|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 24 post(s) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2974
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 20:40:00 -
[1] - Quote
It seems wrong for there to be so few stickies in this section.
Hi everyone! Welcome to our first ship balance thread of 2013! Today we've got a set of battlecruisers for you, the former Tier 1 and Tier 2 BCs, re-branded Combat Battlecruisers.
As with all the tiericide efforts, we are aiming for these ships to have roughly comparable power levels. To that end most of the former Tier 1 ships are getting slots and most of the former Tier 2 ships are losing slots. We gave them EHP closer to the averages of the old Tier 1s and damage closer to the averages of the old Tier 2s. These ships are getting less dramatic changes than some of the smaller classes but we still expect the meta to change noticeably.
The biggest changes will be seen by the Prophecy and the Cyclone, which are both getting changed weapon bonuses. The Proph is becoming an heavy tanking droneboat with the choice of missiles or turrets in the highslots (similar to how we have been using the highs of the smaller Amarr droneboats throughout this balance pass). The Cyclone is swapping its projectile bonus for a missile RoF bonus, giving it the ability to spew missile of any damage type desired. This should help provide more variety of ships to Minmatar pilots who enjoy Breacher/Talwar/Bellicose gameplay and want to go bigger.
We're planning to release these ships in an upcoming Retribution point release so that we can keep the balance train rolling steadily. I'm working to figure out the earliest point we can get them on a test server so that I can start getting hands on feedback from you all. As always these stats are subject to change and we welcome all the feedback you can provide.
Prophecy: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to all Armor Resistances 10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 5 H (-2), 4 M (+1), 7 L (+1), 4 turrets (-2), 4 Launchers (+3) Fittings: 1100 PWG (-200), 415 CPU (+75) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3000(-419) / 5500(+617) / 4250(-145) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2850(+37.5) / 750s / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 150 / 0.704 / 12900000 (-600,000) / 8.5s (-0.4) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 75 (+50) / 225 (+200) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 50km / 210 / 6 Sensor strength: 17 Radar (+1) Signature radius: 270 (+5) Cargo capacity: 400 (+50)
Harbinger: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Damage 10% bonus Medium Energy Turret capacitor use Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 4 M, 6 L, 6 turrets (-1) Fittings: 1325 PWG (-175), 350 CPU (-25) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3000(-516) / 5000(-469) / 4500(-188) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3125 / 822s(+72s) / 3.8 (-0.366) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 150 / 0.704 / 13800000 (+300,000) / 9.1s (+0.2) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 75 (+25) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km (+5) / 210 / 6 Sensor strength: 17 Radar (+1) Signature radius: 270 (+5) Cargo capacity: 375 (+25)
Ferox: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to all Shield Resistances 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L (+1), 7 turrets (+1) Fittings: 1100 PWG (+25), 510 CPU (+35) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000(+117) / 3500(+81) / 4250(+344) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2750(+250) / 723s(+56.33s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.65(+0.05) / 13510000 (-500,000) / 8.2s (+0.3) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km (+5)/ 195 / 8 Sensor strength: 19 Gravimetric Signature radius: 295 (+10) Cargo capacity: 475 (+130)
Drake: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to all Shield Resistances 5% bonus to heavy and heavy assault missile kinetic damage Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 6 M, 4 L , 7 Launchers Fittings: 840 PWG (-10), 515 CPU (-10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5250(-219) / 3250(-658) / 4000(+94) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2500(-312.5) / 658s(-92s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.64(+0.012) / 14810000 (+800,000) / 8.9s (+0.7) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 195 / 8 Sensor strength: 19 Gravimetric Signature radius: 295 (+10) Cargo capacity: 450 (+105)
Brutix: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H, 4 M, 6 L (+1), 7 turrets Fittings: 1200 PWG (+50), 435 CPU (+10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3500(-406) / 4500(+135) / 5000(+117) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3000(+656.25) / 789s(+164s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 155 / 0.704(+0.0352) / 12250000 (-1,000,000) / 8.1s (-0.2) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 200 / 7 Sensor strength: 18 Magnetometric Signature radius: 305 (+5) Cargo capacity: 475 (+75)
Myrmidon: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness 10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 5 H (-1), 5 M, 6 L, 5 turrets (-1) Fittings: 1050 PWG (-125), 400 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3500(-406) / 4500(-188) / 4750(+453) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2850(+37.5) / 750s(+108.75s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 145 / 0.704 / 13100000 / 8.6s (-0.1) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 100 (+25) / 175 (+25) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 200 / 7 Sensor strength: 18 Magnetometric Signature radius: 305 (... Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Falcon
2066
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 20:42:00 -
[2] - Quote
Glue Applied.
Also, first in epic numbars post
CCP Falcon -á || -á EVE Community Team -á || -á EVE Illuminati -á || -á Live Events Organizer
@CCP_Falcon -á || -á-á@EVE_LiveEvents |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2974
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:00:00 -
[3] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Care to comment on BPO mineral requirement changes, or will we have to wait for the test server for those? We'll be following the same general idea as previous tiericide classes, except that the former Tier 3 BCs will continue to require more minerals than the Combat BCs due to their role and use of large turrets.
Aryth wrote:Do you think you guys want to do BC then BS by Summer? Is that within the realm of doable? I'm not going to make promises until we have the planning for Summer further along, but we'll be getting as much done as quickly as we can time and resources permitting. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2990
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:29:00 -
[4] - Quote
Dear Capsuleers. Two utility highslots is not the same as split weapons. All the best. -Love Fozzie
:Writing up a reply to more questions now: Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1913
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 03:31:00 -
[5] - Quote
Removed a ranting post.
I would like to remind people that while negative feedback is helpful, please do it in a constructive manner. Ranting about it while not help solve anything, but telling us why you don't like it and ways to fix it is very helpful. Thank you. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3039
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 19:48:00 -
[6] - Quote
Hey everyone. Sorry for not getting this post up sooner, been pretty busy here at CCP.
I've been reading all the feedback here and everything I can find on other websites, thanks for the help so far. I'm going to pick out a few common questions to answer today.
Are the Battlecruiser skills being split into racial version at the same time as these changes?
We have been planning to split the Battlecruiser and Destroyer skills into racial variations (Details can be found in CCP Ytterbium's dev blog here) for a while, but we've been vague about the when. Originally I had hoped to get the changes into this point release, but we've seen an opportunity to both build better tools to help players understand the changes (communicating the mechanics involved is something we could have done better so far) and also combine the skill changes with some other adjustments that fit together well. So I now have permission to let you all know that the skill change is scheduled for our Summer expansion 2013 (which most of you know tends to fall in the late spring). We'll be working to make sure that as many people as possible understand the changes beforehand. I know that some of you may feel that we've been stringing you guys along since the changes were first proposed so long ago, but we're working to make sure a huge change like this is done in the most responsible way possible.
To repeat, the skill split is scheduled for the big Summer 2013 expansion.
Why aren't there Tier 3 BC changes in this thread?
This thread is focused on the Combat line of Battlecruisers, which are the former Tier 1 and Tier 2 ships. The Tier 3 BCs will be rechristened Attack Battlecruisers and will have their own thread when we're ready to start gathering feedback.
What about armor tanking? The imbalances caused by the mass of plates, the speed penalty on armor rigs and the weakness of armor reps in pvp situations are a problem that becomes more pronounced for these ships than for any of the smaller classes and should be fixed as soon as possible!
I completely agree. ~Working on it~. However since we want to be very careful about what we promise and when that's all I can say at this exact moment.
Even if active armor tanking gets better, Gallente don't need two ships with a active armor bonus! Why not give them more variety in bonuses?
This is a very legitimate concern and is something I am open to changing, we have other options being looked at and are always interested in all your ideas. However I want to wait a bit before switching the design around.
Why is the Ferox keeping the optimal range bonus? A damage bonus would be stronger for blasters and nobody snipes with a Ferox!
There's a couple of things going on here. I completely think that PVP Ferox fits will continue to be mostly blaster fit after these changes, I want to be clear that we are not trying to force people into rails with the optimal bonus. However there are a few reasons we decided on keeping the optimal bonus: 1) The Blaster Ferox works quite well with the current stats, and the optimal bonus is in fact useful with blasters (especially with Null or Void ammo, as well as alongside a TE module) and creates a nice (if subtle) gameplay distinction between the Ferox and other blaster ships. We were weighing the option of switching the bonus to damage, but chose to add the extra turret instead. This way the blaster Ferox fits get more DPS while also keeping their range benefit (at the expense of tighter fittings). 2) We have metrics on how people are fitting their ships, and many of you may be surprised to know that the most common highslot modules fit to Ferox in the game are named 250mm rails. There is actually a significant number of people using the Ferox for turret based PVE that many veteran players can easily overlook. 3) The issue of balance between long range fit Combat BCs and Tier 3 BCs is an important one. In the end the solution will likely revolve around making sniping with medium weapons and sniping with large weapons more distinct. I'm not expecting people to use RailFerox fleets in pvp after this point release, but while also keeping a strong BlasterFerox alive I want to put the ship in a place where it can benefit from any changes we make to both help medium rails specifically, and the balance between medium and large long-range weapons in general.
I thought the Drake was going to get missile range and RoF bonuses?
That rumor stems from a discussion that was made during a previous CSM summit, and represented an early idea rather than a completed design. I have always been of the opinion that the Drake was actually decently balanced other than the problems with the weapon system, and now that we have taken our shot at balancing heavy missiles in Retribution the changes the drake needed are smaller. There has also been a feeling expressed that we had been planning to remove all single damage type missile bonuses. It is true that we switched a few ships to omnidamage in Retribution, but we also specifically left the kinetic bonus on the Condor, as well as adding new racial damage bonuses to the Corax and Talwar. We do not consider the single damage bonus to be obsolete. Both RoF and damage missile bonuses are valid tools to use, and I prefer having a variety. Both have their advantages and disadvantages and provide different interesting gameplay in different situations.
Why is the Cyclone getting just 5 launchers and why does it keep 2 turrets?
Creating effective balance between the Cyclone and the Drake is tricky business. We are aiming for a useful tradeoff between the ships, with the Cyclone significantly faster and more maneuverable and with two utility highs vs the Drake's extra missile damage, with the shield boost bonus vs resists. If it turns out that the Cyclone needs more damage to be competitive, then changing it is not off the table, but we're going to be careful here. As for the turrets, we consider these slots to be utility highs. The existence of the turrets is simply to provide people more room to do creative things with fits and go max gank if they feel the need. A vast majority of the time we expect those remaining highs to be filled with Neuts, Smartbombs, Gang links, Probes, Salvagers or other handy highslot modules. Having two unbonused weapons available as an option for utility highs is not the same thing as split weapons, and the Cyclone is no more a split weapon ship than the Raven is. Exam... Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3041
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 20:17:00 -
[7] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Fozzie, I'm glad to see that you addressed the general concerns around the Brutix, Cyclone, and Ferox... but there's been quite a lot of angst over the Prophecy/Myrm appearing dominant and the Harbinger getting quad nerfed (likely worse than the other Tier 2s) when it was already the worst Tier 2 BC.
I know your goal is to make Tier 2 BCs much less attractive than they currently are, but I'm not sure why you want to make the Harbinger go from exceedingly rare to almost wholly nonexistent. Making the ship even more of a whale, nerfing fittings, and nerfing tank all at the same time makes it trivially the worst option of all the BCs.
-Liang
Yup that's a piece of feedback I've been getting from a lot of sources I consider weighty, and it's something I'm looking closely at. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3079
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 14:38:00 -
[8] - Quote
Hey everyone. I'm working on the next version of the BC changes now, but in the meantime two quick things to update.
Since we've announced it in CCP Seagull's Devblog, I can let you all know that the Combat BC balance pass is scheduled for the Retribution 1.1 patch on February 12th.
To reiterate, the skill split will not be happening in this patch. That change is currently scheduled for our major summer expansion.
We're also in the process of putting these changes on a public test server for you guys to play with them. Expect more news on that in the next day or so. There will definitely be changes between this posted design and what releases in 1.1, but for now the test server will have the same versions as this thread's OP. When we update the designs we'll get those onto the test server as well asap. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3082
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 20:37:00 -
[9] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. I'm working on the next version of the BC changes now, but in the meantime two quick things to update. Since we've announced it in CCP Seagull's Devblog, I can let you all know that the Combat BC balance pass is scheduled for the Retribution 1.1 patch on February 12th. To reiterate, the skill split will not be happening in this patch. That change is currently scheduled for our major summer expansion. We're also in the process of putting these changes on a public test server for you guys to play with them. Expect more news on that in the next day or so. There will definitely be changes between this posted design and what releases in 1.1, but for now the test server will have the same versions as this thread's OP. When we update the designs we'll get those onto the test server as well asap. You still haven't addressed the problems that the skill changes will make to cloning, clone cost, upgrades and the possible skill losses from players who die after the changes with out dated clones thanks to the potential 6 million addtional skill points.
We have some plans to help mitigate those challenges but nothing quite ready to announce yet. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3215
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 16:18:00 -
[10] - Quote
Just a quick note guys, Sisi is up and running with a working market now. This build has the BC versions from the OP. They are going to change somewhat in the version I'm working on now, but your feedback on this iteration is still valuable. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3610
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 19:12:00 -
[11] - Quote
Ok time to get feedback on the next iteration.
Once of the things we have refocused on since this thread started is that with warfare link changes potentially on the not too distant horizon we needed to build these ships for the warfare links we want rather than the warfare links we have. The ability to use warfare links is a key part of what gives these ships their identity, even if that has been watered down in recent years. As such we're working to ensure that each of these ships can fit a warfare link without sacrificing a bonused highslot. We eventually want links to be something you use on field and part of that will be ensuring that you can use links while also also enjoying the normal on-grid gameplay.
To get these highslots back we've moved the new slot on the Ferox from low to high, and given the Brutix and Drake the "double damage bonus fewer weapons" treatment.
We've also taken feedback from this thread and Sisi testing to make some adjustments to some other ships.
Most notably: The Harb was simply too hard to fit, and I had been too aggressive in reducing its fittings to go along with the slot change. So we've returned some fittings and brought it back to its old align time (while keeping the mass a bit higher). The Myrm was suffering too much from not being able to hold two full flights of drones, so we've doubled the dronebay buff to ensure that you can always have a full set of spares. The rep bonuses on both Gallente combat battlecruisers remain in this version. I do feel that they can be well served by the bonus and still remain unique to each other's playstyle. I am however not set in stone on the issue and won't rule out changing it either before or after 1.1 if it appears the current bonuses are not able to keep them both fun and unique enough.
I'm about to update the OP to the new values, our changes in this version relative to the originally posted version are:
Prophecy: Hull: -250
Harbinger: Powergrid: +100 CPU: +25 Agility: -0.014 Align time: -0.2s
Ferox: Highslots: +1 Lowslots: -1 Powergrid: +150 Hull: -250 Agility: +0.01 Mass: -260,000
Drake: Change Kinetic Missile damage bonus from 5 to 10% per level Launchers: -1 Powergrid: -40 CPU: -15 Hull: -250
Brutix: Change Medium Hybrid damage bonus from 5 to 10% per level Turrets: -1 Powergrid: -75 Hull: -250 Mass: +250,000 Align time: +0.01s
Myrmidon: Dronebay: +25
Cyclone: Powergrid: -100 Shields: +250 Armor: -250 Hull: +250 Capacitor: +600 Cap Recharge time: +158s Sensor strength: +1
Hurricane: Lock Range: +5km Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3664
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 15:45:00 -
[12] - Quote
Neugeniko wrote:Hi CCP Fozzie, Just following up on the latest changes. I've been prodding for cheap effective gang link platforms. With changes to high slots the ferox joins the cyclone as a decent dual link platform. So far I haven't be able to achieve a decent dual link 'armor' BC fit due to lack of CPU, maybe the command processor module is too CPU hungry? Would changes to it open up a can of worms? Anyway readers pls like if you think a non gimped dual gang link armor bc should be a option.
Neug
I plan to evaluate the fitting costs of warfare link modules at a later point, but we're trying to keep the changes for 1.1 manageable so they'll stay the same for now. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3762
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 11:44:00 -
[13] - Quote
Sigras wrote:so on the test server, the brutix only has 6 turrets, and the fittings got changed but the damage bonus never got updated?
Looks like the same thing happened to the drake too.
the harbinger is missing 25 PG (currently has 1400, and the OP says it should be 1425 not sure which is wrong) but got the extra CPU the OP says it should have.
looks like all the other fitting and balance changes went through from the update on the 23rd, but im wondering why the partial changes?
and the armor changes never went through . . . no AAR, and the rigs still slow you down . . . it looks like none of the armor changes are on the test server.
anyone else having this problem?
There should be another Sisi update asap to correct the problem, only some of the changes were ported onto this update.
The 10% bonuses for the Brutix and Drake are actually there, but the description change didn't make it onto this Sisi build. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3778
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 17:29:00 -
[14] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:so Fozzie - how far are we? Should we continue to come with inputs or are you already working on other ships and not touching these again? Sorry for ranting in here but it's like certain things just gets ignored?
Pinky
We're not announcing more ship changes until well after the 1.1 patch release. My focus continues to be the 1.1 changes and making sure they're as good as they can be at release.
As for Sisi, we got an update deployed at 14:13 this afternoon that should have updated everything. I've been in meetings since then so I'm logging on to confirm that everything's there now.
If any of you find anything that didn't properly copy over let me know. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3781
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 18:55:00 -
[15] - Quote
Remember, just because something's on Sisi doesn't mean we can't change it anymore.
FYI We are aware that Attack Battlecruisers and Blockade Runners are not showing proper brackets, dropping wrecks or showing up on scan results on Sisi. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3802
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 21:17:00 -
[16] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Fozzie please answer the question: are those side-effects of Drake 10% dmage bonus intended? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2515131#post2515131Quote: 1. New players will be at even harder disadvantage using Drake. It requires BC II to operate which will give +20% to kinetic damage. Difference between +20% and +50% is too huge to ignore, hence flying Drake will require BC 5. 2. Kinetic damage will be 1.5x times higher than other damage types. I think this is dangerously close to Stealth Bomber territory where you are forced to use 1 single damage type under any circumstances. Drake will loose last remains of flexibility. 3. Caldari will become the only race without battlecruiser that can change damage type for PvE.
Just simple one-letter answer y/n is enough.
All of those factors have been considered yes.
The stronger focus on kinetic damage is a nerf to the ship but considering how strong it is in dps and tank I believe that it will still be competitive. Note that the Condor shares the 10% kinetic bonus per level and I don't think anyone can argue that it is crippled as a result.
The higher damage bonus does give a stronger benefit from training, but the dps gap between skill levels on the Drake is still lower than it is on the Hurricane/Rupture/Tempest. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3853
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 17:59:00 -
[17] - Quote
Callduron wrote:The issue of certificates came up at the CSM Town Hall on Sunday. Is someone going to look at the relevant certificates as part of the rebalancing process. Cyclones currently have Cruiser Projectile Turrets (Standard) on its recommended list.
(I notice this has been done for the Retribution rebalanced ships so well done there).
Yes we've updated the recommended certificates for each of the Combat BCs as a part of this change. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3856
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 11:00:00 -
[18] - Quote
The fact that I replied quickly to the certificate question doesn't mean it's necessarily any more important than other questions, just that it is easy and quick to answer.
In regards to the armor rep bonuses on the Gallente BCs, I posted earlier in the thread that I recognize that there are strong arguments to be made on both sides and that we are weighing the options. That statement is still valid. The desire for more varied tanking methods among the Gallente Combat BCs is a perfectly reasonable one, although the Brutix and Myrm do both stand up as very fun ships with distinct flying experiences in their current forms as well. Although we are getting close to release I don't want to lock these ships in place for 1.1 until I've had another discussion with some of the other developers internally.
I want to make sure we are all on the same page with how the feedback and iteration process works. I will always take all reasonably argued feedback from these threads into consideration and will strive to use that feedback to produce a better product. I am convinced that the process we go through here leads to better design outcomes than anything we could ever do by ourselves internally and that the expertise of the community is a crucial resource that should never be ignored. However taking feedback from the community is not the same thing as always doing exactly what every individual person wants. At the end of the day we need to make decisions based on the best interests of the game as a whole and sometimes I may disagree with some of you on some things.
It is also important to reiterate a few other things mentioned earlier.
- We do not intend all bonuses to be made equal, we balance the ships as a whole and part of that is recognizing that some bonuses are going to be more powerful individually than others and planning accordingly.
- We also have no intention to fire and forget with our ship balancing. No matter what form these ships hit TQ with in 1.1, we will be evaluating use in the 'wild' and making more decisions based on that information.
I can definitively state for the record btw that we won't be making the Cyclone an armor bonused ship for Retri 1.1. The cyclone's bonus alongside the extra speed, utility highs and more generous fittings collectively serve to create a ship that is useful in its own right, distinct from the Drake, and fits well with the overall thematic pattern of Minmatar ships.
I'm Down wrote:The devs flat out said a while back they won't listen to most player criticism b/c we clearly don't now what we are doing and just want to moan.
They forgot about the fact that they clearly don't know what they're doing and that they have a 6 year recent track record to prove most of that. You know I always have time for you. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3868
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 19:15:00 -
[19] - Quote
In regards to the cap use bonus on the Harb I wrote something in the Combat Frigates thread back in August that I'm going to shamelessly copy-paste here since it still describes the :plan:
CCP Fozzie wrote:Laser cap use bonus on Amarr ships:So this became a pretty heated debate in the thread, and I'm going to address it even if it is a bit off topic. The original design of lasers was that they essentially had a built in damage bonus, being more powerful in base damage than any other weapon system. In the time since launch however that specific damage advantage has diluted somewhat, as most of the buffs lasers received over the years were to tracking. Pulse lasers tend to have good damage and excellent range for short range guns, and Beams have good damage, fair range and excellent tracking compared to other long range options. There are a lot of Amarr ships that need help, as well as many that are working well. Certain problems are tied to the weapons themselves, for instance fittings on small lasers need help and many of the problems with beams are tied to the weapons. We're taking our first steps towards improving the fitting situation for frigates in the already announced changes for winter: CCP Ytterbium wrote:All medium beam laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU All medium pulse laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU Expect more tweaks to many weapon systems, including lasers, as we go forward. That being said I do not think the solution to the problem is to build the cap use bonus back into the guns. The high cap use is a defining feature of lasers, helps create interesting player decisions on Amarr ships, and I believe it provides us more balance tools than it removes. There's a lot we need to fix with many Amarr ships, but I do not currently expect that the solution is going to be removing the cap use bonuses across the board. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3868
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 19:58:00 -
[20] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Fozzie, I'm curious: how does having high cap use create interesting player decisions on Amarr ships? I honestly can't see what you were referencing there.
High cap use as a drawback provides a different challenge to the player than the drawbacks of other weapons. The point isn't to remove all the interesting drawbacks, it is to make sure that the potential benefits are good enough to keep everything as competitive as possible.
That weapon balancing goal is of course not something we have reached yet, but we are working towards it and rolling the cap use bonus into the weapon isn't the way to get there. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
|
CCP Eterne
C C P C C P Alliance
2062
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 09:04:00 -
[21] - Quote
I have deleted some personal attacks from this thread. Do not crap up official threads, people. New Eden Community Representative GÇ+ New Eden Illuminati GÇ+ Fiction Adept
@CCP_Eterne GÇ+ @EVE_LiveEvents |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3946
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 00:12:00 -
[22] - Quote
Hey everyone. First off, I want to make sure you all saw the news update from last week that announced Retribution 1.1 will be releasing on Feb 19th.
I want to let you guys know that we've been discussing the design for these ships, and it has been decided that we will go forward with the specs in the OP for Retri 1.1. Barring any significant defects found between now and then the current version of the stats will be released on the 19th. I understand that some of you will be unhappy with that choice, but know that we are not going to be ignoring these ships post-release.
The overlap of having two Gallente ships with the same armor rep bonus is the biggest issue we'll be watching, and if it becomes apparent that the whole or any part of the Gallente BC lineup is not working out as well as we had hoped I have time scheduled in our ship rebalance plan to make adjustments as needed.
For those people expressing concern about the viability of the Drake and Hurricane I recommend giving them a try on our Singularity test server. I think you will find that they both hold up very well and remain quite competitive. The Drake in particular is not a ship I am particularly concerned will be too weak with these stats. I fully expect it to remain the most popular BC by a large margin and if anything it is probably a little too powerful with this version. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3969
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 15:17:00 -
[23] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:The Drake in particular is not a ship I am particularly concerned will be too weak with these stats. I fully expect it to remain the most popular BC by a large margin and if anything it is probably a little too powerful with this version. I hope you realize that you're bragging about how the rebalancing was a complete failure. Mission Accomplished.
I'm saying we leaned on the side of caution and are taking advantage of our ability to iterate to ensure that we don't overnerf.
Of course you can read into that whatever nefarious motives you want. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4232
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 00:14:00 -
[24] - Quote
The extra materials trick is required to prevent what would be a pretty nasty exploit every time we update items. It's not being used without reason and we're not intending for every item to have it, just the items for which it is needed. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
|
|