EVE Search - Dev Blog: No Brakes - Ship Balancing in Retribution 1.1

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Dev Blog: No Brakes - Ship Balancing in Retribution 1.1

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 24 post(s)
Mund Richard 326	Posted - 2013.02.14 17:28:00 - [1] - Quote Kip Troger wrote: I am a little dissapointed with the limit of one AAR per ship. It seems like it would have been more EVElike to just make it much harder to fit PG wise, meaning that you would have to make a lot of sacrifice to fit two (like the ASB and CPU). Or just put a penalty on the boost for more modules of the same type running - are there any other tank modules that are limited one per ship? Reactive Armor Hardener (notice a pattern here? ) and DC (that one makes sense). >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD.
Mund Richard 326	Posted - 2013.02.14 20:03:00 - [2] - Quote fukier wrote: i dunno the lack of dps for non kin damage will hurt the ship for pve thats for sure. pretty sure the cyclone will be a much better pve ship now. Unless you shoot at drones/Amarr(and associated non-EoM rats), you will be doing more dps before the change (assuming you have the skills you should have), and also compared to the new cyclone. Amarr were already a bad pairing (EM hole on shields), and drone missions are random, so I don't quite see a problem. Specially not on it's home turf (where each race tends to do best). >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD.
Mund Richard 326	Posted - 2013.02.14 20:19:00 - [3] - Quote Sky Marshal wrote: 3. The fact that shield don't slow down the ship was a balancing thing. Armor is more resilient but make you slow and maybe with less damage, shield don't hit your speed but require a big amount of energy for active tanking and give trouble with the fitting. This armor boost will destroy this balance. "Give trouble with the fitting" Fitting mods are lowslot, so easier to use on shield ships. Armor tends to fit multiple repair modules to stay competitive, as they cannot oversize. Suddenly even 6 lows can be consumed by the tank, leaving none for TE/Gank, and even the mids are compromised (cap booster). Also, you need the rigs for tanking as well, and Neutrons were usually just a dream even before active rigs affected PG. (Though I do see how the Ferox is hurt quite a bit by not having the Drake's slot layout. On the other hand shield Brutixes/Canes were popular even though it had only 4 mids.) I don't expect any balance being broken on BC level, except how maybe lightly-tanked armor BCs might be able to chase after lightly tanked shield kiters more efficiently. Assuming the kiter is not minmatar. Nor using any nanofiber. Nop, not much changing in terms of balance. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD.
Mund Richard 327	Posted - 2013.02.14 21:12:00 - [4] - Quote Arec Bardwin wrote: No mention of changes (removal of passive resists, improved by the compensation skills) to active shield and armor hardeners? Good catch. Suppose it will be in the patch notes. ... But you must admit, it doesn't sound like something the PR guys would want as part of a Dev Blog to "sell" the point release, even if it does make sense. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD.
Mund Richard 327	Posted - 2013.02.14 23:17:00 - [5] - Quote Ravcharas wrote: Have you considered using a different naming convention for the new armor reps, considering they function differently compared to the ASB's? I'm thinking the word 'ancillary' in both modules implies they are basically the same, when they have a couple of really important differences. It would be less misunderstandable. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD.
Mund Richard 327	Posted - 2013.02.14 23:50:00 - [6] - Quote Captain Evil wrote: A lot of you MIST this Quote: Unlike the ASBs, AARs always use the same capacitor as a Tech One armor repairer to cycle. This cap use does not change when the module is loaded with charges. So Ancillary Armor Repairers use cap from your ship or Cap charges it runs 3/4 of the same size and/or put Nanite Repair Paste in (or on top cap charges?) you get 2.25 the amount of a T1 rep. That is if i am reading ok CCP Fozzie Not quite. A) The AAR is loaded with nanopaste (henceforth called "charge"), and you activate it. It will consume the same amount of cap as a T1 repair module, and will repair 2.25 times as much as a T1 repair module of the same size would in the same scenario. B) The AAR has no charges left in it It will consume the same amount of cap as a T1 repair module, and will repair 0.75 times as much as a T1 repair module of the same size would in the same scenario. I hope that helps clear any lingering misunderstanding. Also hoping that I* haven't misunderstood anything.* >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD.
Mund Richard 327	Posted - 2013.02.15 11:48:00 - [7] - Quote Kip Troger wrote: blackbird (ECM) -> Falcon/Rook (ECM) bellicose(TP) -> Rapier/Huginn(Web + TP) Celestis(SD) -> Arazu/Lachesis (SD + Tackle bonus) Arbitrator (TD) -> Curse/Pilgrim (TD+Nuet) So all t1 cruisers get one special bonus, and the recon variants all get 2 except caldari? Is this because the caldari one is more often used? Ok, so my OCD forced me to look at it. Curse is a good package, EWAR in the mids, EWAR in the highs, and bonused weaponry in the bay, no conflict. Huginn/Lach have two EWARs competing for 6-7 midslots, and split weapon system bonuses/hardpoints. Caldari apply two bonuses to ECM, and Rook get double-bonused weapons with a full rack. How much bonus a -50% cap consumption is, amarr pilots love to debate a lot as well, and weapons on a Recon... If anything, I find the loss of the falloff upgrading from the Blackbird interesting. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD.
Mund Richard 327	Posted - 2013.02.15 12:08:00 - [8] - Quote Shield Hyper... a really fast and powerful T1 blaster BS. The irony. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD.
Mund Richard 327	Posted - 2013.02.15 22:26:00 - [9] - Quote Dinaheyr wrote: 10% kin dmg bonus for drake, it's more like a bad joke than rebalalancing, killing one ship just to decrease his popularity is not a good way to keep balance. A lot of caldari missile ships suffer from this ridiculous "bonus" now you want to make this ship completely useless for PVP same as for PVE ..well at least cyno blobbers still find use for this cheap caldari brick. Ofc compared to the old Ferox, any damage bonus at all is sweet. That it takes away one of the main advantages the weapon system has... well, that's kinda silly, but it has been discussed to great lengths in the re-balance thread. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD.
Mund Richard 327	Posted - 2013.02.16 04:51:00 - [10] - Quote Merouk Baas wrote: So, how much does nanite paste cost? How does that compare to the cost of cap booster charges for the ASB? How much do the blueprints for charges cost? How much do the blueprints for repair paste cost? What mats are required for making charges, and what mats are required to make nanite paste? How can you call this "balanced"? Why are people comparing the AAR's charges to non-navy cap boosters? (Though it makes sense for the MASB, not for the others, and there is no SASB jedi handwave) >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD.
Mund Richard 329	Posted - 2013.02.16 21:31:00 - [11] - Quote Nomistrav wrote: Suffice to say, my Dominix will probably still be using the ASB simply because I can dish out more Drone Damage Amplifiers with less risk involved in my Active Tanking. And that (extra mid for shield tank, 7 lows ready to be filled with goodness) is why the Navy Potato is a work of art, a masterpiece, a true beauty. For PvE. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD.
Mund Richard 329	Posted - 2013.02.17 22:43:00 - [12] - Quote Aroye wrote: The question is: "In 1.1 the Drake is trading one launcher for a doubled damage bonus, gaining slightly increased potential damage and lower ammo use at the expense of less damage flexibility." Doen't that mean the drake will in effect, have the fire power of 12 missle lauchers? The math is (7-1) x 2 = 12 . I don't get how double damage bonus of 6 luanchers would slightly increase the potential damage. Someone please explain this to me. In this context: 5% per level = single 2*5% per level = double In other context, just as you showed, it can mean vastly different things. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD.
Mund Richard 330	Posted - 2013.02.18 11:47:00 - [13] - Quote Mike Whiite wrote: As I mentioned in Battlecruiser Reballence thread, I'm a little worried the Drake will loose it's appeal aside for Blob warfare. HAM Drake doesn't look bad even for smallscale imho: 1) it has 6 mids, unlike any other BC for a sturdier tank with full tackle, and your choice if buffer/active, not bonus-forced. 2) on a scram+webbed BC, it will consistently do full damage with the most destructive ammo it has available (Brutix manages more dps gank fit, but only at sub-scram ranges, and with a weaker tank). I suppose it needs help to catch something first, but then... Dunno, will have to wait and see how it turns out. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD.
Mund Richard 331	Posted - 2013.02.18 13:06:00 - [14] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Because they are the result of an uncategorised bug I imagine. As the bug was the cause of the change. Rather than part of module balancing efforts. "Bad" design decisions ages ago leading to another decision undervaluing four skills trained up to a month (or longer) now counts as bug? Or I missed something. Anyone who trained them to V just because he has invulns on his PvP fits, sees use from those SP no longer. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD.
Mund Richard 331	Posted - 2013.02.18 21:47:00 - [15] - Quote DarthNefarius wrote: Patch notes wrote: GÇóPowergrid use of all Large Armor Repairer modules has been decreased by 10%. GÇóPowergrid use of all Medium Armor Repairer modules has been decreased by 20%. Does this all prefix mean REMOTE Large repairers too Log on the test server and see? But fairly sure I recall it being only local rep, just how rigs were only swapping drawbacks for local active tank. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD.

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.