EVE Search - Sticky:Dev Blog: Balance Changes Coming In Scylla

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Sticky:Dev Blog: Balance Changes Coming In Scylla

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
Dedbforucme PH0ENIX COMPANY Phoenix Company Alliance 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:07:29 - [91] - Quote Getting rid of Skynet basically ruins the point of flying any super carriers because nobody wants to risk almost 23+bilion isk (600+ dollars) by having their super carriers on the field meaning that those who currently can fly and use them who spent years training to do so are now useless and the training time to use them and make them worth while is now wasted. Also having them orbit close to a safe POS while attacking a system just send a battle ship or 2 out to their POS and just force the Super carriers in there, and then they can't assign fighters unless they want to get blown up, just scan down the POS it is that easy. In addition fighters not being able to have your fighters warp makes carriers essentially not worth using for PVE either and are just glorified extra large battleships with extra large drones, because if you are in null/low sec using them to make isk and a neutral or hostile come into system and you need warp to a safe location to not die you don't have time to recall them and that is 250-300mil worth assests you are leaving behind.
Acel Tokalov Unholy Knights of Cthulhu Test Alliance Please Ignore 24	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:13:05 - [92] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: The ship class break down graph is segmented by weapon type, not ship type. The damage for bombers then is split between torps and bombs, not between different bomber types. Sorry for leaving that color segmentation without explaining it. Didn't want to go into that much detail but I should have just removed the segmentation. Is there any way that we can get a graph that is labeled with what weapon type each of the colors represents?
Evelgrivion Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder 340	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:14:55 - [93] - Quote Dedbforucme wrote: In which he elaborates exactly the reasons why Skynet needed to die The risk of dead capitals is the entire point and purpose of this nerf.
Inslander Wessette Killers of Paranoid Souls Universal Paranoia Alliance 15	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:15:01 - [94] - Quote Harvey James wrote: Inslander Wessette wrote: Harvey James wrote: Inslander Wessette wrote: @ CCP rise, What about armor platforms using rails . Thoraxes , Deimoses , Proteuses . The armor platforms dont run a triple Mag stab fits like the shield ( caldari ) counterparts . Its very disappointing that rails on armor platforms will not stand upto beams ( another armor platform ) . You are taking back 50 % of the changes that u did in odyssey. the balance to the increase in damage was the reduction in tracking ( -15% ) . So now with less tracking and less ROF . The armor platforms will be affected a lot more than the shield platforms. Rails are used by 2 races on a very different platform . Considering only one race for the nerf is a very sad . but gallente ships get tracking bonuses and free mids for TC's yeah . mid slots dont account for damage do they ? application is damage application is not damage . Application can be varied based on external factors . Dedicated webs and TP etc etc . Damage is based on the gun and ships bonuses . With the above comment you have clearly stated ur a newb and have no idea of what damage is and application is .
Hicksimus Xion Limited Resonance. 543	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:17:09 - [95] - Quote I was beginning to suspect that CCP was becoming the old CCP again and some of your data interpretation and taking the easy way out on fighter/bomber assignment is confirming that. EvE is going to be boring forever if you are a lazy developer that can't understand your own game. Recruitment Officer: What type of a pilot are you? Me: I've been described as a Ray Charles with Parkinsons and a drinking problem.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1100	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:30:46 - [96] - Quote Inslander Wessette wrote: Harvey James wrote: Inslander Wessette wrote: Harvey James wrote: Inslander Wessette wrote: @ CCP rise, What about armor platforms using rails . Thoraxes , Deimoses , Proteuses . The armor platforms dont run a triple Mag stab fits like the shield ( caldari ) counterparts . Its very disappointing that rails on armor platforms will not stand upto beams ( another armor platform ) . You are taking back 50 % of the changes that u did in odyssey. the balance to the increase in damage was the reduction in tracking ( -15% ) . So now with less tracking and less ROF . The armor platforms will be affected a lot more than the shield platforms. Rails are used by 2 races on a very different platform . Considering only one race for the nerf is a very sad . but gallente ships get tracking bonuses and free mids for TC's yeah . mid slots dont account for damage do they ? application is damage application is not damage . Application can be varied based on external factors . Dedicated webs and TP etc etc . Damage is based on the gun and ships bonuses . With the above comment you have clearly stated ur a newb and have no idea of what damage is and application is . don't be a tit!! , paper dps is useless without applied damage that is the point. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists. ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone/fighter assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
Alexis Nightwish 97	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:36:31 - [97] - Quote WHY ARE THESE *CRUISER-CLASS* SHIPS *STILL* RECEIVING ANY BONUS TO *BATTLESHIP-SIZED* WEAPONS!? /bangs head on wall CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
Alexis Nightwish 97	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:45:27 - [98] - Quote I would like to see a version of this graph with smartbomb damage removed so we can see where battleships fall then. A related note regarding the graph, it saddens me greatly that Titans, supposedly the most powerful ships in existance, are between Industrials and Exhumers. Lastly, what do the different colors mean on the graph? CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4089	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:48:32 - [99] - Quote Alexis Nightwish wrote: Lastly, what do the different colors mean on the graph? Different weapon types. Some (drones, hybrids) are easy to pick out, not so much for some of the others. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
tiberiusric Comply Or Die Retribution. 196	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:53:53 - [100] - Quote my worry is when you do these balance changes they are based on fleet fights and the superiority there rather than look at the ship from a small gang or even solo perspective. It seems you do this with every nerf that happens. You simply cannot just view a ships strength when its in a fleet with 300 more of them. I understand the nerf but you need to think about how it effects others. Eve is just not about nullsec blobs. Even if you nerf this, then another doctrine comes along in its place. Just like we had drakes, navpocs, slowcats, tengus, alpha maels etc. because you never look at the game overall and the effects changes make, you seem to look far too inward.

Alexis Nightwish 97	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:01:58 - [101] - Quote I said it before, and I'll say it again. The T3 changes are not NEARLY harsh enough. Why is CCP so afraid to do it? Did Greyscale take the balls with when he left? CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
Dedbforucme PH0ENIX COMPANY Phoenix Company Alliance 3	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:08:05 - [102] - Quote Evelgrivion wrote: Dedbforucme wrote: In which he elaborates exactly the reasons why Skynet needed to die The risk of dead capitals is the entire point and purpose of this nerf. But with this nerf the risk is so high that it is no longer worth the risk of flying capital ships, there is a certain risk of having capital's in a system with neutrals and hostiles in the first place even if they aren't "on the field" they can still be scanned down and attacked and forced into a POS and then they are useless and no longer assigning fighters. It also seems that the main problem is fighters are being assigned to fast ships like frigates and cruisers, so why not make them only assignable to battleships and above for their bandwith values. Or possible making ships require modules to have fighters assisted to them or even making it a skill to be able to assist fighters. I am just trying to say that getting rid of Skynet instead of trying to change will make capital ships useless.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1017	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:10:24 - [103] - Quote Dedbforucme wrote: Evelgrivion wrote: Dedbforucme wrote: In which he elaborates exactly the reasons why Skynet needed to die The risk of dead capitals is the entire point and purpose of this nerf. But with this nerf the risk is so high that it is no longer worth the risk of flying capital ships, there is a certain risk of having capital's in a system with neutrals and hostiles in the first place even if they aren't "on the field" they can still be scanned down and attacked and forced into a POS and then they are useless and no longer assigning fighters. It also seems that the main problem is fighters are being assigned to fast ships like frigates and cruisers, so why not make them only assignable to battleships and above for their bandwith values. Or possible making ships require modules to have fighters assisted to them or even making it a skill to be able to assist fighters. I am just trying to say that getting rid of Skynet instead of trying to change will make capital ships useless. why not just field proper combat ships you risk averse baddie. this is actually nearly as bad as links.
Evelgrivion Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder 340	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:12:29 - [104] - Quote Dedbforucme wrote: Evelgrivion wrote: Dedbforucme wrote: In which he elaborates exactly the reasons why Skynet needed to die The risk of dead capitals is the entire point and purpose of this nerf. But with this nerf the risk is so high that it is no longer worth the risk of flying capital ships, there is a certain risk of having capital's in a system with neutrals and hostiles in the first place even if they aren't "on the field" they can still be scanned down and attacked and forced into a POS and then they are useless and no longer assigning fighters. It also seems that the main problem is fighters are being assigned to fast ships like frigates and cruisers, so why not make them only assignable to battleships and above for their bandwith values. Or possible making ships require modules to have fighters assisted to them or even making it a skill to be able to assist fighters. I am just trying to say that getting rid of Skynet instead of trying to change will make capital ships useless. Forcing the ship into the forcefield forces the DPS off the field, but does nothing to discourage people from fielding ships in this manner. If you have to come up with special rules to keep a risk mitigation technique, or other kinds of game mechanics in place, one should think long and hard about whether or not it's a good mechanic to have in the first place.
Adilily Arzi PH0ENIX COMPANY Phoenix Company Alliance 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:19:50 - [105] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: Dedbforucme wrote: Evelgrivion wrote: Dedbforucme wrote: In which he elaborates exactly the reasons why Skynet needed to die The risk of dead capitals is the entire point and purpose of this nerf. But with this nerf the risk is so high that it is no longer worth the risk of flying capital ships, there is a certain risk of having capital's in a system with neutrals and hostiles in the first place even if they aren't "on the field" they can still be scanned down and attacked and forced into a POS and then they are useless and no longer assigning fighters. It also seems that the main problem is fighters are being assigned to fast ships like frigates and cruisers, so why not make them only assignable to battleships and above for their bandwith values. Or possible making ships require modules to have fighters assisted to them or even making it a skill to be able to assist fighters. I am just trying to say that getting rid of Skynet instead of trying to change will make capital ships useless. why not just field proper combat ships you risk averse baddie. this is actually nearly as bad as links. Consider for a moment that you don't share the mentality of a carrier pilot. Perhaps Flying carriers are... fun? Maybe some people have been waiting and training to fly carriers their entire eve career, because we think they are cool. I feel like when it comes down to it the GAME, its about having fun, and this is gutting that.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1017	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:22:07 - [106] - Quote Adilily Arzi wrote: TrouserDeagle wrote: Dedbforucme wrote: Evelgrivion wrote: Dedbforucme wrote: In which he elaborates exactly the reasons why Skynet needed to die The risk of dead capitals is the entire point and purpose of this nerf. But with this nerf the risk is so high that it is no longer worth the risk of flying capital ships, there is a certain risk of having capital's in a system with neutrals and hostiles in the first place even if they aren't "on the field" they can still be scanned down and attacked and forced into a POS and then they are useless and no longer assigning fighters. It also seems that the main problem is fighters are being assigned to fast ships like frigates and cruisers, so why not make them only assignable to battleships and above for their bandwith values. Or possible making ships require modules to have fighters assisted to them or even making it a skill to be able to assist fighters. I am just trying to say that getting rid of Skynet instead of trying to change will make capital ships useless. why not just field proper combat ships you risk averse baddie. this is actually nearly as bad as links. Consider for a moment that you don't share the mentality of a carrier pilot. Perhaps Flying carriers are... fun? Maybe some people have been waiting and training to fly carriers their entire eve career, because we think they are cool. I feel like when it comes down to it the GAME, its about having fun, and this is gutting that. fun is just your opinion. how fun is it to be on the receiving end?
Adilily Arzi PH0ENIX COMPANY Phoenix Company Alliance 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:25:46 - [107] - Quote But with this nerf the risk is so high that it is no longer worth the risk of flying capital ships, there is a certain risk of having capital's in a system with neutrals and hostiles in the first place even if they aren't "on the field" they can still be scanned down and attacked and forced into a POS and then they are useless and no longer assigning fighters. It also seems that the main problem is fighters are being assigned to fast ships like frigates and cruisers, so why not make them only assignable to battleships and above for their bandwith values. Or possible making ships require modules to have fighters assisted to them or even making it a skill to be able to assist fighters. I am just trying to say that getting rid of Skynet instead of trying to change will make capital ships useless.[/quote] why not just field proper combat ships you risk averse baddie. this is actually nearly as bad as links.[/quote] Consider for a moment that you don't share the mentality of a carrier pilot. Perhaps Flying carriers are... fun? Maybe some people have been waiting and training to fly carriers their entire eve career, because we think they are cool. I feel like when it comes down to it the GAME, its about having fun, and this is gutting that.[/quote] fun is just your opinion. how fun is it to be on the receiving end?[/quote] My point exactly, so they should be balancing for the receiving end, not just removing the functionality completely.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1017	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:31:32 - [108] - Quote that's not possible though
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 778	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:35:41 - [109] - Quote Adilily Arzi wrote: TrouserDeagle wrote: Dedbforucme wrote: Evelgrivion wrote: Dedbforucme wrote: In which he elaborates exactly the reasons why Skynet needed to die The risk of dead capitals is the entire point and purpose of this nerf. But with this nerf the risk is so high that it is no longer worth the risk of flying capital ships, there is a certain risk of having capital's in a system with neutrals and hostiles in the first place even if they aren't "on the field" they can still be scanned down and attacked and forced into a POS and then they are useless and no longer assigning fighters. It also seems that the main problem is fighters are being assigned to fast ships like frigates and cruisers, so why not make them only assignable to battleships and above for their bandwith values. Or possible making ships require modules to have fighters assisted to them or even making it a skill to be able to assist fighters. I am just trying to say that getting rid of Skynet instead of trying to change will make capital ships useless. why not just field proper combat ships you risk averse baddie. this is actually nearly as bad as links. Consider for a moment that you don't share the mentality of a carrier pilot. Perhaps Flying carriers are... fun? Maybe some people have been waiting and training to fly carriers their entire eve career, because we think they are cool. I feel like when it comes down to it the GAME, its about having fun, and this is gutting that. Fly...? Flying carriers? Safes up....Assigns fighters..... FLYING.... You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Adilily Arzi PH0ENIX COMPANY Phoenix Company Alliance 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:41:19 - [110] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: that's not possible though Fair enough i suppose.

EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 420	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:25:14 - [111] - Quote Adilily Arzi wrote: Consider for a moment that you don't share the mentality of a carrier pilot. Perhaps Flying carriers are... fun? Maybe some people have been waiting and training to fly carriers their entire eve career, because we think they are cool. I feel like when it comes down to it the GAME, its about having fun, and this is gutting that. the carrier pilots in my alliance do not wet themselves at the idea of placing their carriers in harms way
Ines Tegator Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc. 569	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:28:57 - [112] - Quote I've seen Warp Speed talked about regarding CBC's all the time. I've never heard it mentioned as a problem with battleships. Overhaul Dscan! Make your own rules - Noobs to Null / Casual Vets Corp
Oreb Wing Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop 87	Posted - 2015.02.28 00:00:04 - [113] - Quote Now remove a high slot from the Guardian and we can fight those t3 blobs. There is no grey area when the light of reason directs wisdom
Oreb Wing Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop 87	Posted - 2015.02.28 00:02:41 - [114] - Quote Oreb Wing wrote: Now remove a high slot from the Guardian and we can fight those t3 blobs. ...and Basi There is no grey area when the light of reason directs wisdom
Melek D'Ivri Nachtwasser GmbH 49	Posted - 2015.02.28 00:03:25 - [115] - Quote Of frigging COURSE you jackanapes would nerf medium rails and proteus tank right after I train two of my pilots for a proteus for NOT PVP. Because of the few, the multitudes get to suffer.
snorkle25 Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad. 12	Posted - 2015.02.28 00:22:15 - [116] - Quote These are all well and good but we're STILL waiting on a Black Ops Battleship rebalance... Any patch now would be nice!
Alexis Nightwish 98	Posted - 2015.02.28 00:33:34 - [117] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: THE END PART ThatGÇÖs what I have for you for now. Even though there is so much more to do (hello bombers... Gilbaron wrote: The only buff battleships really need is a nerf to bombers Some warp speed would be nice to have though Will you and Rise and everyone else please stop? There is nothing wrong with bombers. Well there wasn't until Fozzie got ahold of them a while ago. The problem lies 100% with BOMBS. BOMBS are horribly broken and need to be redesigned. BOMBERS are great ships that need their agility and warp speed back. CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
Skir Skor Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 15	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:02:02 - [118] - Quote Is that it? 10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage becomes 5% bonus to Sentry Drone hitpoints and damage.fml. Your game is drones online :/
Ramius Decimus Dominion Fleet Group 27	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:04:19 - [119] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: By lowering the % hp bonuses from 10% to 7.5% for the Proteus/Legion and from 10% to 5% for the Tengu we expose a little more tradeoff for that added flexibility This doesn't quite seem fair/balanced. Shouldn't the Tengu also have a 7.5% bonus just like the Proteus/Legion, if they had previously shared the same value for the Supplemental Screening subsystem? Seems like a kind of biased nerf, in my opinion. I'd much rather have that extra 2.5% per level to shield hitpoints than the 3% recharge bonus. Rear Admiral Commander-in-Chief 90th Fleet Group *CALDARI NAVY*
Dalilus Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 95	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:41:44 - [120] - Quote CODE and others gank high sec with impunity 23.5/7 but the fearsome pvpers of null, low and k space do not want to put their big, bad caps in harms way because that would mean risk. Figures.



Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,06s, ref 20250629/0710
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

bitcoin: 1CHRiBBArqpw5Yz7x5KS2RRtN5ubEn5gF

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.