Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 24 post(s) |
Callduron
181
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 05:33:00 -
[121] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:We want to reach a place where cheaper ships are more than just something you fly when you start the game,
This can only happen (at least with regard to nullsec) if clone costs are addressed. If someone with high skill points goes out in a Rupture rather than a Muninn they are flying a ship which is more likely to die and often when your ship dies your pod dies. It's just silly for someone to fly a 100m pod around in a 10m ship.
This issue doesn't only affect old veteran players. As the veterans don't want to be in Omens because it risks their pod more than using Zealots would they decide upon a doctrine which everyone has to follow. This makes nullsec needlessly hard to get into. Some nullsec alliance mitigate this by welcoming rifter heroes but there's a limit for many new players to how much fun you can have being the disposable tackle that generally dies 2 minutes into the fight.
My concern is that after the BC changes and if this summer buffs Battleships we won't see so many roaming cruiser gangs which most of us feel is a great enhancement to Eve. |
Paul Maken
The Rising Stars Initiative Mercenaries
15
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 06:28:00 -
[122] - Quote
Callduron wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:We want to reach a place where cheaper ships are more than just something you fly when you start the game, This can only happen (at least with regard to nullsec) if clone costs are addressed. If someone with high skill points goes out in a Rupture rather than a Muninn they are flying a ship which is more likely to die and often when your ship dies your pod dies. It's just silly for someone to fly a 100m pod around in a 10m ship. This issue doesn't only affect old veteran players. As the veterans don't want to be in Omens because it risks their pod more than using Zealots would they decide upon a doctrine which everyone has to follow. This makes nullsec needlessly hard to get into. Some nullsec alliance mitigate this by welcoming rifter heroes but there's a limit for many new players to how much fun you can have being the disposable tackle that generally dies 2 minutes into the fight. My concern is that after the BC changes and if this summer buffs Battleships we won't see so many roaming cruiser gangs which most of us feel is a great enhancement to Eve.
This is definitely an issue. I can jump clone into a PvP clone for a roam, but then I'm stuck there. It's not so much the fact that I'm locked into a clone that trains more slowly for 24 hours that's the problem as it is the fact that once I jump back into the training clone I'm stuck in the expensive clone for 24 hours and cannot participate in any cheap ship gangs for that period.
If I'm to be completely honest, I don't like the way in which skill implants impose a skill point tax on active PvP players. It seems wrong that since I play daily I end up with fewer SP than someone that only plays on weekends and can use jump clones to spend the week in +5s.
Brainstorming a bit, I see a couple of solutions to this. One is to reduce the jump clone duration to something like 16 hours. That way if I jump clone back to +5s at the end of a day, I'll be able to jump again into a PvP clone at the start of the following day's play time.
Another is to let players accumulate some small number of jumps so that if I hadn't jump cloned in 2 days I'd be able to jump into the +5 clone knowing that if something came up I would be able to jump back immediately.
Another would be to be able to switch clones in the same station without using the jump clone timer at all. That way I can always get in a cheap clone to go out in cruisers without introducing any additional fast travel.
What I'd like to see the most is completely to disconnect the clone you are in from the rate at which you gain skillpoints. Players already have this relationship between the cost of the ship they are flying and the cost of the clone they are willing to risk and removing the attribute implants from the equation should lead to increased usage of hardwiring which I feel make much more compelling gameplay.
This is the opposite side of the coin from the off-grid boosting. In that case, the problem is assets that are affecting the fight are not put at risk in the fight. In this case, assets are put at risk in the fight that are not affecting the fight. It would be better if the assets risked on the grid were always the same as those that affected the outcome. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1988
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 07:03:00 -
[123] - Quote
Paul Maken, you do understand that what you describe as a problem is not a game design issue, it's your personal problem. Consequences from choices, OCD, etc.
+5s are not required, you want to use them but are unable to deal with the consequences.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1988
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 07:05:00 -
[124] - Quote
Oh yeah and this "rebalance" didn't actually rebalance BCs or armor tanking, release was rushed.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6758
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 08:41:00 -
[125] - Quote
Is a Brutix Navy Issue too much to ask for? ~*a proud belligerent undesirable*~ TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. Malcanis for CSM 8 |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
131
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 09:43:00 -
[126] - Quote
I find this BC rebalance disappointing in general. It was supposed to be a general nerf to drakes and canes, as well as tiericide, but all you've done is cut off utility highs, stop drakes from using non-kinetic ammo so well and reduce base capacitor. It's not going to change anything. Some sort of general slot reduction on tier 2s was supposed to happen, but any actual slot reduction has been completely countered by giving them out of whack bonuses. Also seriously, heavy drones on a BC? They're bad enough on battleships. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
1743
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 09:54:00 -
[127] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Dev Blog wrote: I want to make it clear that one of our goals in this rebalancing pass is to somewhat narrow the gap between higher cost and lower cost ships compared to the canyon that existed in the past. We are not planning on buffing the high cost ships to the same degree that we did with the T1 Frigates and Cruisers, as this would simply create direct power creep and leave us right back where we started. We want to reach a place where cheaper ships are more than just something you fly when you start the game, but instead present a viable and interesting option to be chosen by people of many levels of experience. Our vision for cost-balancing is that cost should play a limited part in balancing ships and that obtaining a roughly linear increase in effectiveness should require an exponential increase in cost.
I kinda draw exception to the idea you won't be improving T2 as much as T1. Many of the T1 ships are now just outright superior to their T2 and faction counterparts. -Liang
Tech2 will be looked at, however, in the new scheme, Tech2 ships shouldn't be plain better than Tech1 in all aspects. They should just be more specialized. So for example, Interceptors should be faster, more agile and far better at tackling that regular Tech1 Frigates, but not necessarily having more EHP or even firepower than regular Tech1 Frigates. Assault Frigates should have more firepower and EHP than Tech1 Frigates, but not necessarily as mobile.
It's about specializing hulls and tradeoffs. |
|
Swidgen
Republic University Minmatar Republic
44
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 09:57:00 -
[128] - Quote
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:I <3 fozzie! He is the answer to all that complaining I did about ccp never talking about balance and whatnot on the forums! I've gotta go with this sentiment. CCP Fozzie is a shining light in the world of "things that neded to be fixed for years" Always the pessimist, however, my biggest fear is that in a year or two he will be doing so good that he'll get promoted within CCP and we'll be back to where we started with respect to things getting ignored for years. |
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers R O G U E
226
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 10:02:00 -
[129] - Quote
in regards to future battleship balancing, could we possibly get some more missile ships other than the typhoon and raven, atm its more like there is like 1 hull that BS class missile weapons are used one (2 if you inlude the golem) , still thinking the amarr should get a solid torpedo boat ( yes im still shamelessly pushing for my khanid battleship by any means nessesary) :-P |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
131
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 10:09:00 -
[130] - Quote
When are you going to go back and fix the stuff you've already done, like rifter, tristan, etc.? I seem to recall something about 'the days of balance and forget' being over. |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4062
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 10:52:00 -
[131] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:When are you going to go back and fix the stuff you've already done, like rifter, tristan, etc.? I seem to recall something about 'the days of balance and forget' being over.
It takes time for new changes to settle in a sandbox game like EVE. Due to the realities of development schedules if we wanted to do another pass on the Tristan for 1.1, we would have needed to be designing the changes less than a month after they were changed in Retribution. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers R O G U E
226
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 11:22:00 -
[132] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:When are you going to go back and fix the stuff you've already done, like rifter, tristan, etc.? I seem to recall something about 'the days of balance and forget' being over.
erm, whats wrong with the rifter if youd ont mind me asking? |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
131
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 11:27:00 -
[133] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:if we wanted to
I'm taking that to mean that you don't want to.
ITTigerClawIK wrote:erm, whats wrong with the rifter if youd ont mind me asking?
It just can't stand up to merlin or incursus. I don't see a reason to ever fly it over anything else. I forgot to mention punisher though, that's worse than everything. |
Kip Troger
Exiled Kings Enlightened Violence
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 11:28:00 -
[134] - Quote
What is the rationale behind the support cruisers bonuses compared to the Recons?
blackbird (ECM) -> Falcon/Rook (ECM) bellicose(TP) -> Rapier/Huginn(Web + TP) Celestis(SD) -> Arazu/Lachesis (SD + Tackle bonus) Arbitrator (TD) -> Curse/Pilgrim (TD+Nuet)
I didn't add in the DPS bonuses, as they all seem to have a small buff.
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?
|
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers R O G U E
226
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 11:29:00 -
[135] - Quote
i have honestly not had problems with either hull yet lol. |
Mund Richard
327
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 11:48:00 -
[136] - 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. |
Witchking Angmar
Perkele.
37
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 11:52:00 -
[137] - Quote
Both the Myrm and the Brutix are full on armor boats now? You should have taken the Brutix a bit more in the direction of shield Talos and Hyperion IMO. The Myrm is already and excellent active armor tanker, and the Brutix will just be the same but worse. |
Mund Richard
327
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 12:08:00 -
[138] - 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. |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
93
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 13:29:00 -
[139] - Quote
I think these are great changes! Simply reducing the PG requirements for the Reppers and then changing the Aux nano pumps and accelerators - fantastic. Don't know if I'd go for the new Aux Repper thingies yet - but does 2.25 times T1 repper rates not seem a lot - but I suppose factoring in a minute's wait. . . but combined with two Aux nano pumps and an accelerator - and a light weight 800 - and an EANM - a DC - 3 Slot armour Tank - could be really interesting?
Also. . . and I gotta pinch myself. . . I make nanite repair paste!!! Thanksyou so mucho :) I win. Hard.
And. . When Balancing - being as you are doing everything I want at the moment - can I have slots on my Freighter??
Plleeeaasseeeeee?
Thanks! |
Grideris
Fleet Coordination Commission Fleet Coordination Coalition
527
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 14:53:00 -
[140] - Quote
Question (and forgive me if this has already been asked): Does the Repair Systems skill reduce the cycle time of the AAR like it does for normal armour repair modules? http://www.dust514.org - the unofficial forum for everything DUST 514 http://www.dust514base.com - the blog site with everything else DUST 514 you need
|
|
Khaim Khal
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
8
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 14:57:00 -
[141] - Quote
Quote:March 2012 seems like a lifetime ago in terms of EVE development[.] Since that fateful day we have rebalanced Frigates, Mining Barges, Destroyers, and Cruisers.
So maybe it's time for someone to spend 5 minutes and update the wiki's database copy? Pretty sure the Merlin doesn't have split weapons any more... |
Krell Kroenen
Miner Intimidation
123
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 15:13:00 -
[142] - Quote
I liked the graph on BC use, any chance we could see a before and after for the frigs and cruisers since their rebalance? Or at least the names of the top ships of their class? It would seem you have the data. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3558
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 16:33:00 -
[143] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:if we wanted to I'm taking that to mean that you don't want to. ITTigerClawIK wrote:erm, whats wrong with the rifter if youd ont mind me asking? It just can't stand up to merlin or incursus. I don't see a reason to ever fly it over anything else. I forgot to mention punisher though, that's worse than everything.
You're putting your word in his mouth. Perhaps you should rethink that if you want anyone to care what you have to say.
Rifter and Punisher could use perhaps a slight tweak, although in the right hands both can still be very, very useful.
Some of the other changes coming down the pipe may end up fixing the minor problems without specific attention being paid to these two. 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. |
Fredric Wolf
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
4
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 17:26:00 -
[144] - Quote
One question and I know you don't want to commit to anything as to not get our hopes up or not to deliver but where in the list of items to be fixed are the TD,TE and TC? Guess what I am looking for is High Med or Low priority.
Thanks
|
Zimmy Zeta
Red Federation
8236
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 19:49:00 -
[145] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:if we wanted to I'm taking that to mean that you don't want to. ITTigerClawIK wrote:erm, whats wrong with the rifter if youd ont mind me asking? It just can't stand up to merlin or incursus. I don't see a reason to ever fly it over anything else. I forgot to mention punisher though, that's worse than everything. You're putting your word in his mouth. Perhaps you should rethink that if you want anyone to care what you have to say. Rifter and Punisher could use perhaps a slight tweak, although in the right hands both can still be very, very useful. Some of the other changes coming down the pipe may end up fixing the minor problems without specific attention being paid to these two.
Rifters are still viable, only they are mediocre now around the board. Since they are an iconic ship of eve, I wouldn't mind if they got a slight all-around buff. I cannot see what your issues with the Punisher are, though. What's wrong with a 9k EHP frigate that can dish out over 130dps and can shoot (with beams) up to 25 km ? Please don't feed me. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
96
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 20:04:00 -
[146] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Tech2 will be looked at, however, in the new scheme, Tech2 ships shouldn't be plain better than Tech1 in all aspects. They should just be more specialized. So for example, Interceptors should be faster, more agile and far better at tackling that regular Tech1 Frigates, but not necessarily having more EHP or even firepower than regular Tech1 Frigates. Assault Frigates should have more firepower and EHP than Tech1 Frigates, but not necessarily as mobile.
It's about specializing hulls and tradeoffs. Describing it this way, this is an awesome goal. It'll keep all hulls relevant while making the "specialized" ships that much better at their roles.
I'd really like to see *some* idea of what T2 ships will be balanced when though. I know you guys can't--and I'm not asking you to--lay out the next changes verbatim, but a general "we feel X and Y probably need the most love" would be great, and at least give us some idea.
That being said, I personally would love to have a reason to fly my Deimos over my Thorax. :)
|
EntroX
The Oversized Drive Club Lone Star Partners
6
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 21:04:00 -
[147] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Takumiro wrote:Neugeniko wrote:CCP Fozzie, You mention a mass reduction to 400mm plates, is this correct?
Neug Read the damn thing. No she's right it was incorrectly saying 400mm until she mentioned it and CCP Guard was nice enough to ninja fix it. The plus side of all this is I get to watch Quackbot spasm uncontrollably.
have i ever mentioned that i hate you? (<3) Owner of FailHeap-Challenge, home of your bitter needs. http://failheap-challenge.com/ |
Fredric Wolf
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
4
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 21:04:00 -
[148] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Tech2 will be looked at, however, in the new scheme, Tech2 ships shouldn't be plain better than Tech1 in all aspects. They should just be more specialized. So for example, Interceptors should be faster, more agile and far better at tackling that regular Tech1 Frigates, but not necessarily having more EHP or even firepower than regular Tech1 Frigates. Assault Frigates should have more firepower and EHP than Tech1 Frigates, but not necessarily as mobile.
It's about specializing hulls and tradeoffs. Describing it this way, this is an awesome goal. It'll keep all hulls relevant while making the "specialized" ships that much better at their roles. I'd really like to see *some* idea of what T2 ships will be balanced when though. I know you guys can't--and I'm not asking you to--lay out the next changes verbatim, but a general "we feel X and Y probably need the most love" would be great, and at least give us some idea. That being said, I personally would love to have a reason to fly my Deimos over my Thorax. :)
After the plate change the Deimos will be a nice ship to fly. Wish it would get a MWD change though not a fan of that bonus. |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
424
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 21:41:00 -
[149] - Quote
Paul Maken wrote:If I'm to be completely honest, I don't like the way in which skill implants impose a skill point tax on active PvP players. It seems wrong that since I play daily I end up with fewer SP than someone that only plays on weekends and can use jump clones to spend the week in +5s.
If you expect to jump from your +5 skill clone to your bare PVP clone about 1/day, then you could always just get +2 or +3 implants and put them in both. You'll learn at the same rate, both clones will be significantly cheaper, and you'll never have to worry about which clone you're in. Malcanis for CSM 8 |
MagnusBraxx
Algorab Technology Mistakes Were Made.
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 21:45:00 -
[150] - Quote
Stop messing with the Hurricane! ccp fozzie, i hate you. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |