EVE Search - Interclass ship balance

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Interclass ship balance - an approach

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Nafri	Posted - 2006.05.05 13:56:00 - [1] Interclass balance û an approach Since the beginning of Castor CCP tried to balance shipclasses. Their first project was to introduce tracking/sig resolution and the missle rebalance. I think the biggest flaw in this whole balancing is the fact that the damage that smaller ships do to bigger ships has never been checked again û till now. In my opinion smaller guns û not ships û should not be able to do damage to Battleships at all. Its not very logical that a 75mm railgun can penetrate the armor of a 2km long BS. I think most people agree that this is not very logical and a bit unfair for BS, since frigates do nearly the same DPS than some BS. It also makes Bombers very pointless, the cruise missles do just less DPS than smaller guns (donÆt forget that frigates create their DPS through 3-4 guns, BS need 7-8 guns for it). It also makes interceptors a very powerfull enemy, for frigates/cruisers/Battlecruisers/Battleships/Capitals. Their speed, combined with good DPS allows them to take on nearly every possible enemy with just the same guns. How do you want to change this? Introduce an armor factor to ships and a penetration factor to guns. Lets make something up: A Apocalypse would have an armorfactor of 400, a Taranis with ion blasters would have a penetration factor of 25. So based on this the taranis would do only 25/400*100 = 6.25% of its normal damage against the armor of a Apocalypse. A heavy beam laser (cruiser size) would have a penetration factor of 125. So its gun would do 31.25% of its normal damage against a Apocalypse. An Mega beam laser would have a penetration of 400, a Moros with its 1000 armorfactor would only receive 40% of the normal damage. How could this not just a nerf to small ships? Well, its not a nerf, its giving us new possibilities for smaller ships. The introduction of Bombers and Pursuitfrigates and cruiser and Battelcruisers (yeah new role for them!). Why not give them the possibility to fit larger weapons? You may say it didnÆt worked for stealthbombers, but back then only DPS mattered, not the size of your weapon. Lets make up some of the new ships: Matari frigate: Breeze 4 highslots 3 midslots 3 lowslots About 100m/s speed and mass of 3,3mio kg (ItÆs a BS hunter! Not a interceptor) and about 80m sig size! It will have 3 Turretslots and 2 Missleslots. About 600 Shields/500 Armor/ 500 structure For each lvl of matari frigate you get. 5% to large projectile damage and 5% to large projectile ROF Special Ability: -99% PG need for large turrets Special Penalty: -50% Range for large turrets -50% falloff for large turrets (Thy arenÆt fleetships, and poor little frigate cant handle the complicated electronics for longrange shoots). New Battlecruisers: Same armor/Hp stats but for the Cyclone: 6 Highslots 5 Midslots 4 Lowslots 4 Turrets and 3 Launchers Battlecruiser bonus: 5% to large projectile ROF and damage Special Ability: -99% PG need for large turrets Special Penalty: -25% Range for large turrets -25% falloff for large turrets (better than frigates, but thy arenÆt BS!). This whole concept allows you also to make frigates designed to kill cruisers and even capitals. Like: Matari: Foehn 2/4/3 1 Turret 1 Launchers able to fit XL turrets! To stop them from killing of POSes with tons of those frigatesà wellà I doubt anyone will every try . Summertime - Campingtime!
Shadowsword	Posted - 2006.05.05 14:10:00 - [2] Edited by: Shadowsword on 05/05/2006 14:14:54 That's a very insteresting concept, and I think it has the potential to be more fun than the current one, but you'd have to redo the balancing work from scratch, and the sheer scope of it mean it'll never get implemented. I, too, always found a bit ridiculous that a small gun needing 6-7pg could do half the DPS of a large gun needing 3000+pg, and be far more flexible, at that, but that would be too much change. Maybe in Eve-2, or at least I can dream... PS: for a frig-sized, XL gun totting ship to be used, you'd also have to reduce the mineral cost of XL mods, because no one in his right mind would put 90 millions worth of stuff in something that can die that easily
Fredbob	Posted - 2006.05.05 14:11:00 - [3] Originally by: Nafri since frigates do nearly the same DPS than some BS. Oh? While in RL it would make sense that low velocity weapons cannot penatrate such armour, I feel most BS are not scared of a frigates guns, but it's midslots :) ___________ ~Fredbob~
Triest	Posted - 2006.05.05 14:16:00 - [4] I don't like this idea much at all. It's interesting conceptually, but what it comes down to is that smaller ship classes would have less and less of a role in fleet battles. Sure, you could get a bunch of frigates with large-class guns, but your idea is to make them slow and large targets (relatively speaking), and incredibly vulnurable. It seems to me like there would be very little reason to not just fill your fleets with battleships, scattered through with a few short range ships with NOS or whatnot to deal with any small ships that come in close enough to tackle. Admittedly, this occurs now in most alliances anyway, but at least right now small battleship groups are highly vulnurable to smaller ships in large numbers; your idea would make a group of say 10 frigates completely unable to scratch a battleship under any circumstances unless they had your specialized (and slow and vulnurable) ships. And that doesn't make sense from a balance standpoint at all.
Montero	Posted - 2006.05.05 14:31:00 - [5] Originally by: Nafri In my opinion smaller guns û not ships û should not be able to do damage to Battleships at all. Its not very logical that a 75mm railgun can penetrate the armor of a 2km long BS. I think most people agree that this is not very logical and a bit unfair for BS, since frigates do nearly the same DPS than some BS. i disagree with this statement and as such also the rest of the post. some interesting ideas in their but in my opinion if a frig pilot is good enough to kill a battleship let them. also i'd like to see some maths showing my claw doing the same damage as even my sniperthron, let alone blasterthron or dominix....
Raven DeBlade	Posted - 2006.05.05 14:42:00 - [6] Edited by: Raven DeBlade on 05/05/2006 14:44:11 Just make it reverse sig radius vs guns missiles for small ships, so they hit for less damage, the larger the ship, they should still be able to tackle, but not kill as easily as they do now. it is stupid imo that a frigate can even kill a big burly battleship, that is not balance, it is like sending in a rubber dingy vs a real frigate and blasting it with machineguns, it will run in circles around the frigate, but it wont do anything exept dent the paintjob. signature removed, height restriction applies email the mods for more info - Vanamonde "To hunt pirates you need time and patience, because even monkeys fall from the trees" "Any statements made above this line are my persona"
Nyxus	Posted - 2006.05.05 14:55:00 - [7] I agree 100% Nafri. Something needs to be done to give a lot of ships a reason to exist. On a frigate level, interceptors can fill any role that any other ship has (tacklers, damage dealers, hit and run) and do it better than ships designed for that. The fact that Interceptors are better at at killing BS than Bombers doesn't make any sense. It also gives BC's a more valuable position in fleet ops. I see this idea as giving MORE options for fleets. BS wouldn't focus fire on frigates simply because other than scrambling they wouldn't be capable of outputting 250dps and 2 of them popping a bs in short order. You would NEED mixed fleets to deal with an enemy mixed fleets, and 1 type of ship would not fill all available roles. This also helps prolong battles making them feel more "epic" in scope. I like the idea of cruisers and frigates zooming around BS defending them while the BS and Capital ships slug it out. It would also help with the fact that Capital Ships like carriers get vaporized stupidly fast in any engagement over 10 people. Nyxus Macgyver can build an airplane out of gum and paper clips, but Chuck Norris can kill him and take it.
Montero	Posted - 2006.05.05 14:58:00 - [8] you do realise that most intys do less than 50% of 250dps?
Nafri	Posted - 2006.05.05 15:33:00 - [9] Originally by: Montero you do realise that most intys do less than 50% of 250dps? I stated somewhere per gun, and a ceptor does more damage per gun than most BS Summertime - Campingtime!
Nafri	Posted - 2006.05.05 15:37:00 - [10] Originally by: Triest I don't like this idea much at all. It's interesting conceptually, but what it comes down to is that smaller ship classes would have less and less of a role in fleet battles. Sure, you could get a bunch of frigates with large-class guns, but your idea is to make them slow and large targets (relatively speaking), and incredibly vulnurable. It seems to me like there would be very little reason to not just fill your fleets with battleships, scattered through with a few short range ships with NOS or whatnot to deal with any small ships that come in close enough to tackle. Admittedly, this occurs now in most alliances anyway, but at least right now small battleship groups are highly vulnurable to smaller ships in large numbers; your idea would make a group of say 10 frigates completely unable to scratch a battleship under any circumstances unless they had your specialized (and slow and vulnurable) ships. And that doesn't make sense from a balance standpoint at all. 10 Frigates still can take out a BS easily, it will just take longer than 30 seconds . And when you do want to do a frigate gank squad, you just have to think about what you want to kill, hunting mining BS? Then use 3 of the bombers. Hunting enemy frigates? Then go with interceptors. Atm Inties are a nobrainer in terms of fitting. I want frigates beeing more than just fast ships, I want them to be a complete aspect of the game. And afterall, my suggestions will make frigates much more usable than now, atm there is hardly any need for frigates in a fleet. You have interdictors which do the scrambling, Caracals with precision missle stop any interceptor from engaging. Sorry, but the time of mixed fleets is gone, BS + interdictors is the way to go and thats **** Summertime - Campingtime!
NoNameNewbie	Posted - 2006.05.05 16:16:00 - [11] some very good points Nafri i bet the inter lobby will post 5 pages full of "omg my ceptor isnt a *** solopwnmobile anymore after that change" tbh EvE ship classes need a complete rebalance this or that way
Joerd Toastius	Posted - 2006.05.05 21:07:00 - [12] What does "logical" have to do with balance?
Nafri	Posted - 2006.05.06 00:55:00 - [13] Originally by: Joerd Toastius What does "logical" have to do with balance? its balanced and logical Summertime - Campingtime!
Meridius	Posted - 2006.05.06 01:08:00 - [14] Edited by: Meridius on 06/05/2006 01:09:14 I agree with most of it except for the way it's calculated. It's a bit too harsh imo. -Frigs should do 50% dmg to cruisers, 25% to bs and 6.25% to capitals -Cruisers should do 50% damage to bs and 12.5% to capitals -BS should do 25% to capitals (i consider capitals to be 2 sizes up from BS) The thing i worry about is killing off people hunting larger ships solo in cruisers/HAC's. If the damage reduction is to severe they'll never be able to break tanks. - _____
DarK	Posted - 2006.05.06 01:13:00 - [15] Sounds interesting. I'd like it implemented for the sheer irritation value it would provide to inty pilots. I think it would lead to some more interesting fights.
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.05.06 01:16:00 - [16] yep agree on most points, some of the new ships you suggest might be a tad overpowered when fitting close eange guns [ie that 80sig ship with 3 turrents u describre would be a deadly AC platform :P ] but the overall idea of smaller guns doing less damage to larger ships is the right way forward. also ofcourse it should be on armor/shields and structure!!!! -------------------Sig----------------------- Boost the raven, i dont know how since its got great volley damage, massive range, any damage type, overpowered tank BUT BOOOOOOOSTTTT them raveneeeeen
Phelan Lore	Posted - 2006.05.06 01:20:00 - [17] Edited by: Phelan Lore on 06/05/2006 01:20:55 No. We don't need an armor piercing system. Smaller ships don't need nerfing. The best part about this game is that ships get better linearly and the big ships aren't exponentially better than the small ships. I love the fact that even very experienced players will still fly frigates and cruisers. And this is a nerf to smaller ships, even if you are adding new ships. Battleships are immune to the current frigs/cruisers, while these new frigs/cruisers are vulnerable to every ship class (as are the old ones).
Reatu Krentor	Posted - 2006.05.06 01:36:00 - [18] Edited by: Reatu Krentor on 06/05/2006 01:39:21 Although it sounds interesting there is one flaw. A bs doesn't have armor that is any different from a frigate, it just has more. Like a rifter would have 450mm of fernite carbide armor while a Tempest has 7500mm of the same armor, but the tempest armor loses just as much of that armor in mm, when struck by a 75mm antimatter cartridge, as the rifter. It just has much more of it. Wouldn't a simpler solution be to just increase the armor/shield on bigger ships as well as the regeneration rate? Right now, 2 small armor repairers equal 1 medium armor repairer (2 med = 1 large). I'd say, take a look at that, that might need a change. Maybe also then increase the amount of armor the larger the ship, say 15% more on cruisers(from current), 30% on bs, etc. (combined with the hp boosters change) <edit: should finish my posts before actually posting > Your suggestion of new ship types, I like. I'd like to see ships like that. ships designed to use weaponry larger than their size, spinal mounts, hmm Ion Cannon frigate() - phew! dodged the mods on this sig!
DarK	Posted - 2006.05.06 01:52:00 - [19] Come to think of it, the whole repair your damage in combat is a bit of a flawed system. I think a pure HP based tank would make more sense in terms of realism(yeah RL != eve etc).
Benglada	Posted - 2006.05.06 01:58:00 - [20] Edited by: Benglada on 06/05/2006 01:59:42 Thats what the americans thought in ww2, Wrong, They got pretty owned by the aerial attacks from smaller faster ships for awhile. And wtf? Nerf smaller ships? Nerf large ships is more like it. --------------------------- Originally by: Wrangler Unfrtinately you dnot get to vote..
Reatu Krentor	Posted - 2006.05.06 02:04:00 - [21] Originally by: DarK Come to think of it, the whole repair your damage in combat is a bit of a flawed system. I think a pure HP based tank would make more sense in terms of realism(yeah RL != eve etc). like you say, RL != eve . Originally by: Benglada Thats what the americans thought in ww2, Wrong, They got pretty owned by the aerial attacks from smaller faster ships for awhile. that has a different reason alltogether. American carriers had a wooden deck(aka "armor? what armor?!"), at first. And being caught off guard didn't help. - phew! dodged the mods on this sig!
Lygos	Posted - 2006.05.06 04:37:00 - [22] Or we could just phase out frigate-sized guns altogether. That'd be simpler wouldn't it? CCP could just give us specialized, drone kidnapping highslots. I'm just kidding. I like the direction of your idea if not the means. What I would prefer is to play with targetting signature on guns. Make a high damage, low tracking, huge sig res guns that can only be deployed on capital targets. Only normal, small sig guns can be used for same-class or anti-drone warfare, but with relatively pitiful dps. Similarly, some larger platforms will get specialized low targetting sig guns, but with similarly low damage, but excellent range. DPS is often too restrictive to game development in that it's not a tiered system. Variables that are universally applied are difficult to dance around, and so we are always needing to add new variables. Your \|absolute\| damage bracket barriers could be very useful for distinguishing classes of weapon systems, and allow tremendous balancing flexibility at the firebreaks. Range is too simple of a distinguishing tool for weapons systems at the moment, especially for frigs and the prevalence of nos. I might even go so far as to suggest that falloff always be modular and increase with shorter range ammo to maintain relatively consistent combat range. Small turret optimals often have very small operating windows considering the expected speed of their ideal targets, which results in a lot of stalemates. Stalemates wouldn't bother me if they didn't also result in a lot of safespotting, but that's a different thread. Set Orbit
Lygos	Posted - 2006.05.06 04:47:00 - [23] In a pure hp system, I would favor only structural hp, and even then, it would have to be qualitative rather than quantitative. Having a plate would be adding a chance multiplier to any hit rather than a quantitative barrier. A shot either gets through or it doesn't. A successful shot or two nerfs the warp core. Another might dampen the tracking. The nth might cause navigation failure. But maybe the first might trigger total reactor failure in T minus 10seconds. Damage type resistance would add a multiplier to hit quality chance versus types of ammo. It could be the opening shot, it could be the departing shot. It would certainly make me want to take risks more in what would otherwise be certain, predictable odds. Predictability has its own virtues from a development standpoint though. In such a game, I would definitely approve your armor/shield null damage margin rather immediately. Set Orbit
Viktor Fyretracker	Posted - 2006.05.06 04:58:00 - [24] make destroyers very highly resistant to small turrets since their intended target uses small turrets.
Foulis	Posted - 2006.05.06 05:13:00 - [25] Originally by: Nafri since frigates do nearly the same DPS than some BS. rofl. ---- Cake > Pie - Imaran Originally by: CCP Hammer Boobies
Kunming	Posted - 2006.05.06 05:22:00 - [26] I'm sorry but I definetly dont like the idea, not everything is DPS in combat, frigates have their uses, advantages and disadvantages. On the other hand bigger ships have enough defensive systems to handle against groups of frigs (drones, nos smartbombs). Originally by: Nafri ... since frigates do nearly the same DPS than some BS. ... BTW I'd really like to see the calculations where a frig does (nearly) as much DPS as a BS.
Hydrian Alante	Posted - 2006.05.06 06:09:00 - [27] This is maybe one of the best ideas I read about in the forums. It just needs to get a ltttle bit more balanced. This will add to EvE: - longer lasting fights - ships that lost their role will get their role back (stealth bombers, assault ships) - ships can get new roles (like battlecruiser-sized bs hunters) - much more variety and tactics in battles - battleships will be used more over hacs (and get their intial role as the king of the hill back) - much more realism to eve I hope that Tux answers to this. I think that this is the right approach for kali.
lollerskates	Posted - 2006.05.06 06:20:00 - [28] i've made this arguement before, look at the real world: no amount of small rubber boats circling a navy destroyer is going to sink it by shooting air rifles at it.
Phelan Lore	Posted - 2006.05.06 06:36:00 - [29] Edited by: Phelan Lore on 06/05/2006 06:39:30 Originally by: Hydrian Alante This is maybe one of the best ideas I read about in the forums. It just needs to get a ltttle bit more balanced. This will add to EvE: - longer lasting fights - ships that lost their role will get their role back (stealth bombers, assault ships) - ships can get new roles (like battlecruiser-sized bs hunters) - much more variety and tactics in battles - battleships will be used more over hacs (and get their intial role as the king of the hill back) - much more realism to eve I hope that Tux answers to this. I think that this is the right approach for kali. Battleships are already used more over hacs (and kick hacs asses). If anything hacs are going to get a boost vs BS when they nerf nos (and they will). Originally by: lollerskates i've made this arguement before, look at the real world: no amount of small rubber boats circling a navy destroyer is going to sink it by shooting air rifles at it. Yeah but your real life analogy is retarded because we don't have a "small rubber boat" ship class. Real life battleships were made obsolete and are no longer used anymore because any smaller ship with guided missiles, such as a frigate, could destroy them easily.
Octavio Santillian	Posted - 2006.05.06 06:49:00 - [30] I like the idea, but it would call for an entire rework of the game mechanics, so it isnÆt going to happen. I often find myself wanting to design Eve II, and this would be an idea I would incorporate. BTW it is a common game mechanic in RTSs (and D&D). Starcraft is a good example. ôWeÆre not doing for ISK...........WeÆre doing it for a ****load of ISK!ö

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.