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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 30 .. 34 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 28 post(s)
Bouh Revetoile Barricade. 155	Posted - 2012.11.07 14:34:00 - [511] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Wanted to quickly address two of the more common points raised so far here: Skirmish links and the Amarr/Gallente command ships We recognize that the skirmish links do fit especially well with Gallente blasterboats and the Gallente scram range bonuses. The initial plan here gives Skirmish to the Proteus for that reason, but it may prove a good idea to give skirmish bonuses to the Eos and Astarte as well. We are not going to rule out the possibility of making the Amarr command ships Armor/Info bonused and the Gallente command ships Armor/Skirm bonused. This would cause a significant disruption for the 7 of you that have the Eos trained specifically for Info links, but that may be a sacrifice worth making. Not going to make any promises now but it's on the table. In theory, Gallente armor tank and have generous number of mid slots to use EWAR. They are a lot more elligible to info warfare link than Amarr who don't have any midslot to use this link. Gallente and Caldari being the EWAR races, I think it's normal for them to have these links. These proposed command link bonuses for gallente are good IMO, or maybe reverse armored warfare and skirmish warfare between command and T3 bonus, but gallente should keep the info warfare link IMO.
Foolish Bob The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels In Tea We Trust 6	Posted - 2012.11.07 14:40:00 - [512] - Quote Trash Ice wrote: [on why bs class turrets are better than torps] Can I kill frigate with it? This right here is something that needs to change. Either torps should kill frigs or BS guns should be equally powerless against ships so small. I vote the latter, but I love frigates, so I'm biased. Other opinions are available, but whatever the design decision the weapons systems should be on an equal footing. I claim it would also make the re-balancing easier.
Noisrevbus 275	Posted - 2012.11.07 14:42:00 - [513] - Quote I'm sorry, i had to dash off to work earlier so i kind of left the comments open. I realize the thread has taken a turn in another direction by now, but i just wanted to sum up the point i was trying to make like this: Do you see what all these issues mentioned in the devblog have in common? Armor vs. Shield(aka. midslot utility versus lowslot damage mods) = getting more ships do not necessarily allow you to better tackle or control your opponents. Active vs. Buffer = getting a better buffer allow you to sustain the volley from more ships. The repairs from a logistics cruiser is not necessarily more than the amount from local repairs. It's all about scalability. LR vs. SR weapons = more ships means more damage, more ships does not mean more range. That means more ships can replace more damage but not better range. SC vs. CS boosting = better bonuses to a larger and less mobile ship also mean better bonuses to ships that generally run LR weapons on buffered ships in larger gangs with less individual utility. Worse bonuses to smaller, more mobile or flexible ships mean worse bonuses to smaller ships, with other tanks in smaller gangs that rely more on the utility from their booster, that don't have more ships to draw benefit from other links.

CCP Eterne C C P C C P Alliance 253	Posted - 2012.11.07 14:55:00 - [514] - Quote Deleted a post for inappropriate racist language. CCP Eterne \| Community Representative @CCP_Eterne

Echo Mande 34	Posted - 2012.11.07 15:12:00 - [515] - Quote Hmm. Overall a good devblog I'm assuming that the Command Ships skill will have its Battlecruisers V requirement removed and that the individual command ships will have racial Battlecruisers V as requirement instead of racial Cruisers V. Also, will command processors get buffed (T2; supporting multiple links?) or will the link limits be removed entirely? If you are redoing battleships one thing that could be looked into is allowing some battleships to field more than 5 drones at a time. The dominix would be a logical choice for this, as could the apocalypse (to get some differentiation in amarr battleships). Making the racial carrier and dread skills depend on racial BS 4 is sure to draw howls but it does seem sort of logical. It's not as if the other requirements (Drone Interfacing, Capital Ships) don't take up time and they're just the beginning really if you're looking to fit a capital right. If you want to balance dread vs. carrier training time add another longish requirement to dreads. Please drop the carrier skillbooks' prices though. There's one command ship that is conspicuous by its absence in this blog and that is the Rorqual. Will this get a second specialisation (siege seems most logical)? The bit about killing off-field boosting needs careful evaluation though. As is it will make rorquals extinct because they only get their boost bonus in deployed mode which renders them immobile during cycle. Personally I've never seen a rorq boost outside a POS field due to hotdrop/gang risks. For those people who think a boosting rorq pilot is AFK, as often as not they'll be compressing ore (and quite busy) while the boost cycle is (perma)running. Being able to get ore from a corporate hangar/ship assembly array while boosting keeps them busy longer..
Lyric Lahnder Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group 114	Posted - 2012.11.07 15:13:00 - [516] - Quote Im a little sad you were thinking about turning the prophecy into a drone boat. The prophecy does need some love but in its current form, a person can choose either DPS in the Harbinger, or big tank in the prophecy with the resist bonuses, each sort of gave a player options. As long as the prophecy keeps the tanky bonus parting with its current form will be alot easier. I would actually recommend that the ferox NOT be another sniping platform. The merlin no longer has its range bonus its a close range hybrid slugger. Why couldnt the ferox have similar bonuses? Why not keep the shield bonus and then give it a hybrid damage bonus instead and get rid some of its launcher slots. Now its a big version of the currently rebalanced merlin. Lets face it even if you turned the ferox into yet another sniping boat it still wouldn't be able to contend with any of the tier 3s. If you focus on making it into yet another sniper ship no one would fly it. You could also do something like keep the launcher slots and then give the ferox split weapon bonuses like a launcher rate of fire bonus and the hybrid damage bonus so people could choose how they wanted to deal there damage up close. There are lots of places you can go with the ferox right now. I dont think a medium rail sniper platform is the best direction to go with it. Noir. and Noir Academy are recruiting apply at www.noirmercs.comI Noir Academy: 60 days old must be able to fly at least one tech II frigate. I Noir. Recruits: 4:1 k/d ratio and can fly tech II cruisers.
Pinky Denmark The Cursed Navy 242	Posted - 2012.11.07 15:14:00 - [517] - Quote Rommiee wrote: Irregessa wrote: Pinky Denmark wrote: Sniping: If CCP has ANY interest in making railguns and beams (not talking about Tachyons) usefull for pvp in a bigger scale I find it very important to double the alpha while keeping all other stats the same... This wont do everything but it will be a big step on the way. Currently artillery is the only way to go for real alpha... Rails and beams can be used, however it requires 3 times the amount of ships to pull off the same alpha as artillery with only marginal dps advantage which is still crap compared to short range weapon systems... Pinky Then you would need to scale back the cycle time on the beams and rails to compensate for the increased damage, at which point you are essentially making all three weapon systems largely the same (use of ammo and/or cap excepted). If you want to do a lot of damage in one shot, you use arties. If you want to be able to do more continuous damage over time, you use beams. If you want something in the middle ground, you use rails. There is nothing substantial to be gained by making everything essentially the same. Yup, exactly. By "balancing", CCP mean make each class of ship across all the races, basically the same, they will just look different. There goes the diversity in EVE, which is what made this game unique. Welcome to WOW in space. Giving rails and beams a better alpha does not remove artillery as the very best alpha weapon of choice - The difference atm is HUGE and I only see advantages from closing the gap. Currently rail and beam ships have NO place in alpha fleets, but their dps will be a good trade off if the alpha gap is closed... I dont want it to become the same - just make rails and beams more viable for sniping.
Pinky Denmark The Cursed Navy 242	Posted - 2012.11.07 15:31:00 - [518] - Quote off-grid boosting is wrong on so many levels... Small scale pvp will improve with a grid nerf - only the multi-account-self-promoted-false-solo-players will suffer!!
Krell Kroenen Miners In Possession Brothers of Apocrypha. 67	Posted - 2012.11.07 15:31:00 - [519] - Quote Trash Ice wrote: I beg you not to f*ck with Typhoon. It is ok now, turrets are ok, everything is fine. Main feature of this BS is flexibiity. It feels like a cheap Machariel. Why should I like torpedoes? Do torpedoes have nice tracking and falloff? Can I kill frigate with it? If you want me to use torp-phoon, just give it some more cpu and armor and (voila!) - it will be great. I have a feeling, that some changes are made just for changes themselves. I rather liked my phoon until I got T2 torps and discovered I couldn't fit them with the load out that I so favored. So it got pushed to the back of my hanger has been more or less forgotten about. But I like the idea of finally dumping the split weapon system and making it a pure torp boat. There are already two other gun battleships for the minmatar why not let the phoon be for missiles? I would love for it to have a torp rof bonus and a TP bonus.
Terik Deatharbingr Redhogs Circle-Of-Two 254	Posted - 2012.11.07 15:39:00 - [520] - Quote Pinky Denmark wrote: Giving rails and beams a better alpha does not remove artillery as the very best alpha weapon of choice - The difference atm is HUGE and I only see advantages from closing the gap. Currently rail and beam ships have NO place in alpha fleets, but their dps will be a good trade off if the alpha gap is closed... I dont want it to become the same - just make rails and beams more viable for sniping. he's got a point....don't bring them entirely in line...just bring them a little closer. When no other ship has a place in alpha fleet other than projectiles, obviously something is wrong.

Jame Jarl Retief Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy 333	Posted - 2012.11.07 15:59:00 - [521] - Quote Had some more thoughts about the blog... First, the splitting of Destroyers/BC skills. It's not news, we've been talking about this for a year almost, but lately I've been thinking about this from a new player's perspective. It'll realistically take 3x longer to be able to fly all BC hulls. Is it specifically CCPs intention to reduce and discourage cross-training? I understand there's reasons for working the Dessie and BC skills into the logical ship progression chain. But look at it from a new player's perspective, point of view of someone who joins just a week before the change goes live, and finds out he just missed out on essentially 3+ months worth of "free training" with the skill split. I mean, that gotta hurt. If it were me, I'd probably just laugh and walk away from the game, just from the fundamental unfairness of it all. And this is in a game where old hands already have a humongous advantage over new players. And when I say "new" I mean characters less than a year old. Which in all other MMOs would be called "ancient", not "new". I'm not advocating against this change, I know it's too late for that. And personally it doesn't affect me as I already have all those trained to V. The point is, think about how it'll affect newer players ( if any... ) and how much it will discourage cross-training, and how this will affect the game. Currently, the general rule of thumb is "Train for Tengu and STFU" when it comes to many aspects of the game. When it comes to PvP, the general consensus (just search New Pilots Q&A forum) is "Winmatar or GTFO". And Gallente having few viable fleet/blob ships (see top 20 most used hulls) doesn't help. If this persists past the change, cross-training will still remain virtually mandatory, while the training time required for it will shoot up by a huge amount. This is not something I would consider good for the game. Granted, you could actually balance the game. That is, make cross-training totally unnecessary, except as just something for a pilot to do for lack of anything else to spend time on. But this would mean making armor and shield tanks equally viable (currently they're not, each has a distinct role), making active and passive tanks equally strong and viable for all applications, making all weapons systems equally desirable, etc., etc., without losing their individuality. And meaning no offense, do you really think you could pull this off in a reasonable time? I mean, let's just look at weapons and damage types. When two weapons systems can change their damage, while the other two cannot, how can you balance that? If you happen to specialize in a "wrong" weapon system for the area that your corp of real-life friends ends up living in, what can you do about it EXCEPT cross-train? Nothing. Or you could live with significantly reduced DPS and/or significantly weaker tank just because you chose the "wrong" weapon, "wrong" tank or "wrong" place to live? Plus, how would you balance high alpha of Minmatar with low alpha of rails for Gallente/Caldari? You really can't. Alpha is vastly more popular, which is supported by the top 20 statistics of the killboards. You can't "balance" them without basically evening them out so that the difference is miniscule. Or, you would have to totally change how on-grid stuff works to bring sniping back as a viable option. See what I mean? It's a can of worms. Bottom line, I just don't feel it's such a good idea to do anything that slows cross-training more. You'll end up making many new pilots very unhappy when they realize they chose "wrong". I know, because I've been in this boat myself. I chose Gallente and heavy drone skills, and essentially crippled my advancement by several months. This mistake will be a whole lot more painful when cross-training times increase.
Acac Sunflyier Burning Star L.L.C. 260	Posted - 2012.11.07 16:04:00 - [522] - Quote When EXACTLY is the change to the skills for bc and destroyers coming? We going to see it in Retribution? How many days? There just isn't anything intresting on the front page of the GD anymore. Yawn!
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 105	Posted - 2012.11.07 16:04:00 - [523] - Quote has anyone thought that maybe the problem is with arties having too high alpha damage rather than the rest being crap?
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 10270	Posted - 2012.11.07 16:09:00 - [524] - Quote Acac Sunflyier wrote: When EXACTLY is the change to the skills for bc and destroyers coming? We going to see it in Retribution? How many days? It's coming EXACTLY some time next year, when all BC and BS balancing changes are being rolled out. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
Acac Sunflyier Burning Star L.L.C. 260	Posted - 2012.11.07 16:15:00 - [525] - Quote Tippia wrote: Acac Sunflyier wrote: When EXACTLY is the change to the skills for bc and destroyers coming? We going to see it in Retribution? How many days? It's coming EXACTLY some time next year, when all BC and BS balancing changes are being rolled out. They keep hinting to tis coming SoonGäó. Vut they're giving no hints at all to when. Before or after fanfest? Little more specifics please. There just isn't anything intresting on the front page of the GD anymore. Yawn!
Henk Dek State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2012.11.07 16:15:00 - [526] - Quote Acac Sunflyier wrote: When EXACTLY is the change to the skills for bc and destroyers coming? We going to see it in Retribution? How many days? Check this from Fozzie: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2146465#post2146465 This is at least answer for the Retribution part of the question...
LoRDa RaMOs The Dark Space Initiative 22	Posted - 2012.11.07 16:18:00 - [527] - Quote TL:DR please stop tier 1 and 2 battlecruiser flexibility, such a thing's been imposed by usage trends. Apply narrow roles. Boosts and passive tank (larger gangs) or gank and interception/active tank (solo. Aware that my point might have been noted previously i'm going to barge in this matter anyways, so forgive in advance if my assumption is correct. If I remember correctly, people in CCP have said in interviews and forum posts i can't remember right now (but hey, here's :space reserved: while i look for a quote on that), that as far as sniping platforms go, the current tier 3 battlecruisers are infinitely superior than any other battlecruiser or battleship mostly because of their agility. Maybe you guys ought to look for the dog that didn't bark: Cheap fleet boosters. Granted, this isn't something that is going to get looked at soon, but aren't battlecruisers originally supposed to be mainly support ships and, to a minor degree, the stepping stone into battleships? I read in some other place that battlecruisers, as far as the combat role goes, are supposed to either sport a massive tank (maybe to complement boosts) or fit better than decent DPS ditching or minimising said role with the obvious consequence of not being able to fit a good tank. Now, for a ship like that to have so many roles (some intended and seemingly ignored by your customers, and others thoroughly exploited because of previous attribute/feature related developer decisions) is probably damaging to said ship as you have to juggle between so many possible fits that spring from your costumers. Take for example the hurricane, a fine armor ship, with a decent shield configuration, that can sport neuts and massive DPS at short range and can alpha people from a decent distace, and a decent boost ship in its armor configuration. Well hell, don't you think this stretches said ships a bit too much? With battlecruisers, it seems like limiting tiers 1 and 2 to the (passive) tanky role with boosts and medium range flimsy damage, and short range brawling with better than average damage (maybe with a role bonus to active reps for solo play) would be optimal. So drake could retain its role as passive pve ship or medium range T1 booster with missile spewage, and the ferox would retain and further expand on its role as a blaster or rail damage boat, both able to stand against equally or smaller sized ships but not the larger ones without serious backup. Inb4 obvious sperg for solo/small gang favoritism: Yes, I'm a lover of small gang casual PVP. Best of luck with your endeavors.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 10270	Posted - 2012.11.07 16:22:00 - [528] - Quote Acac Sunflyier wrote: They keep hinting to it's coming SoonGäó. But they're giving no hints at all to when. Before or after fan fest? Little more specifics please. GÇ£Next yearGÇ¥ and GÇ£when the balance passes are doneGÇ¥ is as specific as it gets. There's no point in them giving a date that they can't predict with any certainty. Just train your cruiser and frigate skills to III now and nothing will happen. It's less than a week's training each. If you want to max out destroyers and BCs, that's a month and a half. You should have plenty of time. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
LoRDa RaMOs The Dark Space Initiative 22	Posted - 2012.11.07 16:23:00 - [529] - Quote Harvey James wrote: has anyone thought that maybe the problem is with arties having too high alpha damage rather than the rest being crap? Agree, the alpha is too damn High!
Kethry Avenger PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 49	Posted - 2012.11.07 16:27:00 - [530] - Quote I am excited to see the balancing changes go forward. Looking forward for the Amarr Disruption BS in some soonish (TM) future. Feel free to fit black ops changes, and a survivability buff to EAFs in there to. Liking the changes to Command Ships and links. I would be ok with Mining links being able to stay off grid. I would also be ok with the other gang links working like bubbles, as long as the bubble was something large 200-500 km. easily covering most of a grid and covering any fast tackle you use to pin down a sniper or recon at range. Oh! Just make an ORE Command Ship. Mining and Seige buffing, with bonus to drone damage hitpoints and mining. Then make it have a good tank like the other Command Ships so that it could survive on grid with a mining fleet. CCP Fozzie wrote: Wanted to quickly address two of the more common points raised so far here: Skirmish links and the Amarr/Gallente command ships We recognize that the skirmish links do fit especially well with Gallente blasterboats and the Gallente scram range bonuses. The initial plan here gives Skirmish to the Proteus for that reason, but it may prove a good idea to give skirmish bonuses to the Eos and Astarte as well. We are not going to rule out the possibility of making the Amarr command ships Armor/Info bonused and the Gallente command ships Armor/Skirm bonused. This would cause a significant disruption for the 7 of you that have the Eos trained specifically for Info links, but that may be a sacrifice worth making. Not going to make any promises now but it's on the table. Unless TDs affect missiles please don't change this. Giving Amarr a little extra range to slow down Minmatar and others is good. Giving Gallente super range scrams would be bad. Not that flying in a mixed fleet wouldn't negate this point. But some of us take our race and roles more seriously than others.

Berendas Clandestine Vector THE SPACE P0LICE 324	Posted - 2012.11.07 17:08:00 - [531] - Quote Upon thinking about the Ferox and the proposed changes, I would be much in favor of turning it into a mid-range kiter. You can't really make it into a sniper without competing with, and losing to the Naga, and you can't really make it a blaster brawler without making it compete with the Brutix. A ship that operates in the ~20km range seems like the best middle ground if it is to stay a turret based ship.
Archdaimon NorCorp Enterprise No Holes Barred 120	Posted - 2012.11.07 17:10:00 - [532] - Quote I dislike that the same hull-type has different weapon systems depending on tech level. Logic would dictate that hull indicated default weapon system.
AMirrorDarkly Ekchuah's Shrine Comporium Kill It With Fire 30	Posted - 2012.11.07 17:13:00 - [533] - Quote I love the direction going, particularly with command ships, but I have some concerns. First off, tacling the on-grid issue, I 100% want boosters to be on grid, but call it what you will an optimal/fall off reduction in range etc, its a Nerf. Not swapping the 3%/5% around between T3's and T2's, don't get me wrong I hate the 5% boost, but ...... Nerf. I didn't see any mention of how equalising the tanking abilities of the Field/Fleet command ships is going to happen, realistically with the way these ships are treated and the fact they are going to be committed to grid they should all have tanks like the Damnation or better, but the fact this isn't addresssed kinda makes me assume that this will not be the case.... Maybe I'm hopping on the wrong conclusion, but by concern is that the bonus will just be removed and the fleet command ships will have less tank to meet the field command ship, ie a Nerf. Then theres the bonus to DPS, while this seems like a fantastic idea in principle, the low slots that are currently being used for tanking will now have to compete with (insert damage mod of choice here) reducing the tank... Not a Nerf, but certainly not the bonus expected. These ships NEED to be survivable, especially in large fleet engagements, these things are going to be primaried by 200+ Drakes or what ever ship is flavour of the month, they are going to be dead, most likely before the end of the first boost cycle, they aren't going to be able to be used off grid and have no means of escape because they are slow and have high sig radii, I would rather they did no DPS but had the tank of a Carrier if they are going to be on grid. Not to mention the automatic market turmoil and 5x increase in price of the warfare mindlinks when all the pods stuck in 0.0 bubbles die. So basically, individually I totally agree with each and every change, but together collectively, it's going to be too much...... The skill chain to use them effectively is massive, and the cost of the ships+pod individually is significant, because they are such high value targets the risk of losing them in each engagement is high, and you are increasing the exposure of risk by forcing them quite rightly on to the grid into the fight where they belong, but they need to make an impact on the field a worth while one in line with the ISK/Risk ratio committed, and be able to hang around long enough to make that impact before they die. Are you not trying to encourage people to use these ships??
Foolish Bob The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels In Tea We Trust 6	Posted - 2012.11.07 17:29:00 - [534] - Quote AMirrorDarkly wrote: Are you not trying to encourage people to use these ships?? 3% is still better than 0% so there's clearly an encouragement to use the ships. Survivability on grid might be a factor, but I remember in my youth long before tech 3 and wormholes command ships with the ehp of carriers roamed with fleets mocking the paltry damage that dared to think they could alpha them to oblivion. As long as care is taken there's no reason why this can't be again.
Viribus Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 103	Posted - 2012.11.07 17:40:00 - [535] - Quote I still don't understand the people who agree that warfare links are bad for small gangs, but then say the solution is to make warfare links only available to large fleets by forcing them on-grid Boggles the mind.
AMirrorDarkly Ekchuah's Shrine Comporium Kill It With Fire 30	Posted - 2012.11.07 17:43:00 - [536] - Quote Foolish Bob wrote: AMirrorDarkly wrote: Are you not trying to encourage people to use these ships?? 3% is still better than 0% so there's clearly an encouragement to use the ships. Survivability on grid might be a factor, but I remember in my youth long before tech 3 and wormholes command ships with the ehp of carriers roamed with fleets mocking the paltry damage that dared to think they could alpha them to oblivion. As long as care is taken there's no reason why this can't be again. With respect 0.1% is better than 0% My statement is to in regards to encourage use over and above what is in place currently, which given the fact they are used so in frequently shows the balance of risk reward is not correct. I don't think I've ever seen a Damnation (and by extension any) command ship with an EHP greater than 500k EHP and doing so compromises the ship in a large number of ways. The Alpha of today is far easier and greater with fleet sizes and Tier 3 BC's than of a few years ago also.
Speak Silence THORN Syndicate THORN Alliance 2	Posted - 2012.11.07 17:49:00 - [537] - Quote Dracko Malus wrote: Speak Silence wrote: I meet all the requirements for flying field command ships but never trained for the fleet command ships (missing information link specialist). After the change will I still be able to fly my sleipnir/absolution or are you going to require the terrible fleet command skills for all CS? "Let us repeat again: if you could fly it before, you will be able to do so after the change. " Quote from the devblog. Remember who it is we are talking about. Since this was not addressed specifically I have no confidence that I will be able to board my favorite field command ship following the change. So what will happen with the social based fleet command skills? Will warfare link specialist be required for all t2 command ships? Will command ships skill requirements stay the same even though they all have the same command link capability (numbers wise at least)? Will the skill be removed from as command ships tertiary requirements? Will existing CS pilots be granted this skill in the spirit of "if you could fly it before, you will be able to do so after the change"?
baltec1 Bat Country 2741	Posted - 2012.11.07 17:59:00 - [538] - Quote Viribus wrote: I still don't understand the people who agree that warfare links are bad for small gangs, but then say the solution is to make warfare links only available to large fleets by forcing them on-grid Boggles the mind. The only small gangs that will suffer will be the "solo" gangs.
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp 2728	Posted - 2012.11.07 18:09:00 - [539] - Quote Jame Jarl Retief wrote: Quote: Dominix: still remains a popular ship. It is fairly good, except for the drone mechanics themselves, which are terribly outdated. While we are not certain when this can be tackled, it definitely has high priority on our to-do list. That's great, but when? How can you balance a ship without knowing how drones will be fixed? Might as well leave it as it is, fix drones, and then re-balance all drone boats yet again to account for the drone changes. Quote: Hyperion: the hull could be improved, but again most of the issues come from passive versus active tanking problems Same as above, how can you balance the hull without knowing what the final solution will be to the whole tanking issue? Depending on how it's handled, the bonus on the hull could end up totally wrong, and powergrid/etc., could be way off, requiring a second rebalance which is coming who knows when. Wouldn't it make much more sense to fix armor and drones FIRST, and then balance the ships using them? Instead of balancing the ships for existing (admittedly terribly outdated) state, then fixing the outdated stuff, and then being forced to re-balance yet again? And PLEASE be careful with nerfing Megathron's hitpoints. Gallente have very few viable fleet ships as it is. If you turn a Mega into a close range blaster hull, you HAVE to do a good job on Hyperion, or do something magical about drones, to allow either Hype or Domi to be a good fleet ship. And finally, why is Scorpion set into a separate category (EWAR), but other races get no EWAR hulls of battleship size? Grossly unbalanced, if you ask me, giving one race an EWAR BS, while others get absolutely nothing. Either give all races their own EWAR BS, or change Scorp into an Attack Battleship. Fair is fair. I tend to agree with your last point concerning racial EW battleships. As to the rest, when they have mentioned that the balancing of a particular ship is in fact and issue with fixing a related game mechanic (heavy missiles, etc.) that is usually a pretty good indication that those issues will be dealt with as part of the balancing effort. In other words, they will be fixing the actual problem as part of the release, not starting a senseless series of balance iterations. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base.
Lan Staz Aperture Harmonics K162 18	Posted - 2012.11.07 18:21:00 - [540] - Quote AMirrorDarkly wrote: I don't think I've ever seen a Damnation (and by extension any) command ship with an EHP greater than 500k EHP and doing so compromises the ship in a large number of ways. The Alpha of today is far easier and greater with fleet sizes and Tier 3 BC's than of a few years ago also. Is the problem here purely that there is a massive dependency on a single ship? What about if FCs could assign a fleet boost priority to fleet members, then the boosts come from whoever has the highest priority on grid? You could have several boosters in the fleet, and the enemy would have to identify and kill them all to remove bonuses. Boosters could warp away and not leave the fleet exposed, etc.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 30 .. 34 :: 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.