Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
858
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 21:01:00 -
[1] - Quote
My first impression as an Incursion armour FC & looking at the GALL MEGA & AMARR BS's is that I'll be less likey allow such ships in fleets & force them into faction/NAVY BS's
Does the shield BS tiercide look less grim for Incursion runners
===========================
This rebalance thing only for PvP? Ripard Teg-á for CSM 8 Disclaimer: CCP Bias is a fictional character. In case that some CCP Bias does exist,-áis he an "ex"-Goon? |
Yusef Yeasef Yosef
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
214
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 21:08:00 -
[2] - Quote
Ah, The E-Tyrant...
|
vyshnegradsky
Pentag Blade Curatores Veritatis Alliance
68
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 23:25:00 -
[3] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:My first impression as an Incursion armour FC & looking at the GALL MEGA & AMARR BS's is that I'll be less likey allow such ships in fleets & force them into faction/NAVY BS's Does the shield BS tiercide look less grim for Incursion runners =========================== This rebalance thing only for PvP?
In a PvP game, the ships should be balanced around PvP, not PvE. This one's a bit over the edge guys.
Locked for breaking... well, pretty much all the rules.
- CCP Falcon |
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
363
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 23:27:00 -
[4] - Quote
vyshnegradsky wrote:DarthNefarius wrote:My first impression as an Incursion armour FC & looking at the GALL MEGA & AMARR BS's is that I'll be less likey allow such ships in fleets & force them into faction/NAVY BS's Does the shield BS tiercide look less grim for Incursion runners =========================== This rebalance thing only for PvP? In a PvP game, the ships should be balanced around PvP, not PvE.
In a game where you can do both, should they be balanced for both? |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
858
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 04:28:00 -
[5] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:vyshnegradsky wrote:DarthNefarius wrote:My first impression as an Incursion armour FC & looking at the GALL MEGA & AMARR BS's is that I'll be less likey allow such ships in fleets & force them into faction/NAVY BS's Does the shield BS tiercide look less grim for Incursion runners =========================== This rebalance thing only for PvP? In a PvP game, the ships should be balanced around PvP, not PvE. In a game where you can do both, should they be balanced for both?
Because the DEVs hired are brought overwelmingly from the ranks of the PvPers maybe they arn't balanced lately? Ripard Teg-á for CSM 8 Disclaimer: CCP Bias is a fictional character. In case that some CCP Bias does exist,-áis he an "ex"-Goon? |
Tauranon
Weeesearch
147
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 07:20:00 -
[6] - Quote
Dominix has seriously been buffed by DDAs etc over the last year, its not entirely a 1 way street and PVE does in fact occur in missions.
Baking on the omnis though and removing the hybrid bonus removes any reason for the cap booster/armor fit to be used again, as shield fit is no longer fighting against omnis, nor is it fighting against the extra cap use of railguns.
So I don't think there will be any supply of armor PVE pilots, as the forums will soon train everyone coming through to shield fit and projectile arm their dominixes, and rail mega/hypers will likely be as terrible as they always have been.
|
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
228
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 07:37:00 -
[7] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:vyshnegradsky wrote:DarthNefarius wrote:My first impression as an Incursion armour FC & looking at the GALL MEGA & AMARR BS's is that I'll be less likey allow such ships in fleets & force them into faction/NAVY BS's Does the shield BS tiercide look less grim for Incursion runners =========================== This rebalance thing only for PvP? In a PvP game, the ships should be balanced around PvP, not PvE. In a game where you can do both, should they be balanced for both?
Only if PvE is brought closer to PvP. :) |
Funky Lazers
shin-ra ltd
240
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 08:04:00 -
[8] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:vyshnegradsky wrote:DarthNefarius wrote:My first impression as an Incursion armour FC & looking at the GALL MEGA & AMARR BS's is that I'll be less likey allow such ships in fleets & force them into faction/NAVY BS's Does the shield BS tiercide look less grim for Incursion runners =========================== This rebalance thing only for PvP? In a PvP game, the ships should be balanced around PvP, not PvE. In a game where you can do both, should they be balanced for both?
In a PvP game, where 80% of players do missions or/and mainly do PvE stuff the ships should be balanced around PvE. Whatever. |
Goldiiee
Superior Ratio High Sec Dropouts
338
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 12:53:00 -
[9] - Quote
vyshnegradsky wrote:In a PvP game, the ships should be balanced around PvP, not PvE. Curious? How do you pay for your PVP? PLEX? If yes, thanks for providing me with free gameplay and ships. Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced (But I still try..) |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
1597
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 12:59:00 -
[10] - Quote
Funky Lazers wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:vyshnegradsky wrote:DarthNefarius wrote:My first impression as an Incursion armour FC & looking at the GALL MEGA & AMARR BS's is that I'll be less likey allow such ships in fleets & force them into faction/NAVY BS's Does the shield BS tiercide look less grim for Incursion runners =========================== This rebalance thing only for PvP? In a PvP game, the ships should be balanced around PvP, not PvE. In a game where you can do both, should they be balanced for both? In a PvP game, where 80% of players do missions or/and mainly do PvE stuff the ships should be balanced around PvE.
99% of player could be doing pve, it's still a pvp game.
The game has to be balanced around PVP, consumption of materials via "big ship" losses is what fuels the EVE economy, it's what makes out mission, exploration and incursion isk, items and LP worth something.
If you balance ships around PVE they wouldn't be used as much in PVP (go check out Marauders stats on any widely used killboard), perhaps meaning less PVP, less grind for the economy and ultimatley less value for PVE players.
Lets try to understand how things work and be less short sighted.
As far as PVE goes, these changes are generally good. A less Crap hyperion, A Domi that can apply drone damage WAY better (at the small cost of a hybrid bonus many domi pilots didn't even use) and a Typhoon with a bonus that makes applying Cruise and Torp Damage much easier (TP+Rigor+typhoon new bonus is going to make it shine in missions compared to the Raven).
|
|
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
920
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 13:36:00 -
[11] - Quote
ok is it just me being a privileged fuck or is this whole discussion pointless because most people are flying marauders or faction/pirate ships in pve anyway?
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
1598
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 13:41:00 -
[12] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:ok is it just me being a privileged fuck or is this whole discussion pointless because most people are flying marauders or faction/pirate ships in pve anyway?
Anyone with any sense is lol.
|
Funky Lazers
shin-ra ltd
241
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 13:41:00 -
[13] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Funky Lazers wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:vyshnegradsky wrote:DarthNefarius wrote:My first impression as an Incursion armour FC & looking at the GALL MEGA & AMARR BS's is that I'll be less likey allow such ships in fleets & force them into faction/NAVY BS's Does the shield BS tiercide look less grim for Incursion runners =========================== This rebalance thing only for PvP? In a PvP game, the ships should be balanced around PvP, not PvE. In a game where you can do both, should they be balanced for both? In a PvP game, where 80% of players do missions or/and mainly do PvE stuff the ships should be balanced around PvE. 99% of player could be doing pve, it's still a pvp game. The game has to be balanced around PVP, consumption of materials via "big ship" losses is what fuels the EVE economy, it's what makes out mission, exploration and incursion isk, items and LP worth something. If you balance ships around PVE they wouldn't be used as much in PVP (go check out Marauders stats on any widely used killboard), perhaps meaning less PVP, less grind for the economy and ultimatley less value for PVE players. Lets try to understand how things work and be less short sighted. As far as PVE goes, these changes are generally good. A less Crap hyperion, A Domi that can apply drone damage WAY better (at the small cost of a hybrid bonus many domi pilots didn't even use) and a Typhoon with a bonus that makes applying Cruise and Torp Damage much easier (TP+Rigor+typhoon new bonus is going to make it shine in missions compared to the Raven).
Well I agree that Raven is a crap boat and will be a crap boat with useless range bonus.
Also I agree Typhoon will rock the juice.
About PvE. All I'm saying is balancing ships for PvP hurts PvE. For instance Lasers have no damage selection which makes them the worst weapon system among the guns. In other words PvP balancing should take PvE into consideration Whatever. |
Goldiiee
Superior Ratio High Sec Dropouts
338
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 13:48:00 -
[14] - Quote
Daniel; I feel the same way sometimes, but I remember flying the damn Maelstrom for an eternity it seemed trying to save up for the Pirate BS. New players are going to have a seemingly insurmountable task trying to access a ship capable of doing PVE with a ship incapable of doing PVE, for both the cost in ISK and training will be to high. And the period it takes to attain these PVE capable skills and ships are possibly to long to keep noobs interested.
Hell some people think PVE is impossible now and they have had years to train for it. Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced (But I still try..) |
Marc Callan
Interstellar Steel Templis Dragonaors
139
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 14:47:00 -
[15] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:ok is it just me being a privileged (ed: fbeep) or is this whole discussion pointless because most people are flying marauders or faction/pirate ships in pve anyway?
The point being, how do people get to the Marauders or faction/pirate ships or T3's for PVE? There's got to be an intermediate step between battlecruisers in L3's and the hyper-expensive specialty ships.
On the other hand, the Amarr are getting a potential first-class mission boat in the new Armageddon, the Raven will probably be able to adapt with that extra mid, the Dominix might actually improve with the drone buffs, and the Maelstrom is still the brick smokehouse that less space-rich folks like me have come to know and love. "Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred..." - Niccolo Machiavelli-á |
Goldiiee
Superior Ratio High Sec Dropouts
338
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 14:53:00 -
[16] - Quote
Anyone else think it is odd that we got a drone buff with DDA's, and then a drone nerf with the new AI, essentially making drones outside of rep range useless to any mission or hub runner.
I mean really, thanks CCP for getting drones up to par in DPS, but did you have to make them as useless as **** on a Boar in the same year. Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced (But I still try..) |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
1598
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 16:06:00 -
[17] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote:Anyone else think it is odd that we got a drone buff with DDA's, and then a drone nerf with the new AI, essentially making drones outside of rep range useless to any mission or hub runner.
I mean really, thanks CCP for getting drones up to par in DPS, but did you have to make them as useless as breasts on a Boar in the same year.
edit; '**** on a Boar', doesn't work but, 'Breast on a Boar' does LOL
They aren'y useless if you know how to propery generate threat to take aggro off your drones.
In high sec and low sec missions and null sec ratting i've lost 5 drones in the last month and a half (on those rare occasions i couldn't get the npcs to switch off my drones), only 1 was a sentry drones as i tend to like to move around. The webs and/or target painters I use to generate threat to the npcs don't even get used all that often.
i just don't see why people are still complaining about drones.
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
1598
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 16:13:00 -
[18] - Quote
Funky Lazers wrote: Well I agree that Raven is a crap boat and will be a crap boat with useless range bonus.
Also I agree Typhoon will rock the juice.
About PvE. All I'm saying is balancing ships for PvP hurts PvE. For instance Lasers have no damage selection which makes them the worst weapon system among the guns. In other words PvP balancing should take PvE into consideration
If you give lasers damage selection, who would use anything else? You can change crystals instantly (where as changing ammo/missiles type takes 10 seconds, 5 for hybrids), and lasers never have to stop to reload.
ALL pvp would be lasers so you wouldn't need to carry ammo (leaving more room for captured loot. ALL pve would be laser because even if you made other weapons stronger to compensate, they'd still have ammo costs which lower pve profits etc etc.
This is a really good example as to why EVE ships are and should be balanced for pvp 1st and for most, balancing ships to kill computer generated NPCs leads to ships that real players would abuse, forcing ccp to rebalance stuff all the time.
The only ships that should be balanced with pve in mind at Marauders and Mining ships. Maybe one day ccp could add smaller Marauder type pve ships (call them "Bandits" or something lol).
|
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
920
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 16:39:00 -
[19] - Quote
Marc Callan wrote:There's got to be an intermediate step between battlecruisers in L3's and the hyper-expensive specialty ships.
says who? as far as i am concerned, by the time a player is able to fly battleships, he should be able to come up with the ISK to buy at least a navy hull.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
March rabbit
epTa Team Inc.
617
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 16:41:00 -
[20] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:Marc Callan wrote:There's got to be an intermediate step between battlecruisers in L3's and the hyper-expensive specialty ships. says who? as far as i am concerned, by the time a player is able to fly battleships, he should be able to come up with the ISK to buy at least a navy hull. you mean these 1-2 weeks through frigate 4 -> cruiser 4 -> battleship 4?
if i remember correctly i could afford battleship like after 1-2 months of Eve..... |
|
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
922
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 16:48:00 -
[21] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:Marc Callan wrote:There's got to be an intermediate step between battlecruisers in L3's and the hyper-expensive specialty ships. says who? as far as i am concerned, by the time a player is able to fly battleships, he should be able to come up with the ISK to buy at least a navy hull. you mean these 1-2 weeks through frigate 4 -> cruiser 4 -> battleship 4? if i remember correctly i could afford battleship like after 1-2 months of Eve..... yea because obviously, you can fly lvl4 missions without a tank, cap, drones or weapons.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Funky Lazers
shin-ra ltd
241
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 18:03:00 -
[22] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: If you give lasers damage selection, who would use anything else? You can change crystals instantly (where as changing ammo/missiles type takes 10 seconds, 5 for hybrids), and lasers never have to stop to reload.
ALL pvp would be lasers so you wouldn't need to carry ammo (leaving more room for captured loot. ALL pve would be laser because even if you made other weapons stronger to compensate, they'd still have ammo costs which lower pve profits etc etc.
This is a really good example as to why EVE ships are and should be balanced for pvp 1st and for most, balancing ships to kill computer generated NPCs leads to ships that real players would abuse, forcing ccp to rebalance stuff all the time.
The only ships that should be balanced with pve in mind at Marauders and Mining ships. Maybe one day ccp could add smaller Marauder type pve ships (call them "Bandits" or something lol).
This is a good example how PvP hurts PvE. Also when I did PvP with some friends I flew Domi/Ishtar/Curse. I used to carry 2 types of drones for resistance purposes. So whenever I saw low damage I changed my drones and usually there was an increase of damage. Changing drones takes around 4-6 sec (assuming you're on a close range), which is very fast, yet nothing is overpowered.
I'm sure there are many solutions to give lasers damage selection without making them overpowered. Whatever. |
Din Chao
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
205
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 18:21:00 -
[23] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:Marc Callan wrote:There's got to be an intermediate step between battlecruisers in L3's and the hyper-expensive specialty ships. says who? as far as i am concerned, by the time a player is able to fly battleships, he should be able to come up with the ISK to buy at least a navy hull. you mean these 1-2 weeks through frigate 4 -> cruiser 4 -> battleship 4? if i remember correctly i could afford battleship like after 1-2 months of Eve..... You mean frigate 3 -> destroyer 3 -> cruiser 3 -> battlecruiser 3 -> battleship ? |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
1599
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 18:28:00 -
[24] - Quote
Some of you are jumping to the insane conclusion that the T1 battleships won't be able to be used in PVE. That doesn't make any sense, nothing about the changes proposed scream "Oh, I better not take this into a mission". |
Goldiiee
Superior Ratio High Sec Dropouts
339
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 20:01:00 -
[25] - Quote
Jen aSide I agree, I donGÇÖt think the new BSGÇÖs canGÇÖt complete missions. But I do see them not doing it as well, especially when combined with a tracking enhancer tweak, the last missions AI tweak, the bounty tweak, and loot drop tweak (drone ORE), all these tweaks keep making missions more difficult and less profitable.
I do incursions pretty much exclusively for PVP ISK nowadays, and I use a market toon to generate most of my extraneous ISK needs. I personally donGÇÖt have difficulty doing missions, but I do hear from noob corpies that they are having problems making enough ISK as well as completing missions before the wrecks de-spawn. I attribute this to Noobness, and offer assistance in fittings and techniques, as well as the occasional fleeted missions to show and tell as we go. But bitter vet syndrome might be blinding me to a more underlining problem, is PVE getting to hard to be economically viable for a noob?
I donGÇÖt think the new ship attributes are going to stop PVE but it would seem PVE has taken a lot of hits as of late. And PVP? Well they lost 15% and 10% respectively from the tracking enhancer that allowed some ships to kite. (Yes I know they lost other things but some sarcasm was needed here)
PVE creates ISK, ISK stimulates the market and provides incentive to build, and building provides ships to PVP and PVE in, which in turn destroys ISK. But if you keep turning down the ISK faucet the whole enchilada fall apart. (GÇÿEnchiladaGÇÖ seemed funnier than macro/micro economic model)
Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced (But I still try..) |
marVLs
115
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 20:59:00 -
[26] - Quote
Ain't domi getting buff for missions? I mean now with optimal/tracking bonus for drones and without bonus for hybrits You don't need to fit drone tracking links and won't be limited by ther/kin damage (only projectiles will be proper way = no cap consumption, selectable damage) |
Kyttain
We Are Derp
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 22:49:00 -
[27] - Quote
Am I the only seeing these posts about how hard L4s are as ridiculous?
A purely meta 4 fit Maelstrom or Raven can run L4's and barely touch a shield booster with a properly used MJD.
Raven might even be torp viable with the extra mid, and faster on top of that. Domi looking strong as ever. New Phoon could be nasty.
Can't personally speak to those gold phallic things as I don't fly them... but to the damage selection arguments, there are several groups of NPCs that are weak to lasers, it it really that hard to run missions in the space these NPCs inhabit?
Seriously PVE in eve is not hard. Basic tactics and reasonable SP make L4's trivial. Anyone saying it's near impossible, as stated earlier in this thread, is quite literally doing it wrong.
Granted, it might take a while to run a L4 at 3-4 million SP, it should. |
Null MDK
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 22:49:00 -
[28] - Quote
My take on it is that for your beginner incursioner the changes to Amarr are mixed (and mild):
1) Abaddon: Not much change here so far just a slight loss of buffer on a tanky ship. This ship has always had cap problems, the typical solution (unless you want rely on your L5 Guards) was to put one or two Energy Discharge rigs on it and/or spend isk on implants. That doesn't change.
2) Apoc: Gets a boost for non-mwd VG fleets with the extra tracking. To a lesser extent, gains the cap problem of the Abaddon. Apoc/Napoc could do MWD fleets fine with the cap bonus. It will now be ill suited for those as well.
3) Armageddon: don't think this ship will be used at all anymore.
TBH, I don't see a lot of T1 Amarr hulls in incursions (Not in the US TZ) anyways. So I doubt this will change much.
Considering the top tier Amarr armor incursion battleships are Paladin, Napoc and NGeddon the real question is what will happen with the navy hulls and Paladin. Paladin needs a buff as it compares poorly to a Nightmare (on applied dps and fitting) and NApoc (cost and training time vs utility).
Time will tell. |
sabre906
Old Spice Syndicate Sailors of the Sacred Spice
947
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 23:07:00 -
[29] - Quote
Null MDK wrote:My take on it is that for your beginner incursioner the changes to Amarr are mixed (and mild):
1) Abaddon: Not much change here so far just a slight loss of buffer on a tanky ship. This ship has always had cap problems, the typical solution (unless you want rely on your L5 Guards) was to put one or two Energy Discharge rigs on it and/or spend isk on implants. That doesn't change.
2) Apoc: Gets a boost for non-mwd VG fleets with the extra tracking. To a lesser extent, gains the cap problem of the Abaddon. Apoc/Napoc could do MWD fleets fine with the cap bonus. It will now be ill suited for those as well.
3) Armageddon: don't think this ship will be used at all anymore.
TBH, I don't see a lot of T1 Amarr hulls in incursions (Not in the US TZ) anyways. So I doubt this will change much.
Considering the top tier Amarr armor incursion battleships are Paladin, Napoc and NGeddon the real question is what will happen with the navy hulls and Paladin. Paladin needs a buff as it compares poorly to a Nightmare (on applied dps and fitting) and NApoc (cost and training time vs utility).
Now for the solo L4 runner however the Apoc just got a kick in the nuts. That tracking bonus is useless, the cap bonus was on the other hand was really nice and allowed to use your mids very effectivly for something other than cap boosters and rechargers.
Legions are still the staple of armor VG fleets. Navy geddon, which hopefully won't change, is also fairly popular. Standings Improvement Service https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=19454 |
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
366
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 23:11:00 -
[30] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Some of you are jumping to the insane conclusion that the T1 battleships won't be able to be used in PVE. That doesn't make any sense, nothing about the changes proposed scream "Oh, I better not take this into a mission".
People are indeed jumping to conclusion like in any other discussion. This is nothing new. People will shed insane amount of tears for meaningless stuff. My point on the first page was just to show how stupid the coment I replied to was. PvP should definately matter in balance changes because it's the competitive side of the game where stuff being the most balanced possible is actually important. To that tho, I think there is still some consideration that will always need to be given to the PvE crowd because in the end, they actaully put the isk in economy by generating the vast amjority of it.
None of the battleship change seen up untill now render any of the ships useless for PvE but soem fo them will indded affect the efficiancy at completing PvE content. Was this an intended effect of those changes making them an actual nerf to PvE or was is overseen when the number were put forth for the balance pass and it's only collateral damage? |
|
sabre906
Old Spice Syndicate Sailors of the Sacred Spice
947
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 23:21:00 -
[31] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Some of you are jumping to the insane conclusion that the T1 battleships won't be able to be used in PVE. That doesn't make any sense, nothing about the changes proposed scream "Oh, I better not take this into a mission". People are indeed jumping to conclusion like in any other discussion. This is nothing new. People will shed insane amount of tears for meaningless stuff. My point on the first page was just to show how stupid the coment I replied to was. PvP should definately matter in balance changes because it's the competitive side of the game where stuff being the most balanced possible is actually important. To that tho, I think there is still some consideration that will always need to be given to the PvE crowd because in the end, they actaully put the isk in economy by generating the vast amjority of it. None of the battleship change seen up untill now render any of the ships useless for PvE but soem fo them will indded affect the efficiancy at completing PvE content. Was this an intended effect of those changes making them an actual nerf to PvE or was is overseen when the number were put forth for the balance pass and it's only collateral damage?
The issue is not that CCP is trying to "balance" geddon. They're not. It's already balanced, pvp or pve, and if anything they're throwing off balance.
CCP wants to introduce a potentially highly unbalancing OP version of the old Domi neut droneboat, and instead of just making a new hull, replaced the geddon.
We lost a perfectly balanced boat for a potentially highly unbalancing experiment. Standings Improvement Service https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=19454 |
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
366
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 23:30:00 -
[32] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:vyshnegradsky wrote:DarthNefarius wrote:My first impression as an Incursion armour FC & looking at the GALL MEGA & AMARR BS's is that I'll be less likey allow such ships in fleets & force them into faction/NAVY BS's Does the shield BS tiercide look less grim for Incursion runners =========================== This rebalance thing only for PvP? In a PvP game, the ships should be balanced around PvP, not PvE. In a game where you can do both, should they be balanced for both? Only if PvE is brought closer to PvP. :)
And how do you do that? The only way to make it really more difficult is to either randomize the encounter to people can't follow guides to run the missions like some kind of mindless drones and/or to buff the stats of the NPC ships.
Randomizing encounter with different damage/resist pattern and more diversity in ship encountered would probably work. "Perfect fit" ships would then be much harder to come with because you could not prepare for everything.
Higher stats on NPC is directly following Malcanis' law. It will hurt the beginner mission runner at all level much more than the one already rocking the pimp fit pirat battelship. While it would most likely attain the goal of amking PvE harder, it would only be by amking the number higher. It would only throw people even more toward cookie cutter fit where anything below X standard is just a waste of time to run missions.
Adding more e-war is NOT a good solution unless you design the content to be run by more than one player at a time. The effect of stacking e-war on a single target by npc ships is devastating and can only be fought by throwing more isk at the problem and at some point, it would become useless. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
1601
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 12:48:00 -
[33] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote:Jen aSide I agree, I donGÇÖt think the new BSGÇÖs canGÇÖt complete missions. But I do see them not doing it as well, especially when combined with a tracking enhancer tweak, the last missions AI tweak, the bounty tweak, and loot drop tweak (drone ORE), all these tweaks keep making missions more difficult and less profitable.
I don't see that at all, and I spend a LOT of time bringing new corp members up to speed on pve (im the unoffical PVE guru and trainer). every one of the things you meantioned were simple problems to be solved. For instance the tracking enhancer change just means more usefulness for tracking computer/armor tanked fits (or reworking our shield based mission ships, lvl 4s don't require much tank, just good management and fitting)
The AI is nothing to deal with, it's litterally easier than the old AI, the loot nerf is offset by the salavge drones (salvage drones is the FIRST thing i have a new player train after training for a minimally useful drake, so they still tag along in missions, giving fire support and slavaging support with the drakes missles and salavge drones + tractor beam).
I'm serious, it easier to get new folks making isk that it was when i started. When I started it took me 2 MONTHS to earn enough for a Navy Raven....
....My last Trainee when from brand new to the game to flying a Scorpian Navy Issue in incursions in 4 weeks. 3 months into the game he's flying a rattlesnake as fleet Tank or his drone bunny vindicator in incursions, lvl 4 missions were soooo 2 months ago for him. He did this without buying a single plex and with only my 100 mil isk loan to get enough to the rattlesnake because he was impatient (he's my IRL cousin so I know where he lives lol).
Quote: I do incursions pretty much exclusively for PVP ISK nowadays, and I use a market toon to generate most of my extraneous ISK needs. I personally donGÇÖt have difficulty doing missions, but I do hear from noob corpies that they are having problems making enough ISK as well as completing missions before the wrecks de-spawn. I attribute this to Noobness, and offer assistance in fittings and techniques, as well as the occasional fleeted missions to show and tell as we go. But bitter vet syndrome might be blinding me to a more underlining problem, is PVE getting to hard to be economically viable for a noob?
Not at all, see above.
Quote: I donGÇÖt think the new ship attributes are going to stop PVE but it would seem PVE has taken a lot of hits as of late. And PVP? Well they lost 15% and 10% respectively from the tracking enhancer that allowed some ships to kite. (Yes I know they lost other things but some sarcasm was needed here)
Just like the old "nano nerf" that everyone predicted would kill pvp, this TE nerf isn't going to hurt to bad, it simply means less "omg" range for autocannons (which really shouldn't be kitting weapons to begin with) and more people using properly ranged weapons for the job.
As for PVE, I don't see any nerf at all. The Typhoon is getting the BEST cruise and torp damage application you can have short of a Golem with TPs, the Domi with sentries or even heavy drones is going to be able to chew small NPCS way better (hammerhead IIs agasints npc faction frigs is going to be epic) and the other ships aren't losing anything really significant except the 'Geddon.
Quote: PVE creates ISK, ISK stimulates the market and provides incentive to build, and building provides ships to PVP and PVE in, which in turn destroys ISK. But if you keep turning down the ISK faucet the whole enchilada fall apart. (GÇÿEnchiladaGÇÖ seemed funnier than macro/micro economic model)
I simply don't see any problem, our noobs only obstacle is training time to get into battleships and for support skills and THAT seems to be about to change with skill changes making some ships easier to get into.
Our pipeline is mission -> incursions ->null sec pve (in our null space we use, a meta 4 Tach fit Oracle will make a noob good steady isk ratting belts and sniping anoms, not incursion level isk at 1st, but as skills progress it gets better) and within a very few WEEKs of starting the game they become financially self sufficient...like my Cousin who is probably at this moment being tank or drone bunny for someone's incursion fleet lol.
it's so ridiculously easy that it points to MORE isk generation stuff needing nerfed, not less...although if anyone tells CCP I said that I will deny it lol.
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
1601
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 12:57:00 -
[34] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Some of you are jumping to the insane conclusion that the T1 battleships won't be able to be used in PVE. That doesn't make any sense, nothing about the changes proposed scream "Oh, I better not take this into a mission". People are indeed jumping to conclusion like in any other discussion. This is nothing new. People will shed insane amount of tears for meaningless stuff. My point on the first page was just to show how stupid the coment I replied to was. PvP should definately matter in balance changes because it's the competitive side of the game where stuff being the most balanced possible is actually important. To that tho, I think there is still some consideration that will always need to be given to the PvE crowd because in the end, they actaully put the isk in economy by generating the vast amjority of it. None of the battleship change seen up untill now render any of the ships useless for PvE but soem fo them will indded affect the efficiancy at completing PvE content. Was this an intended effect of those changes making them an actual nerf to PvE or was is overseen when the number were put forth for the balance pass and it's only collateral damage?
What specific changes seem to be making Battleships less useful for PVE? A little less EHP is no big deal, the slot changes don't seem major and a couple ships ('Phoon and Domi) are getting changes that will help with damage application which is much more major for PVE than it ever will be for PVP.
It more seems like the Battleship Teircide is a boon for PVE, I'm already working up new fits to take advantage of the changes and like the possibilities. I very much think some of this concern about Battleships and PVE is unfounded and any negative aspects will be childishly simple to work around or use to gain new advantages.
In that way it makes it no different from the AI change, which (for people who know what they are doing) made PVE almost ridiculously easy with drones. Before the new AI I didn't even bother with drones (I used an FoF missile tengu while dual boxing), now my support ships tend to be domis and gilas lol.
|
Goldiiee
Superior Ratio High Sec Dropouts
342
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 14:59:00 -
[35] - Quote
I have no doubt that PVE will survive, similar to PVP (someone would try to figure out how to ram each other to death if all we had were Shuttles) Missioners will continue to persevere and by extension successfully manage their PVE.
I know I used to make a lot more in missions than I do now, either from boredom and me not staying interested, or from new Expansions natural evolution, there is noticeably less ISK to be made.
The Noctis has reduced the Salvage goods market to a fraction of what it was before; but I would not want to give up the Noctis.
Reduced bounties added to depressing the expected and actual profits of mission running.
The loss of Drone ORE made the GÇÿmostly uselessGÇÖ Drone missions now GÇÿtotally uselessGÇÖ.
The runaway Inflation, no facts just perceived, has placed the penultimate Mission running ships at the same price range as Carriers.
The Tracking disruption from Sasha makes the idea of not dual Boxing Vengeance and Blockade rank up there with taking on a blob with a Rifter.
Tracking Enhancer nerf will also require some manipulation possibly a whole new setup, or tactic, to deal with the range issues inherent in some PVE.
There is nothing here so bad it canGÇÖt be handled with a little ingenuity and additional training. (Except possibly the Sansha TD) But it is an obvious trend by CCP of nerfing PVE. I donGÇÖt believe it is intentional, so much as reactionary. And I certainly hope the trend stops soon or the only mission runners in the game will be the ones that didnGÇÖt get into an Incursions fleet. Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced (But I still try..) |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
1601
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 15:28:00 -
[36] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote:I have no doubt that PVE will survive, similar to PVP (someone would try to figure out how to ram each other to death if all we had were Shuttles) Missioners will continue to persevere and by extension successfully manage their PVE.
I know I used to make a lot more in missions than I do now, either from boredom and me not staying interested, or from new Expansions natural evolution, there is noticeably less ISK to be made.
The Noctis has reduced the Salvage goods market to a fraction of what it was before; but I would not want to give up the Noctis.
Reduced bounties added to depressing the expected and actual profits of mission running.
The loss of Drone ORE made the GÇÿmostly uselessGÇÖ Drone missions now GÇÿtotally uselessGÇÖ.
The runaway Inflation, no facts just perceived, has placed the penultimate Mission running ships at the same price range as Carriers.
The Tracking disruption from Sasha makes the idea of not dual Boxing Vengeance and Blockade rank up there with taking on a blob with a Rifter.
Tracking Enhancer nerf will also require some manipulation possibly a whole new setup, or tactic, to deal with the range issues inherent in some PVE.
There is nothing here so bad it canGÇÖt be handled with a little ingenuity and additional training. (Except possibly the Sansha TD) But it is an obvious trend by CCP of nerfing PVE. I donGÇÖt believe it is intentional, so much as reactionary. And I certainly hope the trend stops soon or the only mission runners in the game will be the ones that didnGÇÖt get into an Incursions fleet.
But in that whole thing you don't mention the new tools we've gotten or are getting to deal with things. Salvage drones, micro jump drives, some nifty armor tanking mods and a skill that reduces armor tank penalties etc etc
Almost all I do is PVE and its been my main thing since 2007, with the exception if a couple roams last month I've pretty much taken a break from active PVP,. Im one of the rare people that actually likes EVE PVE for what it is and I don't see any of the problems you mention, as i see it, its gotten much better.
Missions aren't as tedious with the interface changes (I can read a mission description in space without even having to open my journal anymore lol, their are Tech3 ships to make a lot of PVE tasks ridiculously simple, scanning was changed a couple years ago to make it a lot less tedious, null sec now has a system in place where you can upgrade space, CCP added wormholes and incursions and thus incredible new PVE and on top of that changed mission AI to (while I think they handled that in a ham fisted way, atleast now I can use drones).
Miners have tougher and better mining ships, our ships have safeties that help us avoid doing things that could get us blown up etc etc.
They are talking about drone interface revamp and new exploration content etc etc. The stuff that's going on right now is literally the best of Times for EVE PVE compard to the game's 1st 10 years. As i said, our experiences with my corp/alliances noobs (whom we take from brand new to financially independent in less than 2 months) proves that isk generation is at it's easiest point in the history of EVE online.
I honestly suggest trying to look at the good things that are and have happened instead of dwelling on (percieved) bad things. Things are Awesome for PVE'rs right now, or have you not noticed all the Pirate Battleships in incursions fleets lol.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2010
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 17:03:00 -
[37] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: If you give lasers damage selection, who would use anything else? You can change crystals instantly (where as changing ammo/missiles type takes 10 seconds, 5 for hybrids), and lasers never have to stop to reload.
ALL pvp would be lasers so you wouldn't need to carry ammo (leaving more room for captured loot. ALL pve would be laser because even if you made other weapons stronger to compensate, they'd still have ammo costs which lower pve profits etc etc.
This is a really good example as to why EVE ships are and should be balanced for pvp 1st and for most, balancing ships to kill computer generated NPCs leads to ships that real players would abuse, forcing ccp to rebalance stuff all the time.
The only ships that should be balanced with pve in mind at Marauders and Mining ships. Maybe one day ccp could add smaller Marauder type pve ships (call them "Bandits" or something lol).
Even Marauders and Mining ships and industrials and covops, etc... all need to be balanced around PvP. Just because a ship is designed around it's functionality doesn't mean people won't use it in out-of-the-box ways. Case in point:
Helios vs Taranis Helios vs Slicer Helios vs Auto Wolf Helios vs Arty Wolf Helios vs Jaguar Helios vs Harpy Helios vs Thrasher Helios vs Sabre
Another example: the mining barge changes were needed, as a max-tanked exhumer was still very low on EHP. Unfortunately, IMO the changers were too appeasing by not emphasizing/enforcing a blatant tank-vs-yield trade-off...
Funky Lazers wrote: This is a good example how PvP hurts PvE. Also when I did PvP with some friends I flew Domi/Ishtar/Curse. I used to carry 2 types of drones for resistance purposes. So whenever I saw low damage I changed my drones and usually there was an increase of damage. Changing drones takes around 4-6 sec (assuming you're on a close range), which is very fast, yet nothing is overpowered.
I'm sure there are many solutions to give lasers damage selection without making them overpowered.
lol.... You missed the reason PvP hurts PvE.....
PvP hurts PvE because it forces the PvE'er to consider threats above and beyond a dumb, predictable, and easily manageable NPC threat.
Lasers dealing only EM-Therm.... Caldari missile boats only getting a damage boost to Kinetic... Hybrid Turrets dealing only Kin-Therm... all of these make each race unique and different. They add flavor to the game, and they all come with pro's & con's. Blasters have great tracking but poor range... Pulse lasers have poor tracking but amazing range.. Missiles have consistent dps, but lack "wrecking shots". It might be underwhelming to attack Minmatar NPCs with a lazor boat... but they are ideal for taking on regular Sansha... Your "lets balance ships for PvE mantra" comes across as really short-sighted. Balance does not mean... we should homogenize weapon characteristics, fittings, etc... balance means that each entity has it's pros, which results in ideal niches for each, and cons, which result in blatant inadequacies in other areas, while still creating viable vessels that are capable even if not optimized.
As long as there are differences between weapons types & ship types, FCs will attempt to optimize their fleets with optimal ships/fits. Balance is NOT about allowing every race an option to partake in these specialized fleets... Balance is about having other fleet doctrines that can destroy them!
|
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
861
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 17:25:00 -
[38] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote: (snip But it is an obvious trend by CCP of nerfing PVE. I donGÇÖt believe it is intentional, so much as reactionary. And I certainly hope the trend stops soon or the only mission runners in the game will be the ones that didnGÇÖt get into an Incursions fleet.
I beleive this PvE nerfing is intentional and the roots of he intention was sown in CCP Soundwave's Ten Ton Hammer interview were he threatened an across the board 10% reduction in bounties. Instead of a ground shaking Jita monument shoot inspiring single event though what we got here is a slow creep NINJA style PvE nerf. The only ones not affected are the WH sleeper farming residents and those in carriers running Forsakin' Hubs.
Ripard Teg-á for CSM 8 Disclaimer: CCP Bias is a fictional character. In case that some CCP Bias does exist,-áis he an "ex"-Goon? |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
861
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 17:32:00 -
[39] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Things are Awesome for PVE'rs right now, or have you not noticed all the Pirate Battleships in incursions fleets lol.
If CCP 'touches' the Navy Battleships like they 'touched' the T1 BS's all you'll see in Incursions are is Pirate Faction BS's, Marauders, logi's & T3's (eg: no more T1's & Navy BS's ) it'll make breaking into incursions an INCREDIBLE hump for those newbies to incursions
Ripard Teg-á for CSM 8 Disclaimer: CCP Bias is a fictional character. In case that some CCP Bias does exist,-áis he an "ex"-Goon? |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
861
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 17:43:00 -
[40] - Quote
Null MDK wrote:My take on it is that for your beginner incursioner the changes to Amarr are mixed (and mild):
1) Abaddon: Not much change here so far just a slight loss of buffer on a tanky ship. This ship has always had cap problems, the typical solution (unless you want rely on your L5 Guards) was to put one or two Energy Discharge rigs on it and/or spend isk on implants. That doesn't change.
2) Apoc: Gets a boost for non-mwd VG fleets with the extra tracking. To a lesser extent, gains the cap problem of the Abaddon. Apoc/Napoc could do MWD fleets fine with the cap bonus. It will now be ill suited for those as well.
3) Armageddon: don't think this ship will be used at all anymore.
TBH, I don't see a lot of T1 Amarr hulls in incursions (Not in the US TZ) anyways. So I doubt this will change much. (snip) .
Good analysis except I think for beginner armour incursioners it'll be more then mild because you are seeing a STEEP drop in T1 BS's in incursions since they started. The price of entry into incursions is going to increase as fleets look at those changes & will only accept Abby's & Apoc's if they have 3 level 5 guards ( or 2 level 5 guards & an onie ) to CAP support them due to the hogs they'll become. The 'geddon? forget it in incursions anymore& if they do the samethings to the Navy 'geddon that too it'll be made fun o just asmuch as Domi's are now in Incursions Ripard Teg-á for CSM 8 Disclaimer: CCP Bias is a fictional character. In case that some CCP Bias does exist,-áis he an "ex"-Goon? |
|
Doctor Ape MD
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
22
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 17:44:00 -
[41] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Things are Awesome for PVE'rs right now, or have you not noticed all the Pirate Battleships in incursions fleets lol.
If CCP 'touches' the Navy Battleships like they 'touched' the T1 BS's all you'll see in Incursions are is Pirate Faction BS's, Marauders, logi's & T3's (eg: no more T1's & Navy BS's ) it'll make breaking into incursions an INCREDIBLE hump for those newbies to incursions
Based on the last few paragraphs of this dev blog, it looks like they will definitely be messing with Navy Battleships.
And I think the Amarr ships in particular are taking a PvE nerf, at least as far as a newer player is concerned. Cap is already a problem for anyone using Amarr ships to run missions, and they are taking away the cap bonus from the most new player friendly Amarr mission running ship (Apoc). |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
862
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 18:18:00 -
[42] - Quote
Doctor Ape MD wrote:DarthNefarius wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Things are Awesome for PVE'rs right now, or have you not noticed all the Pirate Battleships in incursions fleets lol.
If CCP 'touches' the Navy Battleships like they 'touched' the T1 BS's all you'll see in Incursions are is Pirate Faction BS's, Marauders, logi's & T3's (eg: no more T1's & Navy BS's ) it'll make breaking into incursions an INCREDIBLE hump for those newbies to incursions Based on the last few paragraphs of this dev blog, it looks like they will definitely be messing with Navy Battleships. And I think the Amarr ships in particular are taking a PvE nerf, at least as far as a newer player is concerned. Cap is already a problem for anyone using Amarr ships to run missions, and they are taking away the cap bonus from the most new player friendly Amarr mission running ship (Apoc).
Armour Incursion fleets been taking it on the chin ever since the Escalation nerf & it keeps getting worse & worse Ripard Teg-á for CSM 8 Disclaimer: CCP Bias is a fictional character. In case that some CCP Bias does exist,-áis he an "ex"-Goon? |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
1604
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 18:46:00 -
[43] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:Goldiiee wrote: (snip But it is an obvious trend by CCP of nerfing PVE. I donGÇÖt believe it is intentional, so much as reactionary. And I certainly hope the trend stops soon or the only mission runners in the game will be the ones that didnGÇÖt get into an Incursions fleet.
I beleive this PvE nerfing is intentional and the roots of he intention was sown in CCP Soundwave's Ten Ton Hammer interview were he threatened an across the board 10% reduction in bounties. Instead of a ground shaking Jita monument shoot inspiring single event though what we got here is a slow creep NINJA style PvE nerf. The only ones not affected are the WH sleeper farming residents and those in carriers running Forsakin' Hubs.
That's just standard Tinfoli hattery with a dose of "omg high sec" parania tied in. It's non sense. The Abbadon and Apoc are gonna be just fine for incursions as will the mega and hype. The Raven isn't changing much and it's one of the most popular noob incursion ships along with the Tempest and Mael
I'm starting to think you just need something to be afraid of. After the Battleship revamp, if incursion fleets stil accept and routinely use T1 battleships, will you come back to this thread and admit your fears were unfounded?
|
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
862
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 18:50:00 -
[44] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
I'm starting to think you just need something to be afraid of. After the Battleship revamp, if incursion fleets stil accept and routinely use T1 battleships, will you come back to this thread and admit your fears were unfounded?
If I see armour fleets stop bleeding numbers I'll admit my fears were unfounded, I'm not seeing that & its been getting progressively worse
The Mega losing a low for an middle slot made it into more of a shield ship ( that I hear has changed ) And the new Navy Harbi getting an extra mid slot will make shield Harbi's now viable not likey Ripard Teg-á for CSM 8 Disclaimer: CCP Bias is a fictional character. In case that some CCP Bias does exist,-áis he an "ex"-Goon? |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis
316
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 18:52:00 -
[45] - Quote
vyshnegradsky wrote:DarthNefarius wrote:My first impression as an Incursion armour FC & looking at the GALL MEGA & AMARR BS's is that I'll be less likey allow such ships in fleets & force them into faction/NAVY BS's Does the shield BS tiercide look less grim for Incursion runners =========================== This rebalance thing only for PvP? In a PvP game, the ships should be balanced around PvP, not PvE. I thought EVE was a diplomacy simulator with rock sucking attached. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
1604
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 18:55:00 -
[46] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:
I'm starting to think you just need something to be afraid of. After the Battleship revamp, if incursion fleets stil accept and routinely use T1 battleships, will you come back to this thread and admit your fears were unfounded?
If I see armour fleets stop bleeding numbers I'll admit my fears were unfounded, I'm not seeing that & its been getting progressively worse
Sionce when, I didn't have any problems getting into Armor fleets in the last few weeks, hell, i've been wait listed so many times I went and got a Fleet Tempest so i could do shields.
How is (for example) an 8 low slot Mega supposed to magically suck for Armor fleets? The only forseeable casualty for armor is the 'geddon, ad people can just use Apocs or 'Baddons instead.
I'm asking again, other than the 'Geddon, who oh so monsterous change is going to mean "NO" Tech1 BS is going to become unusable in incursions or other PVE?
|
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
862
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 19:07:00 -
[47] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
I'm asking again, other than the 'Geddon, what oh so monstrous change is going to mean "NO" Tech1 BS is going to be usable in incursions or other PVE?
CAP issues are going to get worse meaning those amarr ships will need more level 5 guards & the FC has to take it into account. Only balance will be if apoc's will actually be able to hit a renyens & eysters w/o 2 webs on it ( I doubt they will unless BS is trained to V )
Incursions' Escalation nerf VG cursier HP increases SEVERELY affected armour fleets & now they can pretty much only contest in NCO's ( they used to be able to contest in NMC's ). Armour fleets are all but extinct in HQ's & in assaults are an oddity
Ripard Teg-á for CSM 8 Disclaimer: CCP Bias is a fictional character. In case that some CCP Bias does exist,-áis he an "ex"-Goon? |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
1604
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 19:24:00 -
[48] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:
I'm asking again, other than the 'Geddon, what oh so monstrous change is going to mean "NO" Tech1 BS is going to be usable in incursions or other PVE?
CAP issues are going to get worse meaning those amarr ships will need more level 5 guards & the FC has to take it into account. Only balance will be if apoc's will actually be able to hit a renyens & eysters w/o 2 webs on it ( I doubt they will unless BS is trained to V ).
Those issues can be worked around, but frankly, Amarr BS's aren't the only ones used by noobs in Armor fleets.
[qute[ Incursions' Escalation nerf VG cursier HP increases SEVERELY affected armour fleets & now they can pretty much only contest in NCO's ( they used to be able to contest in NMC's ). Armour fleets are all but extinct in HQ's & in assaults are an oddity [/quote]
Thats an issue of Armor vs Shields, not an issue with the battleships. Shiled ships are just better for PVE across the board with armor having a lot of advantages in PVP (if it weren't for Drakes I don't know that you'd see a lot of shield pvp above small gang size, it's just how it is).
You make it sound like some evil conspiracy by CCP to kill Armor incursions when it's simply not, with the exception of the "geddon, none of the changes are gonna kill armor.
Hell, the new Amarr Navy BC might have more HP than some battleships, we might see Incursion Armor Doctrine shift to include those. You never know till the changes hit. not saying the changes are automatically good, but basicallydoomsaying about the end of the Armor world is at best premature.
|
Klymer
Hedion University Amarr Empire
180
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 22:22:00 -
[49] - Quote
Sounds like some people need to get past using cookie cutter fits and learn to adapt. |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
863
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 23:30:00 -
[50] - Quote
Klymer wrote:Sounds like some people need to get past using cookie cutter fits and learn to adapt.
At first noobs need cookie cutters then adjust to thier lack of skills of couse Ripard Teg-á for CSM 8 Disclaimer: CCP Bias is a fictional character. In case that some CCP Bias does exist,-áis he an "ex"-Goon? |
|
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
863
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 23:34:00 -
[51] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
Thats an issue of Armor vs Shields, not an issue with the battleships. Shiled ships are just better for PVE across the board with armor having a lot of advantages in PVP (if it weren't for Drakes I don't know that you'd see a lot of shield pvp above small gang size, it's just how it is).
You make it sound like some evil conspiracy by CCP to kill Armor incursions when it's simply not, with the exception of the "geddon, none of the changes are gonna kill armor.
Hell, the new Amarr Navy BC might have more HP than some battleships, we might see Incursion Armor Doctrine shift to include those. You never know till the changes hit. not saying the changes are automatically good, but basicallydoomsaying about the end of the Armor world is at best premature.
Before the escaltion nerf there was alot more balance in Incursions the iterations are handicapping them for the worse with Amarr armour fittings is my initial reaction. Do amrmour fitting experts on Gallente, Minnie, Caldari feels the same? Ripard Teg-á for CSM 8 Disclaimer: CCP Bias is a fictional character. In case that some CCP Bias does exist,-áis he an "ex"-Goon? |
Tauranon
Weeesearch
151
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 02:27:00 -
[52] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:
Before the escaltion nerf there was alot more balance in Incursions between the issues of Armor vs Shields...the iterations since are handicapping them (Armour fleets) for the worse with Amarr armour fittings is my initial reaction. Do amrmour fitting experts on Gallente, Minnie, Caldari feels the same?
I'd go back and reread the gallente thread update (first page), as they've completely backflipped on the gunboats.
Except for the irritating issue that the pve gallente pilots are likely to be dominix, shield, projectile pilots, the new proposed mega is surely a reasonable incursion runner - but its been clearly tuned to be more dps oriented and less like an anchor - that seems ok to me, as you only need 1 anchor, and you can get a different ship for that 1 person.
Also its overall statting leads towards sustained tank/gank much more (no utility slot, less ehp, extra low), so its probably a better mission runner than the current mega too - more of the stats budget is relevant. |
Mocam
EVE University Ivy League
259
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 14:45:00 -
[53] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:vyshnegradsky wrote:DarthNefarius wrote:My first impression as an Incursion armour FC & looking at the GALL MEGA & AMARR BS's is that I'll be less likey allow such ships in fleets & force them into faction/NAVY BS's Does the shield BS tiercide look less grim for Incursion runners =========================== This rebalance thing only for PvP? In a PvP game, the ships should be balanced around PvP, not PvE. In a game where you can do both, should they be balanced for both? Only if PvE is brought closer to PvP. :)
I'd go with this as an acceptable answer - without nerfing existing content too much. (a little would work).
IMO - using PvE missions more like "PvP simulators" wouldn't be a bad thing to design for vs how they work. Unfortunately building such things as this would be putting dev efforts on "PvE" so many wouldn't care for the idea of making a lot of this stuff possible.
Examples:
- Add missions that have you tackle ships and such. NPE/L1's where you use a frigate to tackle a BS. L2's that have you using a scram vs point or a BS will MJD to range and warp before you can close range again (fail mission - yes actually add conditions to *FAIL* a mission. If you can lose at PvP, there's no reason not to have that for PvE. - just pay better for risking it.)
Get people over that "bigger is better" nonsense by showing them a battleship hits issues with small targets - by making them the small target - of course "0 angular velocity" on a BS is liable to be a painful lesson but limiting the NPE version to rookie ships means "free ship" and well worded warnings, plus overview setting changes ...
- kill the old "bigger is better" PvE L1=frig, L2=cruiser, L3=BC, L4=BS, L5=carrier/"bring friends" approach. instead make things that will require use of smaller hulls (such as the tackling above or flying EW support of flying logi support...) - more actual PvP style skills vs just "bigger/more expensive gunships".
- Make more finesse missions so "vets" get more PvP style options that take skill (tackle the equivalent of a TE/Sebo AC packing nana-cane -- sneak in with a covert cloak, recon an area, drop a jammer, get out before getting popped...).
- Missions that use the Fleet window - so you have to learn how to click primary, need repairs, the watch window as you do logi support, etc.
Things that have people using a variety of skills that are more for PvP than currently used for PvE so new people get used to using those skills and aren't quite so unprepared when they do find themselves in PvP situations.
Again, much less of the current "loot pinata" style combat missions and more where you need actual flying skills and abilities that cross over to PvP.
Yeah I could get behind the idea of these kinds of changes, especially if such missions paid better than the stock ones we currently have. |
Veronica Kerrigan
Hand Of Midas My Other Laboratory is a Distillery
88
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 14:39:00 -
[54] - Quote
Funky Lazers wrote:Jenn aSide wrote: If you give lasers damage selection, who would use anything else? You can change crystals instantly (where as changing ammo/missiles type takes 10 seconds, 5 for hybrids), and lasers never have to stop to reload.
ALL pvp would be lasers so you wouldn't need to carry ammo (leaving more room for captured loot. ALL pve would be laser because even if you made other weapons stronger to compensate, they'd still have ammo costs which lower pve profits etc etc.
This is a really good example as to why EVE ships are and should be balanced for pvp 1st and for most, balancing ships to kill computer generated NPCs leads to ships that real players would abuse, forcing ccp to rebalance stuff all the time.
The only ships that should be balanced with pve in mind at Marauders and Mining ships. Maybe one day ccp could add smaller Marauder type pve ships (call them "Bandits" or something lol).
This is a good example how PvP hurts PvE. Also when I did PvP with some friends I flew Domi/Ishtar/Curse. I used to carry 2 types of drones for resistance purposes. So whenever I saw low damage I changed my drones and usually there was an increase of damage. Changing drones takes around 4-6 sec (assuming you're on a close range), which is very fast, yet nothing is overpowered. I'm sure there are many solutions to give lasers damage selection without making them overpowered.
Lasers are ostensibly the best turret in terms of everything except damage type. Pulses not only have the longest range of the short range turrets, it is all in optimal, unlike projectiles which operate in falloff. They have solid dps numbers, and the most powerful long range tech 2 ammo, scorch. Lasers also have the highest "caliber" long range turret, the Tachyon Beam laser. Tachs have very similar dps to Megapulse, but can apply that dps out to 40km of optimal. Their only disadvantage is that with proper planning, you can always mitigate their damage.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |