, after this change, what motivates you to train for the commanship (Eos)nobody uses now when a Damnation can do the same thing?
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1064	Posted - 2012.11.07 22:01:00 - [8] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: Also, why is this only coming up now while we've had multi-type bonusing T3's for a while? No we don't, I don't know who told you that but t3's boost one thing and one thing only, Loki's do skirmish, Legions do Armor, Tengus do Shield, and Proteus do Info (lol) Ranger 1 wrote: As you say, EvE is full of min maxers so I'm sure you are quite familiar with the practice of having different jump clones outfitted with implants specific to different ships/fits/duties. Ok so why would you ever pick an Eos over a Damnation? How often have you heard either a small gang FC or a large fleet FC go "Man i wish we had an Eos", or even head of a player purposely training for an Eos? Again, I can do all of it, so I don't care one way or another, but I'm just trying to get the purpose behind the change and mitigate potentially wasted time while we still have the chance and the changes are fairly far off. PL does in fact frequently run Skirmish Damnations now, its not that big of a deal by any stretch of the imagination, but if the goal here is to make the Eos line more desirable as a command ship I think this change might miss the mark if mindlinks aren't altered with it.
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1064	Posted - 2012.11.07 22:10:00 - [9] - Quote IF ONLY FOZZIE WOULD PAY ATTENTION TO ME
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1066	Posted - 2012.11.07 23:00:00 - [10] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: Marlona Sky wrote: And even if your fleet desired those amazing info bonuses; why pick the Eos over the Vulture? Most likely any recon type fleet will be shield tanked. So again, the Eos would be looked over. Perhaps we do in fact need more combat link lines added. Drones and energy (nos, neut and smartbombs?) and even hull tanking links. Just some food for thought... Are you saying no one would use info links with an armor fleet? Also if we expand this beyond just looking at the Eos, as we should, what is wrong with my siege warfare boosting claymore/sleipnir in my shield nano gang? Nothing is wrong with it, its fine, but of course its used now. Right now, the Claymore, Vulture, and Damnation all see heavy use, near constant. The Eos isn't used. What we're asking is if they've thought about the fact that making this chagne, while great and allowing for diversity in the other command ships (which is great), wont see any increase in the use of the Eos unless you can get command links to cross over all leadership mods because in almost every situation the other 3 command ships are better. And yes, I'm in fact telling you that nobody uses Infolinks in armor fleets. We have armor fleets now near constantly and they WOULD benefit from having info links, but those links aren't used because the fully bonuses skirmish and armor links are simply more important.

Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1066	Posted - 2012.11.07 23:38:00 - [11] - Quote You should post it again, maybe they didn't read it the first time you posted it....or the second time
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1066	Posted - 2012.11.07 23:48:00 - [12] - Quote Bercelak Cadwaladr wrote: First, an ETA for the skill change should be given (at least a "not within 3 months" would be nice), since you already said that we should start skilling for this change. Most of us have skill plans that are at least targeted for a short time and a long time goal, since this already requires us to make huge changes, it would be nice to know if we have to delay our short time goal (which in my case is substantial for one of my accounts to get profitable, but the long term goal is to have all races available at some point) or can add the skills behind it. And please make this ETA binding, since we rely on it. He's pretty much bluntly stated in the most direct way I've ever seen CCP state that you should do it "now". In 6 years playing this game I've never had a dev come so imcredibly clean about what you SHOULD do so I'd take that exactly as its meant, if you care, alter your skill plan NOW.
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1066	Posted - 2012.11.07 23:51:00 - [13] - Quote Bercelak Cadwaladr wrote: Second: Skill times. It is already extremely hard for new players to get into BCs and bigger and being able to fly them with a decent fit. its not that long.... Bercelak Cadwaladr wrote: With changing the requirements (BS needs BC, Cruiser needs Destroyer), this time is already increased. If a new player then wants to fly pirate BSs too, this time is increased even further, because they need the Dessy and BC skills of that race too now. As i see it, time to get a BS as fast as possible (skipping Dessy and BC) is doubled; not considering implants/remappings and going to BS 3, which is the least necessary to get going, it's from ~9 to ~18 days and for pirate BSs from ~18 to ~36 days. This may seem small, especially compared to the other skills necessary for a decent fir, but for a new player this is huge, considering he is introduced with skills just taking a few hours, and makes the start into the eve universe much more disencouraging. I think the way to BS shouldn't take much longer than now, which could be accomplished by either reducing the requirements (BC just needs Cruiser 3 etc.), reducing the trainingtimes of the racial Dessy and BC skills or reducing the ship trainingtimes in general (e.g. reducing all ship skill multipliers, though which would lead to "unspent" skillpoints for players already having the skills). sorry bro, in the grand scheme of EVE, 36 days is a walk in the park. I trained for 9 months before I ever touched a battleship.
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1070	Posted - 2012.11.08 17:33:00 - [14] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: So about mindlinks.. The fact that they are such a huge portion of the effectiveness of a booster isn't something we like The fact that people are forced to use multiple jump clones or pop a new expensive implant every time they want to switch link types isn't something we like The fact that they make the use of multiple gang link types at once so much worse isn't something we like The exact way to deal with these problems isn't something we have hammered out yet, but we'll keep you updated Ok thanks Fozzie for the fast response, it sounds like you guys had already thought of exactly what we saw when we looked at the proposed changes. Sgt Napalm wrote: I am perfectly happy with the current mindlink mechanic. The current mindlink mechanic is in fact fine with the current set of command ships, however the proposed changes to commandships are pretty intense and reworking the mindlinks or the way they interact with the command modules is the only real way to make the actual changes workable.
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1071	Posted - 2012.11.08 20:20:00 - [15] - Quote Sgt Napalm wrote: Flying around with a set of swiss army knives takes away from the unique role of a command ship pilot. IDK, you already spent 8 months training skills who's attributes have no other real value for combat training, you're pretty unique as it is, you probably have Command Ship 5, Wing and Fleet commmand 5, and at least one of the 4 leadership sets maxed out if not more (most people respec and go for the whole kit because 'whynot'). That uniqueness wont be diminished. As he said they're looking at toning down the bonus from the mind link and adding that bonus back in through some other means. This could mean a new skill or and adjustment to the mods themselves or even a NEW mod. Regardless, well skilled useful command ship pilots that can probe and know what the're doing will never lose their 'unique' ability, there's are rarely enough qualified command pilots around and my alliance is full of crusty bitter retards who have nothing to train BUT leadership skills.
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1072	Posted - 2012.11.09 18:26:00 - [16] - Quote vedaire LegendKiller Carthin wrote: Personally I think its time you leave ships alone and focus on other aspects we worked hard to get to the ships we are able to fly and im tired of seeing you takking all the work out of it for new players. also we chose the ships based on what they can do now you wanna take that away as well think you need to focus on pr rather then screwwing us over. Gona post what every dev who read this is thinking right now: what the hell does this even mean?
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1072	Posted - 2012.11.09 19:32:00 - [17] - Quote Barbara Nichole wrote: "LetGÇÖs assume 2012 is not the end of the world, the universe and all things we hold dear.." ...and also assuming that Obama doesn't completely collapse our ability to pay for a subscription.. and that our stupid executive doesn't also tax the internet to death or turn it over to the UN for "management". 4 MORE YEARS, 4 MORE YEARS, 4 MORE YEARS Maybe if the other party didn't run on a platform of racial discrimination, war on womens reproductive organs, and trying to stuff god down everybodies throat you wouldn't have to worry about it. But its ok, be bitter and blame your parties political failings on the other guy.
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1075	Posted - 2012.11.10 10:57:00 - [18] - Quote @ Fozzie/Ytterbium I had a question of sorts. So the Gallente battle process seems to be based around an idea similar to Minmatar, in that they ideally need to get in fast up close to lay down proper damage. They need agility and speed to accomplish that, but they're natively armor and hull tankers, and mods that go along those lines traditionally slow you down, making it extremely hard to optimally fit an armor tank on your gallente ship and not have it perform well below expectations. What if all galletne hulls had a native immunity to any agility or speed reductions that might normally be associated with Armor plates and or rigs? That would allow them to fit superior tanks and retain that needed edge, keeping blasters (more)viable on a chose racial hull, namely the gallente. Its always seemed like such a simple fix to me that would allow them to operate as mother nature had intended that wouldn't backfire if it was kitted out for shields.
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1075	Posted - 2012.11.10 17:56:00 - [19] - Quote Maeltstome wrote: Massively lolling at the troll attempt. 150kEHP megathrons moving at the speed of a battlecruiser much? Its not really a troll attempt, but isn't what you just described pretty much the exact ideal behind Gallente combat physics? Not to mention that it would only be Gallente that were under this effect.
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1081	Posted - 2012.11.11 22:12:00 - [20] - Quote YuuKnow wrote: 1. Its already mentioned that cruise missles and torps are poor performers at the moment and the Raven is seeing poor days. Why would you make another bship based on a weapon system (cruise missiles) that is a underperformer? Does adding a 2nd bship with the identical poor utilized weapons system (torps and cruise) add anything? So because you don't value a particular weapon system and it may not be perfroming up to spec they should suddenly stop designing ships that use it instead of fixing the system in question and still designing ships that make use of it? YuuKnow wrote: 2 The the cross training to make Typhoons work well wouldn't make sense. Players would train gunnery and projectiles all the way up, but at the bship level would then need to switch to a completely different weapon type where all the previous skills are wasted. Here's a shocker: Most minmatar ships are designed around split weapons systems. Nearly all of them have a combination of Gun and Missile hardpoints. If you've trained up to BS sized guns while ignoring all the other missile systems its only your own fault. By the time you can fly a minnie BS you would be well served to have skills in both sets to fully use each and every ship that Minmatar has to offer.

Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1082	Posted - 2012.11.12 04:29:00 - [21] - Quote ISD Suvetar wrote: Cleaned up an off-topic real-world politics outbreak. Please leave it out of here in the future, thanks!. Ruiner
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1094	Posted - 2012.12.05 09:49:00 - [22] - Quote WheatGrass wrote: Where are the racial destroyer and racial battle-cruiser skill books? I utilized an attribute reallocation bonus on more than one character to get necessary skills trained up in time for the Retribution deployment. I've been training spaceship command skills for weeks in anticipation of this. Yet, now that Retribution has been deployed, the books seem nowhere to be found. Where are the books which were described in the November 6 2012 dev blog by CCP Ytterbium? What should players expect, as far as a time-line, regarding appearance of these books in-game? Thank you. Viktor Rasmussen wrote: It seems they've forgotten to implement the new skills ;-) I find it kinda hard to get the informations about the new patch - especially the things they finally didn't implement because of problems or other things. I think they postponed these racial skills for something - but why? I can't find informations about this without spending hours of forums reading... Well you both obviously read the thread where CCP suggested that you train the skills "sooner rather than later" (their words) but you somehow missed the MULTIPLE times they said that these changes would not come with retribution but soon after I underlined it this time so neither of you would miss it, if I were a betting man, I'd wager that around February you'll see the changes you're looking for.
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1296	Posted - 2013.02.12 05:11:00 - [23] - Quote All t1 ships first, then t2, then caps was the order they said.
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1335	Posted - 2013.02.23 14:53:00 - [24] - Quote Alexa Smart wrote: Can you tell me what is the strategy behind all this nerfing and changes? I suspect it's greed. . Off grid boosters aren't you 'learning the game' for an advantage, its having a virtually untouchable advantage (because in small gang and solo situations the other small gang/guy doesn't have the chance to scan down your booster). Thinking that training an off grid booster is somehow knowledge or skill related is pretty funny though. It would have been if you were say, the guy who came up with hard to probe off grid boosters, but doing the guy that just got his trained up 6 months ago doesn't make you that. Its an in game advantage that is very hard in most situations to disrupt, thats what makes it broken. And eventually they fully intend to take it out. Nothing will change that.
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1335	Posted - 2013.02.24 07:32:00 - [25] - Quote Alexa Smart wrote: 1. I need a dedicated account or dedicated player for boosting So? Lots of things in EVE require a fairly dedicated alt or account to deal with, whats your point? Alexa Smart wrote: 2. I have to invest 1 year to train a toon to do proper leadership and this cost subscription money, skill books as well as "maybe" a 1b Loki like mine Let me introduce you to my Titan, it took 3 years to get right, 100 billion isk for the hull, 5 billion isk for the skillbook, a dedicated alt AND account because I can't get him out, and the same leadership skills as your alt. Are we to assume that he should be nigh on invincible as well as providing a completely untouchable bonus? The answer is no, we shouldn't, because its bad game design to let a player have a benefit that can't be taken by another player. Alexa Smart wrote: In view of the above I think your and CCP's point is very light, bordering ignorance and I would say I am quite annoyed by this. Glad I could help. Alexa Smart wrote: Why not instead disallow the booster from being stationed in a POS? that way it can be scanned and you can warp to it. Because as was stated, even if your alt was OUTSIDE of a POS, most engagements you use it in are over in a relatively short period of time, and small gangs and solo guys don't have the chance in those situations to actually probe you down. In solo, you're engaged with the guy, he's not going to drop probes and start looking for you, and likewise in small gang situations the man power and time simply isn't there to hunt the alt down even if it WAS outside of a POS. In fleet warfare they are very often probed down and killed when not in a tower. You seem to feel that spending money should give you some pass to be untouchable in some way, sorry to tell you thats just not EVE. Cross train your loki to a falcon and get better at dual boxing, OR learn to dual box your booster and your combat ship on the same grid, regardless, change is coming so you might as well swallow that pill now.

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.