EVE Search - [Summit] State of Balance

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Jita Park Speakers Corner

[Summit] State of Balance

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ali Aras Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind 319	Posted - 2013.08.20 20:11:00 - [1] - Quote Thread for thoughts, comments, etc on EVE balance and the State of Balance summit session. Let us know if there's any questions you want asked or any general things you'd like us to bring up and focus on. http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog
cearaen Black Dragon Fighting Society The Devil's Tattoo 9	Posted - 2013.08.20 22:01:00 - [2] - Quote I posted a seperate thread about off grid boosting here for more indepth information: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=270970&find=unread But one specific question is whether the link boost amounts they are proposing are considered balanced now, or only will be considered balanced after they are forced on grid? Thanks for your efforts.
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 18	Posted - 2013.08.21 04:37:00 - [3] - Quote There's been a lot of discussion recently on Super Capitals and capital balance in general, some thoughts from CCP on what their overall vision for capital balance is and where they want to take it would be great to get the ball rolling since this isn't going to be quick iterations like with the various sub-cap hull types. Two fairly good recent posts (I don't fully agree with either of them but I think they make good points): http://themittani.com/features/counterpoint-dont-break-supercaps-fix-sub-caps http://themittani.com/features/james-315-how-fix-supercaps
Viceorvirtue The Hatchery Team Liquid 2	Posted - 2013.08.21 22:02:00 - [4] - Quote Theres been a bit of an effort to stop 'instalocking' gatecamps with the RSB nerf. Im wondering if instalocking legions/loki are viewed as a problem? Currently you can use the scan res sub, sensor boosters and armor tank your loki or legion to create an instalocking ship that is also capable of being rather heavy tackle, all without the use of remote sensor boosters. Park it at a gate and youll be able to catch most frigates without many problems. If this is viewed as a problem and not intentional game design, have you considered nerfing the scan res subsystem to something more conservative? Currently it stads at 15% per level which is a large factor in being able to make the ship so effective at gatecamping. Also can you give any updates on changing ecm to something that isn't such a binary mechanic that scales absurdly the smaller the fight is?
Arik Alabel Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 0	Posted - 2013.08.22 15:53:00 - [5] - Quote Viceorvirtue wrote: Theres been a bit of an effort to stop 'instalocking' gatecamps with the RSB nerf. Im wondering if instalocking legions/loki are viewed as a problem? Currently you can use the scan res sub, sensor boosters and armor tank your loki or legion to create an instalocking ship that is also capable of being rather heavy tackle, all without the use of remote sensor boosters. Park it at a gate and youll be able to catch most frigates without many problems. If this is viewed as a problem and not intentional game design, have you considered nerfing the scan res subsystem to something more conservative? Currently it stads at 15% per level which is a large factor in being able to make the ship so effective at gatecamping. Also can you give any updates on changing ecm to something that isn't such a binary mechanic that scales absurdly the smaller the fight is? I second the scan res question. I welcome the ECM question, but isn't that the way anything works when scaling from large engagements to small? If I point one ship in a sizable fleet engagement, I've disrupted 1 out of 50. If I point one ship in a small gang, I've disrupted 1 out of 5. Does that mean points scale absurdly?
Viceorvirtue The Hatchery Team Liquid 2	Posted - 2013.08.22 22:09:00 - [6] - Quote The issue with ecm is it can completely take someone out of a fight unless that person has fof missiles (unreliable and unapplicable unless you are in a missileboat) leaving their only recourse drones/smartbombs. Additionally if I know im fighting 3-5 people and I have the chance to bring a blackbird or falcon it becomes extreamely difficult to see a reason not to. The ability to essentially remove a player from a fight is too powerful on such a small scale. Jam 3 out of 5 people (which isnt difficult even with bad skills) and you are essentialy now fighting 2 people with 3 others who likely cant do much in the way of piloting to compensate for being jammed. Damps can force you to get closer, tds can do much the same, tps make you easier to hit, but jams prevent you from really fighting in the vast majority of ships. Im merely trying to express that jams are a frustrating mechanic that scales horribly as an effect (not being able to fire weapons essentially) while not only being a binary on/off chance of working based on sensor str but additionally theres no true way to pilot around it. Damps and tds make more sense in terms of balance because there is something you can do outside of fitting/implants to do to continue the fight instead of being locked out for 20 seconds.
Matt Grav Wrath of the Pea 17	Posted - 2013.08.23 16:03:00 - [7] - Quote What about if the ecm activation/process itself left the source ship/drone target-able. So you'd always have the ability to shoot the ecm drones or ship projecting it. You wouldn't be able to lock any other targets but at least you'd have a chance to attack what ever has got you locked down. I feel that there are still some balance problems being caused by the ongoing ship changes but that will get better as the role out across the classes continues. I'd love to see 'off grid boosting' become 'on grid boosting', just so I could tell better what I was getting myself into.
Leskit The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 42	Posted - 2013.08.25 03:33:00 - [8] - Quote The forum interface ate my post, so here's round two: I'd like to see more oversight on the ship and module balancing, whether coming from within CCP, or the CSM (preferred). When someone has to do a complete second balance pass, that's not a good sign (gal bs's, industrials, hacs come to mind). You as the CSM have a great wealth of experience and knowledge with these ships, what they need, what may or may not be good for that race/hull/weapon platfor/etc. Get CCP to actually listen more actively to your input. There's been some good balancing on the t1 crusiers and frigs, but after that it's been...sketchy. Having to go back and re-do those hulls wastes time, money, energy, development potential...you get the idea. It also erodes the trust and faith that the player base has in the balancers/company, and doubt the devs feel good about being chewed out and rejected by the players (NO, i'm not approaching this from a pansy, namby-pamby, "everyone has to feel good!" perspective. An employee who feels valued is more efficient and productive.) Direct question: medium beam lasers now out-dps medium pulse lasers except for short range t2 ammo (1-5% difference there). Is that what's wanted? My post with numbers is on page 19 of that thread.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 11366	Posted - 2013.08.25 04:58:00 - [9] - Quote Leskit wrote: When someone has to do a complete second balance pass, that's not a good sign That second pass is the oversight you're talking about. It's an example of the balancing team taking onboard feedback from the community. 1 Kings 12:11
Leskit The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 42	Posted - 2013.08.25 06:00:00 - [10] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Leskit wrote: When someone has to do a complete second balance pass, that's not a good sign That second pass is the oversight you're talking about. It's an example of the balancing team taking onboard feedback from the community. I stand corrected! I worded that poorly. The second pass is a good thing. The continued need for them is less than stellar, but being willing to do them is great. They're not required to do them at all so it's definitely moving in the right direction. It just makes the player base wonder if they play the same game we do when some rotten stuff gets through, which admittedly, does happen now and then.

Roffle Roffle Hedion University Amarr Empire 3	Posted - 2013.08.26 00:36:00 - [11] - Quote The link nerf is upon is, and it has turned out to not actually be a nerf. When is the real one?
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 40	Posted - 2013.08.26 02:26:00 - [12] - Quote Leskit wrote: Malcanis wrote: Leskit wrote: When someone has to do a complete second balance pass, that's not a good sign That second pass is the oversight you're talking about. It's an example of the balancing team taking onboard feedback from the community. I stand corrected! I worded that poorly. The second pass is a good thing. The continued need for them is less than stellar, but being willing to do them is great. They're not required to do them at all so it's definitely moving in the right direction. It just makes the player base wonder if they play the same game we do when some rotten stuff gets through, which admittedly, does happen now and then. If you can reliably turn out release grade first pass content then I'm sure CCP would like to hire you. Or possibly dissect you because that probably means you're a time traveler or an alien =P CCP very much plays the game, if you haven't noticed from the Features and Ideas board people who play the game produce absolutely HORRIBLE ideas on a very regular basis. CCP at least has a process for community feedback and design input which means these things get caught and dealt with before they hit release. Not everyone is going to be happy with every change or idea, but that's just life.
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 40	Posted - 2013.08.26 02:30:00 - [13] - Quote Oh yeah, we'd also like to hear something about where they're planning on going with the pirate ships. Some of them are in a bit of a ridiculous spot as far as balance goes (Vindi, Cynabal, Machariel, and Nightmare all come to mind) where they're essentially completely overshadowing one or more other ships. The Vagabond has already been pointed out as one instance of this and the various Marauders are almost completely overshadowed by Pirate Battleships in a number of ways. Since these are popular ship giving the community time to get the reflexive rage out of their systems at any sort of proposed nerf ahead of the actual changes would let actual discussion commence sooner
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 11395	Posted - 2013.08.26 07:40:00 - [14] - Quote Yeah I think they'd go with the dissection thing. 1 Kings 12:11
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 41	Posted - 2013.08.26 08:39:00 - [15] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Yeah I think they'd go with the dissection thing. Well of course, it's the only logical thing to do and hey, it might make the game better!
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 1470	Posted - 2013.08.26 19:47:00 - [16] - Quote I am wondering what the state of drones are? Are they due for a complete overhaul? Are they only in need of minor tweaks? Novis Initiis is Recruting-á --á Ideas for Drone Improvement
Seolfor Caldari Provisions Caldari State 18	Posted - 2013.08.27 04:33:00 - [17] - Quote When and what are they going to do with the Pirate line of ships - Frigates, Cruisers, Battleships. - Is a pirate BC on the near term cards? - Where in the power curve of T1, Navy, T2 do the Pirate ships of a class intended to fit? - Is limited supply the only balancing factor (i.e. limited supply, high demand due to high power, leading to high isk cost and hence the perceived balance of 'you get what you pay for') Pirate Frigates: - Dram nerf went to far, will we ever see the Dram of old? - In years of low-sec/high sec living ive not really seen a pirate frig other than DDevil and Dram, whats the plan? Overall: Pirate ships getting unusual bonuses (e.g. Web Range) that the T1, Navy, T2 ships in-class don't, seems to be a good flavor, but is that the intended continuing direction?
Mashie Saldana BFG Tech 679	Posted - 2013.08.27 10:46:00 - [18] - Quote How about tweaking FoF missiles to anti EWAR missiles. As in they will randomly hit anything that has some EWAR applied to your ship (a bit similar to radar homing missiles used to knock out radar installations). Things they would try to hit to hit: Sensor damps ECM Target painting Tracking disruptors If the effect is applied by a ship module hit the ship, if the effect is from a drone hit the drone. Mashie Saldana Dominique Vasilkovsky
Garviel Tarrant Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1368	Posted - 2013.08.27 12:56:00 - [19] - Quote Should have rebalanced armor/shield, weapons, ammo and drones before going into balancing ships Doing it all back and forth really fucks things up and leads to things that don't make sense at all.. Like nerfing HML's (Which was excellent) and then buffing all other LR weapons to the powerlevel the HML's used to have. I think the link balance wasn't harsh enough. A vengeance with links can still solo 2 vengs without links quite easily. Also the weapons timer thing really really needs to happen. Attack BC's need to be made more niche.. My suggestion would be a tracking penalty. All amarr ships below BC need to get a second balance pass. There is the occasional one that is alright but generally they are all just pretty meh. The entire design philosophy behind them is counter productive imo. They have bad tracking, cap issues and if tanked properly speed issues and they generally don't have the midslots to make up for that. And lastly the fitting difference between long range and short range weapons needs to be lesser in many cases. Imo you need to sacrifice way too much for the extra range. Tracking should be enough of a penalty for range. T2 short range ammo should get penalties as harsh as t2 long range ammo in relation to the bonus they give. Aurora has a 80% range bonus but a 75% tracking penalty while scorch has a 50% range bonus and a 25% tracking penalty. Should be 50/45 or something like that. BYDI recruitment closed-ish
Danny John-Peter Stay Frosty. 289	Posted - 2013.08.27 13:47:00 - [20] - Quote Med (maybe small, don't really use em) ACs could probably use a look in, they fair pretty badly these days against both Blasters and Pulse having extremely poor damage at range and mediocre tracking. I'm unsure weather this a weakness of ACs, ship bonuses (double range bonuses needed Ala cerb?) or maybe barrage needs a bit of work (lets be honest when you compare it to null and, particularly, scorch it pales). Also, give the Rifter some love, make it viable.

Kesi Raae Anatidae Rising 21	Posted - 2013.08.27 14:28:00 - [21] - Quote Are CCP and the CSM happy with the way Minmatar, Minmatar Faction and Angel ships are balanced with each other? For other races their faction ships aren't straight upgrades like Minmatar/Angel (e.g. Machariel > Tempest Fleet Issue > Tempest) and in some cases have completely different roles ( e.g. Drake and Navy Drake). I think an effort to make make Minmatar faction and Angel ships have a little more variety and less redundancy would be good for the game.
Garviel Tarrant Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1368	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:52:00 - [22] - Quote Danny John-Peter wrote: Med (maybe small, don't really use em) ACs could probably use a look in, they fair pretty badly these days against both Blasters and Pulse having extremely poor damage at range and mediocre tracking. I'm unsure weather this a weakness of ACs, ship bonuses (double range bonuses needed Ala cerb?) or maybe barrage needs a bit of work (lets be honest when you compare it to null and, particularly, scorch it pales). Also, give the Rifter some love, make it viable. Problem is that you have to completely redesign the Rifter if its not going to be a scram kiter like both the breacher and the slasher. BYDI recruitment closed-ish
Freelancer117 So you want to be a Hero 73	Posted - 2013.08.27 17:07:00 - [23] - Quote Will any ship and module balance pass for player ships affect NPC ships ? Eve rule no.1: The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans. http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg http://bit.ly/13cGuW0
Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2171	Posted - 2013.08.27 22:07:00 - [24] - Quote Can you guys shout METACIDE over and over again until CCP commit to doing something about it? Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge **.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006 ~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever.
Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2171	Posted - 2013.08.27 22:09:00 - [25] - Quote Garviel Tarrant wrote: Danny John-Peter wrote: Med (maybe small, don't really use em) ACs could probably use a look in, they fair pretty badly these days against both Blasters and Pulse having extremely poor damage at range and mediocre tracking. I'm unsure weather this a weakness of ACs, ship bonuses (double range bonuses needed Ala cerb?) or maybe barrage needs a bit of work (lets be honest when you compare it to null and, particularly, scorch it pales). Also, give the Rifter some love, make it viable. Problem is that you have to completely redesign the Rifter if its not going to be a scram kiter like both the breacher and the slasher. I like the idea of switching the utility high to a low and switching the damage bonus for rate of fire. That would better distinguish it from the Slasher at least. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge **.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006 ~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever.
Aquinas II PostgreSQL 0	Posted - 2013.08.28 08:53:00 - [26] - Quote Please ask CCP to spend a day running harder L4 missions solo in Amarr BSs with lasers and moderate skills, then have them run those with the other races and the same SPs and post their experiences especially ISK/hour and frequency of warp outs. I'm still very disappointed with HAC rebalance. It really comes across as CCP not having a clue what direction to go for those ships so they picked a role bonus that's worthless to half of the ships receiving it. This was an opportunity to do something interesting, and it fell really flat. What if HACs got the ability to fit a MJD, or something equally out-of-the-box? They would have a new and interesting role that helps differentiate them from T1, Faction, and T3. Maybe the MJD on HACs would break EVE--I'm not a game designer, but I think HACs need something really noteworthy. Being a bit more resilliant to ewar isn't that, nor is a reduced sig penalty when running a MWD which many of the ships will never do. I'm worried HACs will continue to mostly collect dust in the hangars until they get another rebalancing pass in 5 or 10 years. If you read the thread it's full of great feedback from players that seems to really get ignored.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 11423	Posted - 2013.08.28 12:53:00 - [27] - Quote Scatim Helicon wrote: Can you guys shout METACIDE over and over again until CCP commit to doing something about it? Please elaborate? 1 Kings 12:11
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 11423	Posted - 2013.08.28 12:54:00 - [28] - Quote Kesi Raae wrote: Are CCP and the CSM happy with the way Minmatar, Minmatar Faction and Angel ships are balanced with each other? For other races their faction ships aren't straight upgrades like Minmatar/Angel (e.g. Machariel > Tempest Fleet Issue > Tempest) and in some cases have completely different roles ( e.g. Drake and Navy Drake). I think an effort to make make Minmatar faction and Angel ships have a little more variety and less redundancy would be good for the game. Pirate ships are due for a rebalance. Angel ships (esp the Mach) have already been flagged as particularly urgent candidates. 1 Kings 12:11
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai 1685	Posted - 2013.08.28 13:18:00 - [29] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Kesi Raae wrote: Are CCP and the CSM happy with the way Minmatar, Minmatar Faction and Angel ships are balanced with each other? For other races their faction ships aren't straight upgrades like Minmatar/Angel (e.g. Machariel > Tempest Fleet Issue > Tempest) and in some cases have completely different roles ( e.g. Drake and Navy Drake). I think an effort to make make Minmatar faction and Angel ships have a little more variety and less redundancy would be good for the game. Pirate ships are due for a rebalance. Angel ships (esp the Mach) have already been flagged as particularly urgent candidates. Doh, then I better dust off that old Mach before its usefulness is obliterated. The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden!
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 11424	Posted - 2013.08.28 14:48:00 - [30] - Quote CNR > Mach for PvE now tbh. 1 Kings 12:11



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.