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)

CCP Logibro C C P C C P Alliance 813	Posted - 2015.02.27 14:34:08 - [1] - Quote As discussed on the o7 show last night, there are a number of balance changes coming to EVE Online in Scylla. If you want to see who's blood CCP Nerf Bat is dripping with, you should read this new dev blog from CCP Rise. CCP Logibro // EVE Universe Community Team // Distributor of Nanites // Patron Saint of Logistics @CCP_Logibro

Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 207	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:08:40 - [2] - Quote So unfair to tease me with the blue Ishtar photo. Otherwise, the changes seem quite appropriate EDIT: FIRST!
Ab'del Abu Atlantis Ascendant 216	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:12:22 - [3] - Quote Would be interesting to see how much of the Battleship-pvp-damage is being done by drone ships, i.e. domis and rattlesnakes. Still think BS and BC should receive a little better warp speed. They would still be cought easily by things like ceptors etc.
Gilbaron Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda 1644	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:13:10 - [4] - Quote The only buff battleships really need is a nerf to bombers Some warp speed would be nice to have though Build your empire ! Rent Space in Feythabolis and Omist Contact me for details :)
BadAssMcKill ElitistOps 959	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:13:43 - [5] - Quote " None. We are pretty happy with the state of class variation right now and see no reason to make changes." Ok guy
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 408	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:15:02 - [6] - Quote Quote: Note: Shout-out here to CSM member mynnna for a great internal discussion on this topic. He raised the point that if you look at these weapon systems on their own, rather than comparing the ships using them, they look very balanced. It would follow then that the problem is more about Tengu, Eagle and Vulture than about rails. However, we can never look at weapon systems or ships without taking the other into consideration. The relationship between cap use of energy weapons and ships with cap use bonuses for energy weapons is another good example where trying to look at one without the other causes problems. We are therefore happy to consider balancing via the weapons or the ships depending on which fits the situation best. In this case, we are happy to use rails as the avenue because it is much simpler for us to design and you to adjust to. "mynnna made a very, very good point" "so we ignored it"
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5889	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:16:08 - [7] - Quote The "awesome graph of PVP damage by class" needs some explanation of the various colors. I'm also not convinced that total PVP damage, which is dominated by large fleet engagements, is a good metric for balancing ships that now suck at small-gang warfare due to lose mobility. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5889	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:16:54 - [8] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: "mynnna made a very, very good point" "so we ignored it" Yeah, I caught that too :) I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
l0rd carlos TURN DOWN. The Camel Empire 1174	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:21:27 - [9] - Quote FUCK YEAH! DEATH TO SKYNET! But anyhow, CCP Rise do you like White Russian? (The drink) Because I do, and maybe you like it too. German blog about smallscale lowsec pvp: http://friendsofharassment.wordpress.com
Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1465	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:23:05 - [10] - Quote Gilbaron wrote: The only buff battleships really need is a nerf to bombers The parenthetical toward the end strongly implies that that's on its way. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. I voted in CSM X!

afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 763	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:25:09 - [11] - Quote Charts are nice, but you REALLY need to start putting legends on them.
ArmyOfMe Alekhine's Gun The Periphery 415	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:28:00 - [12] - Quote Give battleships immunity to the scramblers mwd effect and you would once again see this shipclass be used a lot more for solo stuff as they could once again compensate for tracking issues by using transversial to their advantage. QUOTE CCP Dolan and the EVE Online development team:-áThe battle was relatively even for some time with CFC and Russian forces holding moderate lead at first and only have a slight lead in Titan kills. Then came a turning point in the battle. Manfred Sideous, the initial Fleet Commander for PL/N3, handed over command to the CEO of Northern Coalition., Vince Draken
Capqu Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 1007	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:28:11 - [13] - Quote rise if you look at the ship damage graph and you can clearly see two much more popular stealth bombers than the other 2 by and order of 100x or so if im reading this right [assuming different colours = different ships] i know bomber internal class balance isn't really a priority, but the nemesis and manticore really need some love and the purifier really needs some hate imo the fitting in particular is very different on these ships for no real reason - i'd suggest maybe standardising their fitting to a degree and giving purifier -1 mid +1 low while giving nemesis the opposite - that way you end up with a 4/2 bomber, two 3/3 bombers and a 2/4 bomber and maybe we'll see some variety but like i said bomber internal balance probably isnt a priority https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1347	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:28:28 - [14] - Quote Regarding the image for PVP damage per class: http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66946/1/STEVE_7.png Over what time period does this graph cover? I find the battleship damage quite hard to believe if it covers a period of time over a year or so. e: also, if it isn't too much to ask, could you expand the battleship and combat battlecruiser graphs to show which colors represent which ships? This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4086	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:31:55 - [15] - Quote Quote: We took a fresh look at this issue to make sure we were on the same page as a game design department and this is how we approached it: we started by going over usage metrics and once again saw that clearly that both classes are getting heavy use and are being effective by any measure we have available. I would like to see what the numbers are in null-sec, low-sec and high-sec for comparison. I suspect that you're going to see quite a bit of divergence. Quote: Note: look at those GÇ£Drake eraGÇ¥ heavy missiles, goodness gracious! Indeed. Also note how heavy missiles are now at the bottom of the chart, so it would seem that a slight damage/application buff is in order. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
knobber Jobbler Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 514	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:31:57 - [16] - Quote "BATTLECRUISER AND BATTLESHIP VIABILITY Problem: Strong community sentiment that battleships and battlecruisers are not viable currently and that the biggest reason is warp speed changes." So I was with you until I read this. Put the decloak mechanic back on bombers and you'll suddenly see increased use of Battleships.
Capqu Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 1007	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:32:25 - [17] - Quote Querns wrote: Regarding the image for PVP damage per class: http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66946/1/STEVE_7.png Over what time period does this graph cover? I find the battleship damage quite hard to believe if it covers a period of time over a year or so. when you consider on average a bs does a lot more damage individually than smaller ships, the graph starts to make sense. if there was close to equal representation, you'd expect bs to be a lot higher than say cruisers right the real standout in the graph for me is stealth bomber internal class balance and attack battlecruisers being absolute trash - a class entirely about damage being so low on a damage chart is kind of worrying https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 412	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:36:47 - [18] - Quote i have been polling anyone i can find about why battleships aren't used anymore and not one person has said "warp speed" every single one has said "bombers" who were these people you polled who told you the problem was warp speed?
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1347	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:39:06 - [19] - Quote Capqu wrote: the real standout in the graph for me is stealth bomber internal class balance and attack battlecruisers being absolute trash - a class entirely about damage being so low on a damage chart is kind of worrying Eh, the stealth bomber graph isn't that odd to me -- explosive and EM damage are the best types of damage to shoot. I am not sure that is so much a problem with stealth bombers as it is indicative of resist holes being the primary driver of which bomb choice to pick (and the fact that mixing bomb damage actively neuters your bombing damage output.) If a significant percentage of that damage was torpedo damage, I'd be more inclined to agree with you, but I am pretty confident that the greater majority of bomber damage comes in the form of bombing runs. This is especially so considering that the main fleet ships are caldari (harpy, tengu) and gallente (ishtar), whose T2/T3 resists favor kin/therm significantly. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Halycon Gamma Perkone Caldari State 41	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:42:29 - [20] - Quote What exactly do the colors for the lines mean in that damage graph? I ask because knowing may remove some of the doubts I have over the assumption that overall damage number is relevant when discussing Battleships. For instance, how much of that damage occurred during a bloc war battle. If battleships are seeing heavy usage there which inflates their damage statistics, but almost no usage outside of that specific use case... then it's possible there's a problem when an entire class of subcap ship is only pulled out for defending or attacking at a coalition level.

Arthur Aihaken X A X 4086	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:43:03 - [21] - Quote War Kitten wrote: I'm also not convinced that total PVP damage, which is dominated by large fleet engagements, is a good metric for balancing ships that now suck at small-gang warfare due to lose mobility. I'm entirely in agreement here. In addition to the request for what the individual colour bars mean, a breakdown between null-sec, low-sec, high-sec and wormhole space would paint a better picture. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Alty McAltypants Eretz Israel 5	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:46:59 - [22] - Quote Overall, yes, good... but.... - The Ishtar changes still don't change that fact is incredibly diverse ship which is because of drone bandwidth and not drone bonuses imo. - With respect to t3 changes, if you don't call this a "full pass rebalance" then I don't know what it is. Could we call it "a semi-full non hard bypass on the non 100% rebalance but possibly rebalance(?)" rebalance? - "Skynet". Meh it has has been "borked" since Red Moon Rising, ahhh, memories of the TheKiller8 RMR flash video. Good fix. - Medium rails. Holy molly those missiles, who was responsible for that .... - Battleships and battle cruiser viability. Disagree with you on this point, when you say "Finally, we talked about warp speed changes and once again considered whether the tactical depth added is worth the inconvenience of roaming in battleships and agreed that it is." Just to highlight that Eve is the only game I have ever played where inconveniencing the end user/player is a valid balancing decision

CCP Rise C C P C C P Alliance 4945	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:48:17 - [23] - Quote 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. @ccp_rise

Capqu Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 1009	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:48:24 - [24] - Quote Querns wrote: Capqu wrote: the real standout in the graph for me is stealth bomber internal class balance and attack battlecruisers being absolute trash - a class entirely about damage being so low on a damage chart is kind of worrying Eh, the stealth bomber graph isn't that odd to me -- explosive and EM damage are the best types of damage to shoot. I am not sure that is so much a problem with stealth bombers as it is indicative of resist holes being the primary driver of which bomb choice to pick (and the fact that mixing bomb damage actively neuters your bombing damage output.) If a significant percentage of that damage was torpedo damage, I'd be more inclined to agree with you, but I am pretty confident that the greater majority of bomber damage comes in the form of bombing runs. This is especially so considering that the main fleet ships are caldari (harpy, tengu) and gallente (ishtar), whose T2/T3 resists favor kin/therm significantly. yeah you're right, about the damage types being massively better but the problem imo is the ships are also massively better lows are much more useful than mids for bombing [align, warp strength] and the fitting issue i just don't understand [purifier has massively better fitting than the other 3] don't get me wrong i fuckin love the purifier https://zkillboard.com/character/1107018389/topalltime/ but i know it really isnt a choice within the class. if you're bombing you take a purifier, end of story https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE

CCP Rise C C P C C P Alliance 4945	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:49:53 - [25] - Quote Quote: Just to highlight that Eve is the only game I have ever played where inconveniencing the end user/player is a valid balancing decision Twisted It's pretty inconvenient for me to have to run back to lane in League, or wait for units to finish in Starcraft, or not see through walls in Counterstrike, yet for some reason the developers insist on not changing it. @ccp_rise

Capqu Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 1009	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:50:27 - [26] - 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. no please, more graphs - even without labels and explanations they're cool to look at and give a lot of insight imo so thanks for putting it together https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4086	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:50:59 - [27] - 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. Could you please list the breakdown for weapon type for Battlecruisers and Battleships? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Coelomate Gilliomate Corp 14	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:54:16 - [28] - Quote That PVP damage across ship class graph is very distorted, because cruiser-sized hulls are the prevailing meta and used more or less interchangeably depending on the wealth and skillpoints of the group putting together the fleet - explicitly because battleships and battlecruisers are so unappealing. If you lump cruiser sized hulls together, I believe the problem becomes clear and obvious, like so: http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png Personally I feel the heart of the problem is bombers, though slow warp speed certainly doesn't help. Love, ~Coelomate
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1098	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:55:24 - [29] - Quote nerfing T3's resists/HP and removing rigs would certainly help bc's and battleships become more viable, but also some HAC's are a little strong and also some pirate cruisers (looking at gila and gurista ships in particular) need a nerf. I would love an explanation why T3's in general should have T2 resists at all??? 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.
Ab'del Abu Atlantis Ascendant 216	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:01:21 - [30] - Quote Harvey James wrote: nerfing T3's resists/HP and removing rigs would certainly help bc's and battleships become more viable, but also some HAC's are a little strong and also some pirate cruisers (looking at gila and gurista ships in particular) need a nerf. I would love an explanation why T3's in general should have T2 resists at all??? Because without they would be shyt.

Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1098	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:04:41 - [31] - Quote also think some battleships are too weak in general, Maelstrom its bonuses suggest small scale PvP, but it only excels as a fleet shield arty boat, needs work Abbadon has multiple flaws, cap being a strong one but also could use a megathron slot layout, less turrets/higher damage bonus and utility high Geddon/Domi nerfing the geddon to 4 heavies would make more sense here, nerf the neut range aswell, would also like too see drone HP as a separate bonus from damage, particularly at higher drone HP levels (sentries, heavies), and some racial drone bonuses instead of omni being another droneboat speciality. Tempest also needs work too be a proper attack battleship -more speed/ mobility - stronger turret falloff application/damage/extra turret raven/rokh - could use some mobility and better cap - would also like too see rokh having equal mids as raven Attack bc's -moved too T2 bc class -would then allow more diversity in the CBC class by moving 4 into ABC's, mainly looking at brutix/drake/cane/harbinger - would allow drake too lose resist bonus for some application bonus, would go well with missile rebalance, HAM range is mad atm. 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.
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 13	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:06:12 - [32] - Quote Does the change to the T3 subsystem warfare processors make it possible for off grid boosters to be probed without the need for the probing implants?
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 13	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:10:45 - [33] - Quote I also want to point out that I am very happy with your conclusion not to mess with warp speed on the battleship and battlecruiser. Not every ship is meant to be a 'roaming' ship. And as per your data, both ship classes are doing very well. Overall this looks to be a very good update.
Soldarius Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent 1143	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:19:48 - [34] - Quote Ab'del Abu wrote: Harvey James wrote: nerfing T3's resists/HP and removing rigs would certainly help bc's and battleships become more viable, but also some HAC's are a little strong and also some pirate cruisers (looking at gila and gurista ships in particular) need a nerf. I would love an explanation why T3's in general should have T2 resists at all??? Because without they would be shyt. Proof? Numbers? Something? Querns wrote: Regarding the image for PVP damage per class: http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66946/1/STEVE_7.png Over what time period does this graph cover? I find the battleship damage quite hard to believe if it covers a period of time over a year or so. e: also, if it isn't too much to ask, could you expand the battleship and combat battlecruiser graphs to show which colors represent which ships? This. Can we get more details on the time scale and amounts? How were those numbers accumulated? What criteria were used to determine if a certain quantity of damage should be added to the total? http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Retarded Noob Caldari Provisions Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:27:58 - [35] - Quote maybe the ships are not getting utilzed because there are not enough people playing EVE. just saying.
LT Alter Adversity. Psychotic Tendencies. 135	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:28:35 - [36] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Quote: Just to highlight that Eve is the only game I have ever played where inconveniencing the end user/player is a valid balancing decision Twisted It's pretty inconvenient for me to have to run back to lane in League, or wait for units to finish in Starcraft, or not see through walls in Counterstrike, yet for some reason the developers insist on not changing it. This response is oddly satisfying.
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 186	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:29:44 - [37] - Quote Does your PVP damage include shooting POS's?
ArmyOfMe Alekhine's Gun The Periphery 415	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:30:18 - [38] - Quote Im guessing both the bc's and battleship damages comes mostly from high sec station games, wich explains why they can come that high on the list tbh. We all know how station games now dictate how ships are balanced correctly. QUOTE CCP Dolan and the EVE Online development team:-áThe battle was relatively even for some time with CFC and Russian forces holding moderate lead at first and only have a slight lead in Titan kills. Then came a turning point in the battle. Manfred Sideous, the initial Fleet Commander for PL/N3, handed over command to the CEO of Northern Coalition., Vince Draken
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1098	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:31:07 - [39] - Quote ******** Noob wrote: maybe the ships are not getting utilzed because there are not enough people playing EVE. just saying. its more likely a few selection of ships make the majority not worth using (obsoletes them), a case of why fly a-f when x or y will do the job better. also some weapon systems need some work, looks at lasers and missiles and ammo in general being far too reliant on big bonused ammo rather than the weapon system carrying most of the range. would like too see ammo penalties/buffs capped at 30% 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.
Narkashima No Fixed Abode The Kadeshi 6	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:32:40 - [40] - Quote "Rather than a data based decision, this one is really about design philosophy. In general, we want there to be risk associated with power. We also want to promote active gameplay as much as possible." Agreed! Good point! ..so when can we expect AFK cloaky camping to be dealt with?

Funless Saisima Strange Energy The Bastion 58	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:33:00 - [41] - Quote T1 frigates are doing more cumulative DPS than BCs and this isn't a problem? Ok.
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 1102	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:35:19 - [42] - Quote knobber Jobbler wrote: "BATTLECRUISER AND BATTLESHIP VIABILITY Problem: Strong community sentiment that battleships and battlecruisers are not viable currently and that the biggest reason is warp speed changes." So I was with you until I read this. Put the decloak mechanic back on bombers and you'll suddenly see increased use of Battleships. A lot of people raged against this not too long ago. I actually don't mind the change back, but the community backlash was pretty significant. This was prior to the ISboxer changes. The battleships need a way to absorb some of the bomb damage. Bc's somewhat. Tweaks are needed. Yaay!!!!
Esme Moya Mencken Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 8	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:37:31 - [43] - Quote "Warp speed" is the reason people were concerned about BC/BS viability? I have never heard that before, from anyone, anywhere. Sure, they're slow in warp...but that is certainly not the primary reason they're underutilized. That's hogwash. Loads of it. More likely, no one wants to tackle nerfing the HAC meta and buffing the BC/BS's in one patch. Maybe that's a good idea, too...see where the dice land after the Ishtars fall out of favor. But still...don't serve up this "warp speed" nonsense as why it's not being addressed.
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 1628	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:37:50 - [44] - Quote Did I read the devblog right? Mynna says weapon system is balanced, ships aren't. Fozzie aknowledges, and decides to nerf weapon system because its simpler. What? Signature Tanking Best Tanking
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 1102	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:37:50 - [45] - Quote Funless Saisima wrote: T1 frigates are doing more cumulative DPS than BCs and this isn't a problem? Ok. Actually I see that as a good thing. Also fleet warfare. Yaay!!!!
M1k3y Koontz Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking 652	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:39:08 - [46] - Quote Good changes, this will definitely be a patch nobody can claim lacked content. That said, we'll see what this does to Ishters. Fingers crossed we can finally fly something else (I'm looking at you Napocs, I didnt train large energy turret 5 for nothing!) How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 1102	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:40:05 - [47] - Quote Altrue wrote: Did I read the devblog right? Mynna says weapon system is balanced, ships aren't. Fozzie aknowledges, and decides to nerf weapon system because its simpler. What? It would be a slope of falling ships of all the railgun boats out there. I get their reasoning for it. Else they would have to rebalance half a dozen ships because of the outward potential of 1. Ultimately they all have to be retweaked, but the decision on rails isn't a bad one. Yaay!!!!
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 1628	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:45:27 - [48] - Quote Phoenix Jones wrote: Altrue wrote: Did I read the devblog right? Mynna says weapon system is balanced, ships aren't. Fozzie aknowledges, and decides to nerf weapon system because its simpler. What? It would be a slope of falling ships of all the railgun boats out there. I get their reasoning for it. Else they would have to rebalance half a dozen ships because of the outward potential of 1. Ultimately they all have to be retweaked, but the decision on rails isn't a bad one. They literally nerf the rails because of tengu usage. Eagle use remains minor, and Vultures... Never saw a Vulture fleet, have you? (given the skill requirements around Vultures, I don't see any problem with their balance...) They were THAT CLOSE to balancing the offensive subsystems, since they touched defensive subsystems, which would have solved the problem just fine. Instead they nerf the whole weapon system. Signature Tanking Best Tanking
Cr Turist Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 39	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:45:46 - [49] - Quote First off sentry's need a tracking nerf hardcore. most Ishtar or sentry based comps don't even use tracking mods. this is because they don't need to. you make all these cool drone mods but don't force anyone to use them. Second Ishtar's, why do they have sentry's at all? is this not a battle ship sized weapon? maybe look into making different sized sentry's like every other drone class. small, medium, large, xl large. with differences in both optimal falloffs and TRACKING. Third rails. bring out the nerf bat not the nerf nuke. smalls and med need some tracking adjustments and maybe a small damage hit but other than that they are fine.
Kassasis Dakkstromri Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 278	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:47:31 - [50] - Quote Clearly Skynet is a risk free use of fighters and needs to be nerfed (as announced in the o7 Show today). However, a uncomfortable development question comes up I believe: (as posed in Slack #csm) "But what is unclear to me is why the addition to removing warp from fighters if they are already not going to be able to be assigned?" If there is a clear reason CCP has for removing warp entirely from fighters, then please just be upfront and clear about it; otherwise, the perception is left of lazy fixes that simply relegate an iconic piece of EVE Online into obsolescence. My thought is that the ability for fighters to warp after targets should remain - but an exception should be added that if a Carrier warps off grid, or enters warp at all, the fighters become "Abandoned"; and upon re-connection will auto return to the Carrier in the same system. This will prevent Carrier groups warping in at a tactical on grid, dropping fighters and then leaving grid to Skynet at a POS (where anyone to think to do so). That's my input, as I think CCP's announced nerf that also removes warp from fighters and turns them into giant lumbering drones is a over-reaching and misguided attempt to fix Skynet (which needs to be dealt with); but this is too broad, without clear enumeration by CCP as why this extra step is needed. CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf

Soldarius Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent 1144	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:51:31 - [51] - Quote ArmyOfMe wrote: Im guessing both the bc's and battleship damages comes mostly from high sec station games, wich explains why they can come that high on the list tbh. We all know how station games now dictate how ships are balanced correctly. This is actually a legitimate point imo. There are no bombs outside of hisec. I'd really like to see separate graphs based on sec-status (hi/low/nul-sec). I'd be willing to bet there is a vast difference between them. http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Inslander Wessette Killers of Paranoid Souls Universal Paranoia Alliance 13	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:51:48 - [52] - Quote @ 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 .
Halycon Gamma Perkone Caldari State 41	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:52:17 - [53] - Quote Esme Moya Mencken wrote: "Warp speed" is the reason people were concerned about BC/BS viability? I have never heard that before, from anyone, anywhere. Sure, they're slow in warp...but that is certainly not the primary reason they're underutilized. Hogwash. Loads of it. No, it's not. It's mixed fleet composition on roams. Waiting on battleships is Teh Suck(technical term) when also flying with frigates, destroyers and cruisers. If they gate off ahead the battle could, and has, been over before the battleships could get to it. If you wait on the battleship, you're going to spend a lot of cumulative time waiting on the battleships for the gates in the roam. You also hit an engagement problem. The long warps mean smaller hulls can choose to engage or not if the fleet is waiting on battleships, the scout can find targets of opportunity that will be gone by the time battleships can make them to it. There is a reason right now cruiser sized hulls are the defacto class of choice for roams.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1013	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:52:39 - [54] - Quote I'm ok with no battleship buff, as long as the T3 nerfs continue, and if you fix dread blapping and logistics.
Cr Turist Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 39	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:53:59 - [55] - Quote Esme Moya Mencken wrote: "Warp speed" is the reason people were concerned about BC/BS viability? I have never heard that before, from anyone, anywhere. Sure, they're slow in warp...but that is certainly not the primary reason they're underutilized. That's hogwash. Loads of it. More likely, no one wants to tackle nerfing the HAC meta and buffing the BC/BS's in one patch. Maybe that's a good idea, too...see where the dice land after the Ishtars fall out of favor. But still...don't serve up this "warp speed" nonsense as why it's not being addressed. No my carrier can warp gate to gate faster than a battleship and that's just comical latterly my Aeon can warp faster than a raven. I suggest if you have the means to test this you do. it will give u a chuckle. Bombs to strong!!!! that's why people don't fly anything bigger than a HAC.
Nami Kumamato School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 541	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:55:08 - [56] - Quote So how exactly did the shuttles damage... anything ?! " And now my ship is oh so cloaked and fit - I never felt so good, I never felt so hid ! " - Ramona McCandless, Untitled
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5891	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:56:40 - [57] - Quote Esme Moya Mencken wrote: "Warp speed" is the reason people were concerned about BC/BS viability? I have never heard that before, from anyone, anywhere. Sure, they're slow in warp...but that is certainly not the primary reason they're underutilized. That's hogwash. Loads of it. More likely, no one wants to tackle nerfing the HAC meta and buffing the BC/BS's in one patch. Maybe that's a good idea, too...see where the dice land after the Ishtars fall out of favor. But still...don't serve up this "warp speed" nonsense as why it's not being addressed. Ok, I'll say it for you if you haven't heard it yet. Warp speed changes have killed the usefulness of battlecruisers and battleships in roaming gangs and small gang warfare. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Freelancer117 so you want to be a Hero 265	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:57:06 - [58] - Quote Quote: First, we wanted to establish whether the problem was more about the Ishtar or more about Sentry Drones. The data makes a pretty convincing case that it really is mostly the Ishtar. While several other ships (Dominix, Navy Vexor, Archon, etc.) are making use of sentries, none of them are anywhere near as sentry reliant as the Ishtar and none of them are coming close to the overall damage that Ishtars represent on TQ. Well done for showing an intelligent and surgical approach to the matter, CCPgames is changing from it old ways The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans. http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg GÇÖChilde Roland to the Dark Tower came.GÇÖ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY3oMRLfArU
Cr Turist Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 39	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:02:08 - [59] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: I'm ok with no battleship buff, as long as the T3 nerfs continue, and if you fix dread blapping and logistics. ok a t3 nerf is needed. blap dreads are fine however. you have to drop a big lumbering ship that cant evade fire, that must sit in the same spot for 5 mins at least before it can start to go anywhere, and has zero chance of killing anything smaller than a battleship. I think dreads are fine m8. fixing logi is easy. 1. medium reps for everybody. no other changes needed. 2. add another class of logistic ship. maybe a battle cruiser, that has something like a triage mod on it. when its giving reps it don't get reps. this will make players make a decision do I wanna risk my ship to save my fleet members or am I gonna bone this dude and gtfo. I think it would make a pretty cool dynamic. also make this ship MJD capable. 3.T2 Logi frigs just cuz that will be cool as hell.
Valterra Craven 514	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:03:42 - [60] - Quote Honestly, I think a lot of CCPs balance issues are born out of laziness. Ships and weapons needs to be balanced at the same time and the simple solution is to have "profiles" for an entire class of things. Aka something like this (these numbers are not meant to be representative of actual gameplay, just examples) Frigs Range: Min Max ~2km ~10km Damage ~20dps ~150dps EHP ~1000 ~6000 Do that for all classes and make sure that the variation falls within the values that you set. In the end this back and forth is going to continue until you decide to balance the game as a whole around all possible choices. Laziness only creates more work in the future.

ArmyOfMe Alekhine's Gun The Periphery 416	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:04:55 - [61] - Quote Oh, and while we are on the subject of ship balancing and all that. And excluding the fact that im a pirate, dirtbag and godknows what else ive been called. Can you explain to me the balancing reason for freighters not being able to fit a damage controll? As it is, the ship costs well over 1bill, and it costs about 150mill in ships to destroy the damn thing with no hope of it surviving at all. That is to me a bad balancing act, and is caused by dessies being able to put out a massive ammount of damage compared to their price (more then twice the damage of a normal fitted af wich costs about 15-20x more) Ganking in this game has gone way overboard cause of those things, and its as risk free as you can get, as the freighter hardly has to drop any loot for it to have been worth it. Im all for piracy, etc etc, but suicide has crossed the limit simply cause its now to much of it, and the freighter pilots carry all the risk. Ps: no, i dont own any freighters, jf's or otherwise. But i would still love to see the freighter hulls buffed when it comes to cpu, so they can fit dc's and eans or hardners. QUOTE CCP Dolan and the EVE Online development team:-áThe battle was relatively even for some time with CFC and Russian forces holding moderate lead at first and only have a slight lead in Titan kills. Then came a turning point in the battle. Manfred Sideous, the initial Fleet Commander for PL/N3, handed over command to the CEO of Northern Coalition., Vince Draken
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1099	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:08:01 - [62] - Quote 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 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.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1014	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:08:08 - [63] - Quote Cr Turist wrote: TrouserDeagle wrote: I'm ok with no battleship buff, as long as the T3 nerfs continue, and if you fix dread blapping and logistics. ok a t3 nerf is needed. blap dreads are fine however. you have to drop a big lumbering ship that cant evade fire, that must sit in the same spot for 5 mins at least before it can start to go anywhere, and has zero chance of killing anything smaller than a battleship. I think dreads are fine m8. fixing logi is easy. 1. medium reps for everybody. no other changes needed. 2. add another class of logistic ship. maybe a battle cruiser, that has something like a triage mod on it. when its giving reps it don't get reps. this will make players make a decision do I wanna risk my ship to save my fleet members or am I gonna bone this dude and gtfo. I think it would make a pretty cool dynamic. also make this ship MJD capable. 3.T2 Logi frigs just cuz that will be cool as hell. your entire post is wrong or bait
Samuel Outamon State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:08:35 - [64] - Quote Look the main problem is you nerfed missile's back to the stone ages long ago , and most t3 cruisers and battle cruisers that use missiles cant keep up with dps output that rails and laser's do hack most cruisers can out dps a missle t3 ship easy , why you ask simple . Time to target damage , its simple make dmg from missiles instant instead of 35s to hit target and wait for the damage to show up . take a nerf bat to shield user's really come on now that craps getting old everyone knows a 3% armor nerf can be made up with hardwires . shields you cant make it up so just keep picking on caldari . Keep this up and guess whats going to happen people are going to keep moving to SC and putting money there instead of here . second the t3 destroyer's should not have rails for caldari you do that nobody will fly the dang thing. nerf the crap out any decent class ship because some one complained about them being to strong or over powered crap . the devs need to stop listen to the fanboy clubs and start listen to players that support the game other wise your gonna end 4th quarter profits in the -25% range . been support since 2004
elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 579	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:08:43 - [65] - Quote Maybe I should keep my opinions about stuffGäó in closed quarters for the time being and I'll ask for the Caldari destroyer of worlds and a nice generous heavy missile range and application buff instead? signature
Valterra Craven 514	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:09:26 - [66] - Quote ArmyOfMe wrote: Ganking in this game has gone way overboard cause of those things, and its as risk free as you can get, as the freighter hardly has to drop any loot for it to have been worth it. Im all for piracy, etc etc, but suicide has crossed the limit simply cause its now to much of it, and the freighter pilots carry all the risk. I don't think I've ever seen CCP balance anything on the basis of risk vs reward.
Pandora Myuki Amok. Goonswarm Federation 17	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:14:48 - [67] - Quote So you want to reduce Carrier effectiveness even more? Wow Rise, lets change the name to Frigate online.
OutCast EG Very Industrial Corp. Legion of xXDEATHXx 24	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:20:57 - [68] - Quote Quote: We discussed choosing to expose Skynet carriers to more risk rather than taking away the ability to assist fighters, but in the end this solution felt more convoluted and in reality would probably end skynetting but would still leave a strange and unneeded mechanic in the game. Lazy balancing of badly designed and extremely skewed in risk-reward ships in unneeded mechanic. Go back to discussions and come when you have something less lazy.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 770	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:25:59 - [69] - Quote That chart is GREATLY at odds with your other one. http://i.imgur.com/yfeQpc4.jpg What am I missing?
Flax Volcanus Montezuma's Revenge. Easily Excited 2	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:31:44 - [70] - Quote Coming back to EVE after a three-year hiatus, I see that CCP still treats the time and expense that players spend skilling for ships and systems as fungible. If you're going to nerf T3's, in particular, then we should be compensated by not losing skill points -- or as many SPs -- when a ship is lost. Otherwise, it's a double slap in the face. I have hangars full of ships that took months of training to use, but which nerfs and other exercises in "balancing" rendered frustrating or ineffective to use. I don't get to skill for these by leveling up like a WoW fiend -- training in this game equates to real money invested. I'd aprpeciate it if someone at CCP eventually internalized that fact.

fredtheevil modro Circle-Of-Two 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:37:45 - [71] - Quote Don't Nerf Bat a ship that has been just about the same though all these years. The other hac's need a boost in effective raneg/dps and the ishtar need's to be left alone or adding 2 mid's to the munin would change the meta up seriously... Think OUTSIDE THE BOX......
Cr Turist Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 39	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:41:27 - [72] - Quote fredtheevil wrote: Don't Nerf Bat a ship that has been just about the same though all these years. The other hac's need a boost in effective raneg/dps and the ishtar need's to be left alone or adding 2 mid's to the munin would change the meta up seriously... Think OUTSIDE THE BOX...... if you honestly think ishtars dont need nerfing you need to stop go take a cold shower go for a long walk and ponder your life.
159Pinky Under Heavy Fire Mordus Angels 12	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:44:57 - [73] - Quote A few remarks on your awesome graph on damage: - Is it the total damage done? If so, you need to factor in an average damage output per shiptype to get a more realistic view of the amount of ships used. - This graph does not adress the main issue: moving them is too slow to be worth it. So, how many of these fights were one group bridging in bs vs another group bridging in bs / fighting from their staging system?
Cr Turist Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 39	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:51:55 - [74] - Quote OK WHAT EVER PETTY GRIPES WE MAY HAVE WE SHOULD ALL PUT TO REST FOR THE DAY. SPACE FRIENDS SPOCK HAS DIED AT THE AGE OF 83 https://tv.yahoo.com/blogs/tv-news/leonard-nimoy-dies-at-83-171803235.html IF CCP DOES NOT DO SOMETHING TO COMMEMORATE THIS TRUE SPACE NERD HERO. WELL SHAME ON YOU
Kel hound The Desolate Order Brave Collective 116	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:54:55 - [75] - Quote Quote: Proposed change: None. We are pretty happy with the state of class variation right now and see no reason to make changes. Reddit calls shenanigans on your graph. Quote: Edit: In response to comments that this graph is a lie/distortion/incomplete: While this was a "shoot from the hip" response to the original graph, fundamentally the goal was to group ships that are common choices for major fleet doctrines (HACs + T3s + Cruisers makes sense, battleships + blops + marauders does not because nobody considers a fleet of blops and marauder fleets are exceedingly rare). Leaving battlecruisers separate is a more valid criticism, but any choice you make has complex and interrelated variables. So yes, there are a lot of reasons why this "fixed" graph also shows a skewed perspective, and many other ways one could arrange the data for visualization, but I think it shows a less skewed perspective of the meta than CCP's original graph. I also made it in like 5 minutes after seeing the original, so -»\(pâä)/-» Coelmate
Kynric Sky Fighters 268	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:57:09 - [76] - Quote If battleships had more EHP it would open up some room for them relative to strategic cruisers and would also give some robustness relative to bombers. As it stands now, even after the defensive subsytem nerfs a strategic cruiser can nearly match the battleship in dps while greatly exceeding it in damage application, mobility, and survivability. I would enjoy having battleships as the standard for survivability at the expense of damage application and mobility.
Mary Killigrew Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 12	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:16:00 - [77] - Quote (Ending a radio broadcast) This is John Connor. If you are listening to this message, you are the Resistance.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1015	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:17:03 - [78] - Quote Kynric wrote: If battleships had more EHP it would open up some room for them relative to strategic cruisers and would also give some robustness relative to bombers. As it stands now, even after the defensive subsytem nerfs a strategic cruiser can nearly match the battleship in dps while greatly exceeding it in damage application, mobility, and survivability. I would enjoy having battleships as the standard for survivability at the expense of damage application and mobility. nerfing T3s achieves the same thing without breaking other things
Aralyn Cormallen Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 774	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:21:26 - [79] - Quote Goddamn it Baltec. I bet it was you who screwed up the BS numbers making them look more used than they are
SamuelK The Concilium Enterprises Capital Punishment. 11	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:22:30 - [80] - Quote Remember when "expansions" weren't just updates and actually added meaningful content and a level of excitement? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 1104	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:38:42 - [81] - Quote SamuelK wrote: Remember when "expansions" weren't just updates and actually added meaningful content and a level of excitement? Pepperidge Farm remembers. So do I it was about a month ago, then 2 months before that. Pepperidge Farms has a very short memory. Yaay!!!!
Sven Viko VIkolander Friends and Feminists 326	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:48:49 - [82] - Quote Rise, using quantitative methods to aid in rebalancing is fantastic, but I question the relevance of evaluating balance by total PVP damage. Surely on your alts you have tried going solo or small gang in a BS/BC recently? And don't you agree that it is substantially less fun to fly these ships now than pre-Rubicon, primarily because of the slower warp? I'd say, base warp speed of BS/BC platforms was hit too hard, and they would be much more enjoyable to fly if the base warp speed was closer to the cruiser level.
Inslander Wessette Killers of Paranoid Souls Universal Paranoia Alliance 15	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:39:32 - [83] - Quote 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 ?
Evelgrivion Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder 340	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:46:29 - [84] - Quote I am in complete disagreement with your conclusions towards Battleships. Using them still feels terrible, and the speed differential was, in my opinion, wholly adequately met with the large differences in align time and maximum warp speed. With consideration to the cited damage application data, it continues to seem like you've created an inconvenience that exists solely for the sake of making Battleships and Battlecruisers inconvenient to use; surely their firepower at EHP aren't so excessive compared to Heavy Assault Cruisers to warrant a 15 second delay in arrival between every warp?
dongoble Teh Hive Collective Carebear News Network 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:08:48 - [85] - Quote i think your skynetting idea is good but goes too far, maybe as far as not limit carriers abilities to assist to anything smaller than say a battleship, but carriers should be able to assist to other capitals, and large class ships in my opinion.
Pyralissa Kite Co. Space Trucking 7	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:14:40 - [86] - Quote The damage by type is telling. Light blue is certainly drones (you can see the Ishtar dominance in HACs). Dark blue is hybrids (Strategic Cruiser showing Tengus), Orange is lasers (this graph was generated before the Svipull was deployed, so it's only showing the confessor), we can only guess at the remainder although yellow is likely projectiles. From what we see battleships show a strong preference towards drones (Dominix) with hybrids (Megathron), lasers (Foxcat/Fauxcat), and projectiles (TFI/Macherial) being reasonably well balanced against each other. I can understand the argument that battleships are thus balanced because the class is well balanced against itself. I can even accept the argument that whatever problems battleships have is an issue with ships and weapons outside of the battleships class (bombs). However the source of complaints about battleships is two fold: fleet balance and small engagement balance. I can accept that fleet balance is battleships is in a good place, perhaps the best of any other class of ships (the dominix has a preference, but all battleships carry fairly sizable drone bays which means drones will naturally be over represented in that class) however what evidence exists that battleships are being used in groups of smaller then 100 or more? Who's offensive roaming (especially in null sec with it's huge systems) in battleships anymore? Is this really a class that's only meant to be deployed in mass fleet battles, or used for home system defense? That's the problem with battleships. Bombs are a huge issue for battleships fleets because the nature of timers is that everyone knows when to third-party a battleship doctrine engagement with bombers. But bombers aren't an issue for the gang that wants to add a triple-rep hyperion or a torp raven for additional kill power. You cannot, with a straight face, tell me that usage of battleships is in a good place with the current warp mechanics.
Manfred Sideous North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion 1067	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:33:01 - [87] - Quote Rise i'd like to challenge you to a little exercise. Just reply when you have time and we can play this exercise through quotes. Scenario: There is a timer about to exit that you and your allies need to fight over. What are the viable fleet comps you can bring? Ok now you reply. @EveManny https://twitter.com/EveManny
Sizeof Void Ninja Suicide Squadron 577	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:40:28 - [88] - Quote Agree with the proposed balance changes, but would like to see much more work done on T1 module rebalancing. This includes taking a look at manufacturing costs of T1 modules vs reprocessing value and overabundance of meta modules. T1 modules should be the "standard" fit for all ships and where module/ship balancing should start - not based on T2 modules. T2 modules should be more powerful, but also more difficult to fit, requiring significant compromises in the ship fit, ie. able to fit for max damage or max tank, but not both simultaneously. Metas should always be more expensive and less available than T1, easier to fit than T2 - stats somewhere between the two. Faction and officer gear should be rare and massively expensive - order of magnitude or more, with only slight advantage over T2 (small percentages add up quickly).
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1785	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:43:37 - [89] - Quote Thanks for explaining the thought process - that's great. Also, please nerf Ish...oh, well done. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1100	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:48:05 - [90] - Quote 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 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.

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.

Sibius Aidon Imploding Turtles Rising in Outerspace Gravity Fatal Ascension 34	Posted - 2015.02.28 02:57:35 - [121] - Quote This isn't a balance, it's a nerf. Stop nerfing, and start adding! Yeah, T3's can be quite a tank, but hey, as far as I am concerned they aren't unbeatable, they just take some teamwork. It's fairly simple to create something that can counter a T3, or something. And about the Ishtars, meh. Just seems to me you should create a timer on them so they can't be retracted for so long after deployment. Ishtar deploy sentries, bombers bomb the Sentries, that seems more an appropriate 'balance'. The only thing I see this doing is just forcing to deploy twice the amount of Ishtars to compensate.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 559	Posted - 2015.02.28 03:26:11 - [122] - Quote Dalilus wrote: 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. it is called risk management, you should look into it
Killbac Orator KB's Malevolent Monks 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 04:11:31 - [123] - Quote Private Chat: Somewhere in a null sec ratting site... Ishtar Pilot: Hey... Tengu, you want to fight for this site? Tengu Pilot: We can't! CCP, In their never ending quest to create a "Utopian" Eve universe, have once again determined that our ships are unfairly balanced. Ishtar Pilot: WTS! When did this happen? I have invested alot of SP que time enabling me to effectively fly this ship! Tengu Pilot: Read the latest Dev blog for the changes that occured in "Scylla". They say your Ishtar was "too good" and my Tengu "didn't represent the kind of flexibility WE WANT from Tech 3". "WE", being CCP. Ishtar Pilot: Since when does CCP sub my account and fly my ships? I don't know about you, but this crap has been going on since Incarna. Tengu Pilot: lol! I remember those days, What a FUBAR'd debacle that was. You would think that CCP would have figured it out by now. Players just want to play Eve! Players don't give a crap about their egotistical dev world. Ishatar Pilot: Yeah, isn't it funny how everytime CCP makes changes to the game in the name of "balancing", the players always find a way to defeat the very changes that CCP has spent untold resources on to effect change! What a bunch of self centered morons, lol! Ishtar Pilot: BTW, There's an Archon ratting next system over... want to kill it? Tengu Pilot: LOL! That's my alt, It would be unfair to attack it since I can no longer "SKYNET" with my fighters. Ishtar Pilot: Danm! Hey... I have an idea! Want to play Farmville? We can kill each others livestock and burn one another's fields! How bout it bro? Tengu Pilot: LoL, Come and get some... I have some Tech 3 goats that will rock your world! Ishtar Pilot: Bring It, LOL! To Be Continued...
Dea Imperium Ascending Empire 5	Posted - 2015.02.28 05:35:36 - [124] - Quote The only T3s I've ever seen put forth as serious contenders are Tengus and Lokis. Legions and Proteuses flatly suck for their price and SP investment, and the brilliant idea is to nerf them as well? Does anyone involved in these development decisions actually fly the ships they're 'balancing'?
Idame Isqua Vipres' Templis CALSF 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 06:14:37 - [125] - Quote Altrue wrote: Did I read the devblog right? Mynna says weapon system is balanced, ships aren't. Fozzie aknowledges, and decides to nerf weapon system because its simpler. What? So to explain how CCP thinks GÇ£Tengus are good Tengus are OP Rails are good Rails OP!GÇ¥ And to explain how the community feels GÇÿCCPLEASE!GÇÖ So in short cause this ended up quite long: Remove drone assist now this solves carrier and Ishtar issues DonGÇÖt nerf Tengu EHP directly and DPS indirectly this is madness! WHAT ABOUT OFFGRID LINKS! THIS IS WAY MORE IMPORTANT! Firstly addressing this carrier fiddling, Please remove drone assist. And at least rebalance them so heavies are actually used. Fighters need to be pointable, you can insure a carrier but you canGÇÖt insure a fighter. They need to have a longer align time when warping back to the carrier. Obviously the carrier will have to target the drones on grid with drone assist removed or maybe make a new module or something like a fighter cyno? It would be sad to see carriers only used as logi though. I died to a carrier assisted gate camp but I'm not even mad about it. Also CCP says rail tengus OP then nerfs all rails ccplease! In my experience of the game offgrid cloaky tengu links are the only problem I have with t3s. The only problem most people have with T3s is offgrid zero risk boosts making garmurs slicers impossible to catch in fw plexs. Do you even know this exists? IGÇÖm certain this is resulting in way more imbalance than whatever those jokers with carriers are doing in no action sec. And you seem to have maybe accidently made them easier to scan down? So medium hybrids yes they are big on the KB... but could this to just be to them being the most popular weapon system outside of drones Also giving away economic secrets MH-805 the only % boost to a weapon system not selling for over 100M... IGÇÖve given up on implants pretty much cause itGÇÖs better to get podded and get back in a ship (something I did before cost reductions). This is not scientific mate anyone worth half his salt knows tengus use rails 200mm rails to be precise! I bet if you exclude 200mm rails it will look like medium hybrids need a boost Everyone knows the tengu is the number 1 t3 because of pve but this means its gonna get used in pvp more too, now your changes to the tengu may or may not affect its use in pve, but the trickle on effects of people switching from pve tengus to pvp tengus is going to take time. Or whatever those derps out in null do who actually wants to do pve all week then join a 100 man blob on the weekend the mind boggles. And who cares I donGÇÖt use T2 stuff thatGÇÖs to expensive! So I said 200mm rails are big on the kill board (in lowsec this isnGÇÖt because of tengus (I donGÇÖt think people only use T3s for off grid boosts, which is way more of a bigger problem than carriers), could this be simply because ships that use rails are used more? Or simply because of the 5% implant? Maybe you could fix the market for these implants (I havenGÇÖt brought a ton I swear). And so this balancing won't actually be a real balancing even if it shows some sort of result Mainly cause Tengus = Rails but also other reasons (tm) Did I mention you are nerfing the rail using tengus EHP...at the same time you are killing its DPS, seemingly with no idea you are actually doing this? (CCPLEASE!) Now... Tengus use 200mm rails you know that CCP? Also from what I have heard rail tengus are used because theirs nothing else that can compete with drone assisting sentry ishtars? Please don't kill all Caldari ships we have nothing! Manticore rubbish Moa about to be rubbish Caracal PLEASE NOOO DONT TOUCH IT AGAIN NOOOOO ALSO HELP CCP SCOURGE BONUS WUTTTTTTTT ISSSSSSSS THIISSSSSSSSSS For example I rank the Purifier as the number one BLOPs bomber, Hound #2, Nemesis #4, and the Manticore is like #6 its utter garbage maybe itGÇÖs better for doing missions in IDK donGÇÖt have time for that and we have been at teir 1 forever what is LP? Us in the Caldari Militia can easily attribute our poor results on a lack of game balance, and I donGÇÖt think this is good for local chat balance (the most important thing after gifs). Because offgrid tengu boosts OP, because drone assist OP. Minmatar ships are the least popular racial class in everything even if they are way better... you are clearly not taking into account A) what people can fly (some people havenGÇÖt been playing the game for the last 5 years) B) what people do fly (o look at that across the board minmatar ships are the least brought race in Jita. O look I found evidence of why changing a system in two ways and hoping for a decent result is dumb , somewhere here also basic scientific experimental principles might apply? I think I see a pattern developing in your (not scientific) GÇÿsensibleGÇÖ balancing. Also in regards to upcoming changes all you seem to be doing is nerfing everything until all we can do is trade gifs in local chat. So judging by the graph your want cruisers all doing about the same damage? IF YOU TOUCH MY RLML CARACAL AFTER RUINING MY MANTICORE AND MOA BUT LEAVING DRONES ALONE I WILL BE SO MAD! Forgot to add Caldari ships are so neglected by CCP that the stickers on the Ishkone ships arn't even stuck on the ships properly. (Look at the Ishkone sticker on the Eagle etc.)
Erik Uchonela Covert Crops Inc. 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 06:18:00 - [126] - Quote I gotta say, I'm a bit surprised about nerfing Railguns. Railguns sorta suck already to begin with (horrible accuracy, difficult to fire continuously from longer ranges in combat) but the bonus is with timing on those things. Setting yourself up correctly, it can be an effective strategy, but from what I've mostly hear it's about missile/blaster preferences for weapons. Other then that, I think everything looks awesome and can't wait! Seems more newer player friendly with nerfing some of the larger classes, but being still fairly new, fingers-crossed for in-game results!
Dun'Gal Myriad Contractors Inc. 205	Posted - 2015.02.28 06:40:44 - [127] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Quote: Just to highlight that Eve is the only game I have ever played where inconveniencing the end user/player is a valid balancing decision Twisted It's pretty inconvenient for me to have to run back to lane in League, or wait for units to finish in Starcraft, or not see through walls in Counterstrike, yet for some reason the developers insist on not changing it. Can't like this enough, well played - also I like your changes thus far - and the explanation on the graph segmentation makes more sense now.
Lord Battlestar Faulcon de Lazy 207	Posted - 2015.02.28 07:42:11 - [128] - Quote I can live without fighter assist, but don;t take their warp ability as they are very expensive and it is nice to have them return to your carrier. I once podded myself by blowing a huge fart.
Syri Taneka NOVA-CAINE 111	Posted - 2015.02.28 08:21:33 - [129] - Quote Capqu wrote: rise if you look at the ship damage graph and you can clearly see two much more popular stealth bombers than the other 2 by and order of 100x or so if im reading this right [assuming different colours = different ships] i know bomber internal class balance isn't really a priority, but the nemesis and manticore really need some love and the purifier really needs some hate imo the fitting in particular is very different on these ships for no real reason - i'd suggest maybe standardising their fitting to a degree and giving purifier -1 mid +1 low while giving nemesis the opposite - that way you end up with a 4/2 bomber, two 3/3 bombers and a 2/4 bomber and maybe we'll see some variety but like i said bomber internal balance probably isnt a priority The primary reason behind bomber use imbalance is due simply to damage type. Purifiers are best used against armor tanks, as EM is usually the resist hole for these ships. Conversely, the Hound is best for shield tanks, as Exp is, again, usually the resist hole. Kin and Therm are generally the higher resists on any ship that is actually fitting a tank, because they often get specific resist mods and also have median base resists for both armor and shield.
Vaju Enki Secular Wisdom 1434	Posted - 2015.02.28 08:26:45 - [130] - Quote Best ******* changes ever. Keep doing what you're doing, cause you do it right!!! The Tears Must Flow

Vaju Enki Secular Wisdom 1434	Posted - 2015.02.28 08:27:34 - [131] - Quote Gilbaron wrote: The only buff battleships really need is a nerf to bombers Some warp speed would be nice to have though This. Fix bomber, problem solved. The Tears Must Flow
Idame Isqua Vipres' Templis CALSF 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 08:40:13 - [132] - Quote Syri Taneka wrote: Capqu wrote: rise if you look at the ship damage graph and you can clearly see two much more popular stealth bombers than the other 2 by and order of 100x or so if im reading this right [assuming different colours = different ships] i know bomber internal class balance isn't really a priority, but the nemesis and manticore really need some love and the purifier really needs some hate imo the fitting in particular is very different on these ships for no real reason - i'd suggest maybe standardising their fitting to a degree and giving purifier -1 mid +1 low while giving nemesis the opposite - that way you end up with a 4/2 bomber, two 3/3 bombers and a 2/4 bomber and maybe we'll see some variety but like i said bomber internal balance probably isnt a priority The primary reason behind bomber use imbalance is due simply to damage type. Purifiers are best used against armor tanks, as EM is usually the resist hole for these ships. Conversely, the Hound is best for shield tanks, as Exp is, again, usually the resist hole. Kin and Therm are generally the higher resists on any ship that is actually fitting a tank, because they often get specific resist mods and also have median base resists for both armor and shield. Right but wrong. If you rate them by align time Purifier wins Also Purifier and Hound also wins on slot layout, but saying they should be uniform is rubbish Although as a Caldari pilot Coraxs and Condors having scourge only bonuses is uniquely bad Having more mids is good for example I think people use the Nemesis for solo sb ops though? (See my previous post for real stealth bomb rankings and how their is no 3d or 5th placed bomber, maybe we will see pirate bombers?) Remember CCP only just rebalanced these so they want them this way I don't think anyone complaining about bombers has a point. Graph said torp and bomb damage is quite equal and balanced. Another thing is why nerf all sentries when everyone knows Ishtar OP I have serious doubts this nerf to Ishtars will do anything but increase the number of Ishtars on field to counter the changes Combined with other changes ITS ACTUALLY A BUFF TO ISHTARS!
IIFraII The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 35	Posted - 2015.02.28 09:33:24 - [133] - Quote Scrolling down this devblog page was quite the climax! Nerf to ishtars Nerf to t3's tank SKYNET removed altogheter O.o Nerf to med rails . . . BS and Bc viability?! - Couldn't believe what i was reading. Too bad the last was there for you to say you are happy with it. (I don't really like the high-speed eve of today, would appreciate toning down mobility across the board and changing how taclke works, but this is not the place etc..) Tl dr: Great work
Logan Revelore Symbiotic Systems 43	Posted - 2015.02.28 10:05:19 - [134] - Quote Guess my 650 dps Vulture is deemed overpowered. Personally I can't see how that can be seen as overpowered. Guess I won't do any missions until the day that I have trained for a Rattlesnake.
Eileen Black EVE University Ivy League 9	Posted - 2015.02.28 10:08:07 - [135] - Quote Nerfing buffers on T3s - cool idea. Nerfing Ishtar DPS with sentries - not liking(I fly one:P) but I guess it's neccessary, those were OP. Why not remove drone assist altogether though? Solves soooooo many problems at once without touching much. Nerfing rail DPS - oh come on... rails are good, but the tracking's rubbish, any transversal makes them very bad, and as such damage mitigation starts being a problem too. Leave rails alone, they were in a good spot before. Maybe do a 3-4% nerf if you think they need one. BS/BC viability - I'd just make BCs buffers 1.5x what they are now and BSes 2x and it'll be nicer from "how it should be IMO" perspective. Probably a bad move for balancing though so meh. You do what you want with them - won't be flying those much anyway:P
Komodo Askold No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad 308	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:38:12 - [136] - Quote I would prefer a more extensive devblog for all these matters. Also, it's pretty basic to add axis names and color legends to charts; I don't have any idea what does that bars chart mean. Neither many of us here. Also, I think I can say the main problem for us players with Battleships and Combat Battlecruisers is not in the warp speed changes (those make sense) but in how vulnerable they are for their cost. There are some pretty good suggestions on F&I on how to give them more flavour (this one being of my favourites). Please give them a deep thought.
Wadiest Yong Porcus Volans Sev3rance 6	Posted - 2015.02.28 12:28:32 - [137] - Quote A few underlying questions. When balancing ships, and trying to incorporate useful input from the community, I believe great care should be taken to make a difference between genuine earlier design flaws on the one hand and the inability of certain groups of vocal players to adapt to new tactics on the other hand. After a couple of years of going through the ship rebalancing it kind of feels like a wire act and not so much the implementation of a defined plan for the entire fleet. Add numerous nerfs and buffs to turrets, launchers, modules, introduction and changes of mechanics and it makes many of us wonder if there is oversight. Top it off with piecemeal introduction of changes to parts of the fleet, and fresh community input focused on these changes and you have a packed rowing boat full of shouting people (players and devs) rocking the boat even more (as in rash rebalance tweaks). Examples: 1) Ishtars undeniably warped the meta. This would be under "design flaw". As usual I am x-skilling up to fly one, just to be in time for the nerf bat, of course. 2) The ability to assign drones to another player, falls into that same category as well. In my mind it is of the same power as a solo ISboxer piloting a squad of bombers 3) Battleships were doing fine for many years, regardless of bombs and torpedoes, although there were favourite hulls in the BS group (as in any class). Stealth bombers can hardly be blamed for the earlier success of battleships, so they can hardly be blamed for their apparent absence now. Something else was lost in the changes... Flashback: shield vs armor doctrines, with shield in favor, because of ... agility of shield battleships 4) Revisiting classes of ships multiple times, like stealth bombers who were already nerfed last year, while other classes of ships have not even been touched at all (hello carriers, supers, rorqs and tech3s) in the last couple of years is not reassuring that there is balance in the rebalancing or a plan behind the vision or vice versa. 5) Cloaking mechanics changes did not result in lower use of battleships at first. I'd put this one under inability to adapt to new tactics. 6) Now where to put things like dscan and bubble immunity ? If devs create a sufficient number of ships for each race to do particular tasks, if any player can pick a different ship for the job at hand (pvp/pve), and FC's are enabled and proficient in developing/chosing a doctrine for fleet fights, then there are no real issues. The reality is that races have different focus in their design, and they should each have the possibility to fight any other racial fleets, with the outcome solely based on piloting skills, outsmarting tactics, typical eve shenanigans etc, not on individual ship parameters. But we all know the true answer to this universal question is 42. Eve is about flying and blowing up ships first and foremost, and the rebalancing should be the single most important undertaking with the most resources, the highest urgency and the best plan. Flying ships is what is common to all of the players (with sov a strong contender for second place). Ship rebalancing should be translating into the creation of a rich, highly flexible meta. How do we stand sofar ? Good luck devs, with focusing on undoing design flaws, having an overall plan and vision, and not allowing the boat to be rocked. Credit is already due to you for many excellent changes.
Cheggers TrouserCough EVE University Ivy League 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 12:50:05 - [138] - Quote Dear Rise and Fozzie, It seems very simplistic, to me, that, after all your discussion on the matter, you decide that the best way to balance is to nerf. I thought the whole point of rebalancing was to enhance utility (such as with tiericide). Simply applying the nerf bat to whack-a-mole dps graphs into uniform flatness is neither clever nor impressive. It would be better that you finish your work on sov mechanics, modules, etc. first and then turn your full attention to rebalancing popular ships/weapons after. It would, perhaps, be better if you saw the utility and user friendliness of weapons as often the reason why they are popular, rather than simply how much damage they do, and focus your adjustments there. Perhaps you could improve the utility of less popular weapon groups and ships rather than simply nerfing the dps of the most popular stuff or increasing the dps of the least popular stuff. This would help to mitigate the risk of over buffing that you are so afraid of and, at the same time, increase the entertainment value for the eve subscribers. For example, for the Ishtar, the most specialised drone boat of all, to have the smallest drone damage bonus of all, is ridiculous. I thought you had already made a balancing pass on Ishtars by making ODTLs active and scripted so how about more efforts in this direction? Or getting rid of drone assist? Or improving the utility of another ship type to counter the Ishtar? How about introducing a new mechanic to counter drones / drone assist in the form of anti drone ewar? It seems to me that subtle adjustments require more effort and patience so, because you have other things to do, out comes the nerf bat to flatten the peaks on a simple graph. No. I am quite happy to try all the new metas you can think of but not because you've nerfed everything into an ineffective mess. tl;dr Rise and Fozzie: you can do better than this. Just try focussing your efforts on one thing at a time, eh?
Steve Atreides Phoenix Interstellar Enterprises 1	Posted - 2015.02.28 13:43:08 - [139] - Quote Just yet another CCP nerf to look forward to. hey guys look,. I see you are all enjoying using these ships because they are pretty decent so we are going to make them average and blend in with what this game is becoming. Bland and average is clearly the way to go. Now I know that many of you enjoyed the Rattlesnake nerf a while back but we thought youd love an additional nerf to your bouncer range. I hope you enjoy the more varied tactical gameplay this brings as we take aways some ore versatility. Now to Mdedium Railguns, we see too many people using these, probably because they have longer range and you dont have to get close up when running missions or any other combat style and we know getting close makes you very vulnerable and prone to take more damage so we are going to fk them up. We hope you enjoy the more varied gameplay that we think screwing around with something that you use because, well its useful and make a whole series of your favourite ships less capable on the field. Now while we are on Gallente weapons as well as nerfing....errm balancing Medium Railguns we are going to fk up.......errrm rebalance the Proteus, because well, we feel that a strategic cruiser that takes a fair amount of skills to train and has this weird mechanic we built that makes them a little more effective (in some configuations) than a standard cruiser , and lets not forget that if you get one blown up your lose a whole lot of skill points. Anyway, as you know we cannot have any above average ships or vaguely useful weapons so we are at our favourite part of the game where we pat ourselves on the back and make the game just a little less fun to play while we try and sell it to our customers as more amazing things we are doing in the Eve universe. We are wonderful, we are never misguided in what we try to do, any feedback is welcome especially from those that agree with us and validate our standpoint (probably because youve been blown up by an ishtar or strategic cruiser and dismayed your poor tactics and understanding of the game meant you dodnt have a chance) and of course any feedback that takes a contrary stance to our attitude of making all ships and weapons in Eve bland and average will be thoroughly ignored, especially when one or two CCP fan boys jump on quote your blog and say what an amazing job ccp are doing and its about time these changes were made. All I know is already all the poepl I talk to in Eve are refrring to Scylla as the next Nerf, not the next rebalancing. Nerf Nerf Nerf! Woot Woot...
Steve Atreides Phoenix Interstellar Enterprises 1	Posted - 2015.02.28 13:49:10 - [140] - Quote Cheggers TrouserCough wrote: Dear Rise and Fozzie, It seems very simplistic, to me, that, after all your discussion on the matter, you decide that the best way to balance is to nerf. I thought the whole point of rebalancing was to enhance utility (such as with tiericide). Simply applying the nerf bat to whack-a-mole dps graphs into uniform flatness is neither clever nor impressive. It would be better that you finish your work on sov mechanics, modules, etc. first and then turn your full attention to rebalancing popular ships/weapons after. It would, perhaps, be better if you saw the utility and user friendliness of weapons as often the reason why they are popular, rather than simply how much damage they do, and focus your adjustments there. Perhaps you could improve the utility of less popular weapon groups and ships rather than simply nerfing the dps of the most popular stuff or increasing the dps of the least popular stuff. This would help to mitigate the risk of over buffing that you are so afraid of and, at the same time, increase the entertainment value for the eve subscribers. For example, for the Ishtar, the most specialised drone boat of all, to have the smallest drone damage bonus of all, is ridiculous. I thought you had already made a balancing pass on Ishtars by making ODTLs active and scripted so how about more efforts in this direction? Or getting rid of drone assist? Or improving the utility of another ship type to counter the Ishtar? How about introducing a new mechanic to counter drones / drone assist in the form of anti drone ewar? It seems to me that subtle adjustments require more effort and patience so, because you have other things to do, out comes the nerf bat to flatten the peaks on a simple graph. No. I am quite happy to try all the new metas you can think of but not because you've nerfed everything into an ineffective mess. tl;dr Rise and Fozzie: you can do better than this. Just try focussing your efforts on one thing at a time, eh? Very eloquent sir, I couldnt have said it better. Not just the ishtar either. all these rebalances take away from the game rather than add to and CCP need to focus on adding to the gameplay.

TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1019	Posted - 2015.02.28 14:02:52 - [141] - Quote are these 'anti-nerf' people actually serious? is it even possible to be that dumb?
Align Planet1 Caldari Provisions Caldari State 71	Posted - 2015.02.28 14:04:52 - [142] - Quote On the Ishtar nerf: "The problem: Ishtars are too good. They are squashing out diversity in several environments because of their excellent damage projection and solid survivability." The proposed solution does not address the identified problems. * * * On the battleship/battlecruiser non-changes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSmI4KO9968 You're using those graphs as a crutch. Your users are telling you that two entire classes of ships are not fun.
Idame Isqua Vipres' Templis CALSF 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 16:01:45 - [143] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: are these 'anti-nerf' people actually serious? is it even possible to be that dumb? Anti nerf as in its a buff or anti nerf as in against nerf
fredtheevil modro Circle-Of-Two 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 17:52:55 - [144] - Quote Cr Turist wrote: fredtheevil wrote: Don't Nerf Bat a ship that has been just about the same though all these years. The other hac's need a boost in effective raneg/dps and the ishtar need's to be left alone or adding 2 mid's to the munin would change the meta up seriously... Think OUTSIDE THE BOX...... if you honestly think ishtars dont need nerfing you need to stop go take a cold shower go for a long walk and ponder your life. CCP needs to accomplish many other tasks before they start diving back into hac's again like the map-AI, the fact most combat anomalies are the exact same after well the better part of 10 years, Other then a Gila med drones are useless and heavy's forget about it cant track a barn flying threw the space, we were promised sov mechanic's changes just seems "illogical" to take away from something that many players have found to be a very useful ship it is a bit over powered and i say that lightly for one reason not the drones , its The massive range is its biggest benefit like currently i can tag ships over 100k without a problem (or restrict how far u are from the sentry's like a ten k max would be a interesting Just an idea) There should be more ships like the ishtar it should be like the baseline for hac's, other options for players that take around the same time (cerp, zealot , munin, ) investment are no where as effective for = time invested to pilot the ishtar
RogueHunteer Perkone Caldari State 7	Posted - 2015.02.28 18:52:43 - [145] - Quote Therefore our proposal is to simply remove fighter assist. <-- being remove now. Already made the decision to lead not fighters to warp. <-- already lead to not "warp fighters" the decision has been made. but they left forums open for more feedback.. enjoy dev blog can be found here... http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/balance-changes-coming-in-scylla?_ga=1.137560368.108197750.1424773860
Caviar Liberta Moira. Villore Accords 852	Posted - 2015.02.28 19:00:23 - [146] - Quote Personally I don't see an issue here. It's been many months ago now but I was in a fleet of neuting vexors with T1 Amarr Armor logi which took a fight to a stand still with fleet of Ishtar and T2 Logi. Nothing to fix here.
Caviar Liberta Moira. Villore Accords 852	Posted - 2015.02.28 19:03:24 - [147] - Quote Idame Isqua wrote: TrouserDeagle wrote: are these 'anti-nerf' people actually serious? is it even possible to be that dumb? Anti nerf as in its a buff or anti nerf as in against nerf It's easier to take a bat to one ship instead of balancing the other 3 races to match it. Enough said I guess! Will this be a trend against Gallente ships as a general since armor and blasters had been made more viable over the years.
Caviar Liberta Moira. Villore Accords 852	Posted - 2015.02.28 19:10:02 - [148] - Quote Sibius Aidon wrote: This isn't a balance, it's a nerf. Stop nerfing, and start adding! Yeah, T3's can be quite a tank, but hey, as far as I am concerned they aren't unbeatable, they just take some teamwork. . This. I pulse overloaded my MWD 300-400km with a tech 3 shield BC to get in on a big fight against 2 Strat cruisers to end up with the finishing blows. They aren't unbreakable. You just need to be able to catch them and burn through them.
Worrff Viziam Amarr Empire 64	Posted - 2015.02.28 21:26:27 - [149] - Quote CCP RISE......... It may be an idea for you to take a look at your Skynet thread in the Features and ideas section. You say that you want feedback, but make no comment after 31 pages of it. CCP Philosophy: If it works, break it. If itGÇÖs broken, leave it alone and break something else.
Idame Isqua Vipres' Templis CALSF 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 22:30:46 - [150] - Quote Caviar Liberta wrote: Personally I don't see an issue here. It's been many months ago now but I was in a fleet of neuting vexors with T1 Amarr Armor logi which took a fight to a stand still with fleet of Ishtar and T2 Logi. Nothing to fix here. I can't remember actually losing to a GalMil fleet for many many many months either so it must be many months. But that actually sounds like something you should bring out because it sounds like it might be kinda decent? You did deploy a lot of bouncers around our pos one this month or was it last month IDK, I had to clean them all up! Still have them lying all around the place! What do you guys even fly again... Execuror fleets? O you had those Navy Brutixs flying near us that one time, I had to cycle one of my reppers it was stressful! Why don't you fly drone assist Tristan blobs again aka 'My First Ishtar (tm)' Those were god awful to deal with! TBH you need to train your farmers to shot primaries and not be hilariously bad at logi. Actually though remember when those nullsec dudes joined calmil and they had a Ishtar fleet that one time and they tried to bash your staging POS but then the local pirates turned up so they docked? Thats the only time I've seen Ishtar fleets so maybe something is wrong with null and/or the people that live there, and not the Ishtar? In lowsec (tm) Also stuff being nerfed (not in lowsec).

Idame Isqua Vipres' Templis CALSF 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 22:38:56 - [151] - Quote Caviar Liberta wrote: Sibius Aidon wrote: This isn't a balance, it's a nerf. Stop nerfing, and start adding! Yeah, T3's can be quite a tank, but hey, as far as I am concerned they aren't unbeatable, they just take some teamwork. . This. I pulse overloaded my MWD 300-400km with a tech 3 shield BC to get in on a big fight against 2 Strat cruisers to end up with the finishing blows. They aren't unbreakable. You just need to be able to catch them and burn through them. Our weekend fleet was dunking everyone! But then we ran into a carrier assisted gate camp with a AB fit Tengu Our entire fleet couldn't kill the Tengu and many of us died including me This fleet had just dunked a huge cruiser fleet and huge t3 dessie fleet without much difficulty But no carrier assisted Tengu (with some inties) kills our fleet https://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=27676902 Update is named after our CEO Next day CCP nerfs all of that Illmanatees confirmed!
Krell Kroenen The Devil's Shadow 237	Posted - 2015.03.01 00:11:41 - [152] - Quote Dev Blog wrote: ThatGÇÖs what I have for you for now. Even though there is so much more to do (hello bombers, supers, ECM and missiles!), we believe ship and module balance in EVE is in one of the best positions weGÇÖve seen in a long time.. I would be careful not to break your arm patting yourself on the back there. Looking at Cribba's Eve Offline website and it's data , comparing the avg online player count of 48k of 2013 to the 41k of 2014 might imply not everything is as rosey as it once was. And if you look at the start of 2015 we have an avg of 27k compared to the same period of time as last year of 33k. Not very positive metrics over all. I am sure many people will point to many different reasons as to why this is the case. But could it be that Eveonline was more fun on the whole before it became Cruiser/Frigate online? Shrugs P.S. This is not an Eve is dying post, this is my post stating my disagreement that BB's and BC's are in an "Okay" place, among other things.
Thoirdhealbhach Liga der hessischen Gentlemen 13	Posted - 2015.03.01 00:11:56 - [153] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Quote: Just to highlight that Eve is the only game I have ever played where inconveniencing the end user/player is a valid balancing decision Twisted It's pretty inconvenient for me to have to run back to lane in League, or wait for units to finish in Starcraft, or not see through walls in Counterstrike, yet for some reason the developers insist on not changing it. I somewhat disagree, because I think this comparison is not a very good fit. If you talk about production time in an RTS: while a unit is build, there is typically tons of other nice stuff to do, like commanding the units you already built. Same with walls in counterstrike: you can still DO stuff with the walls in place: you can throw a grenade and make it bounce around a corner, you can sneak and hide, etc... With warp speed in EVE there are several fundamental differences: Time spent in warp is often just dead waiting time. Except for D-scan there is very little you can do, almost nothing you can actively influence, while in warp. Most of the time it's too short to do trading or some other non-ship related thing and in a big ship, it's too long, to pass by unnoticed. This is bad thing. Waiting time acts as a deterrent for all PvP related activities. The expectation of exciting combat has to outweigh the dead, inactive, passive travelling time in order to make someone undock, who wants to roam... In a gaming environment in general, all preperation time, i.e. the time you need in order to get to the fun part, should ALWAYS be considered a serious drawback. In fact all people, that I introduced to EVE and that did not follow through, quit because it takes just too long to get to the places where you can do stuff. Battleships and battlecruisers don't contribute to the economy/logistics chain, therefore making them faster won't impact the flow of trade goods. One last heretic idea: why not give each and every ship type a fuel bay and a warp speed selector (like standard/faster/turbo or 1-10 etc.) on the lowest setting, the ship travels just as it does now, but it doesn't consume fuel either. On the higher settings, warp speed increases and fuel is consumed proportional to the total mass (including fitting and cargo) of the ship; potentially also proportionally to the distance to be warped, but that's not absolutely necessary. With just an additional bay (which is already a property that ships can have), a button similar to the legality-safety-switch, and possibly a blueprint for new item (but hey there is already Rocket-Fuel...), you could make a lot of people very happy and add another ISK sink at the same time... Plus there could emerge some extra complexity, when turbocharged ships would actually travel faster and/or cheaper on routes with more jumps but shorter in-system distances.
Glathull Warlock Assassins 970	Posted - 2015.03.01 02:09:10 - [154] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: are these 'anti-nerf' people actually serious? is it even possible to be that dumb? Oh it is possible. Every release we have people on here filling page after page of sperg-lord crap-baked ideas about how to run a game or a technology company or whatever. Everyone is an expert on how to make everything better by making everything stronger except for that one special snowflake that they like to fly that turns out to be the daily driver for everyone because that's basically the definition of OP but that special flake has to always be at least a metric f*-ton better than anything else. Like this thread. Medium rails were absolute garbage from 2007-2013 or so. They spent some time in the lime light. They got their day. Now it seems to have been a bit too much. Okay. What's the big effing deal? During that same time Caldari were awesome for PVE and if you do a search for caldari pvp before 2013 or so, pretty much the only thing you will find is people saying don't fing do that. Things change. Deal with it. The only thing that would *** me off is if you were limited to skills based on race or roll as you are in many RPGs. If I literally couldn't train missiles or blasters after rails got nerfed, okay. I would be pissed if that were the case. But guess what! That's not the case!! I can train any weapons system I want. Holy sh!tsnacks! All the gripes and arguments just lost any possible validity. Look, the alternative to nerf is an ever-increasing anti-spiral of doom. Why are things getting nerfed? Because that's the only approach to balance that makes even a modest level of sense. Buff everything to match the current king of the hill is an exercise in either stupidity or madness. Although from the typical comments, I'm not sure that one or the other of those descriptors doesn't apply. I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon Shut up, Anslo. --everyone
Milla Goodpussy Federal Navy Academy 166	Posted - 2015.03.01 03:05:50 - [155] - Quote countdown till they nerf all the weapons.. since they nerfed rails.. next year they'll nerf jumping cause its over-powered. then he'll figure out how to nerf industry... oh wait! then the next cycle since everyone is going to be terrified of flying the bandwagon ships.. we'll all be AFK cloaking up a storm left and right.........since that's the only worth while active gameplay. absolutely brilliant!.. Carrier Pilots.... say bye bye.. to fighter assist.. say hello to well.. looking pretty in super cap and doing nothing with it.. his blog made me want to stab my eyes, pull them out, and then fry them for a nerf-burger.
ergherhdfgh Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 389	Posted - 2015.03.01 03:06:18 - [156] - Quote I'm not sure why you guys feel a need to nerf a ship just because people like it. So you start off by saying that looking at the numbers the ships seem as well balanced as they have ever been but you are going to nerf the ishtar because too many people fly it. That just seems dumb and counter intuitive. It's like saying to your customers "oh I see you like this thing so I'm going to make it suck so that you don't want it any more". I just don't see how that makes sense anywhere. Then you go on to say that medium long range weapons are very well balanced right now and the caldari have a couple of ships that are too good so our answer is to nerf rails even though they don't seem over powered. That also seems really dumb especially considering that 2 of the 4 main races use rails as opposed to projectiles and lazors only having 1 each essentially meaning that rails potentially have twice as many ships that they can appear on which means they should see twice the use of all other weapon systems. I really don't understand where you guys are taking this game and with every release I loose more and more faith in you. Judging by the numbers of players I see logged in, I'm not the only one.
ergherhdfgh Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 389	Posted - 2015.03.01 03:31:53 - [157] - Quote So you guys give lip service to risk versus reward and pilots needing to be involved. You want to nerf fighter assist because fighter pilots can sit near a PoS bubble and have very little risk but that is very little risk if the pilot is actually at his computer. If he goes afk his carrier would die sitting outside a PoS bubble like that. On the other hand you have cloaky afk campers. A player can log on in a red system and cloak up and go to work and be sitting 40 miles away from his gaming rig that he's logged into and be in his office doing his job. Mean while the players that live in that system have to stop doing anything in that system or completely change they way they do stuff. Do to the fact that there is no limit to how many people he can hot drop on you in a matter of less than 3 seconds there is literally no way that you can defend against this. The camper can wait and pick and choose when and who he wants to engage and the owners of the system have to assume he could do this at any time even if the actual person behind the toon is out at the bar with his buddies for the evening. Cloaky campers have a huge effect on their opponents even if they are not "playing the game" with literally no risk what so ever. This is so much worse than a carrier pilot that at least needs to be at his computer. To make it worse the fix to this is very simple just add a inactivity log off timer to the game like other MMOs have but you either can't think of that or refuse to do it. I just wonder if you guys think before you post sometimes.
ergherhdfgh Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 389	Posted - 2015.03.01 03:48:44 - [158] - Quote As far as the ECM thing most of the vocal PvPers seem to be hyper action oriented and just want to slug stuff out and see who can hit the hardest. Anything that brings any strategic element to the game or forces them to fit for anything but max dps and max speed pisses them off. To me it seems like Ewar is not unbalanced you just have PvPers that don't want to fit anything other than: scrams, webs, damage mods and tracking mods. Maybe a little tank but that's it. Heaven help us if they have to fit a mod to increase sensor strength in case they come up against some Ewar. I mean they seem fine with tracking disruptor since they are fitting the tracking mods anyway. They also seem fine with neuts as they don't want to fit mods to increase cap regen anyway. They'd be using cap boosters regardless so neuts don't force them to make many decisions on fit. I know I don't PvP and don't understand why people do it but it seems to me that the ECM thing is not a balance issue as much as it is PvPers being hyper action oriented and not liking defense at all. They just want to shoot people in the face and get head shots. But again this is coming from a non-PvPer.
Milla Goodpussy Federal Navy Academy 168	Posted - 2015.03.01 05:14:49 - [159] - Quote just wait till ccp rise & fozzie decides to nerf catalyst and well here's the flow of the dev blog (please excuse me ccp rise but im going to copy from you.. cause well dude.. you're sooooooo pro!) Catalayst Problem : it kills too many ships and doesn't cost money, its one of the leading gank ships in the game Proposal : we've decided to change its role into a .........covert electronic attack logistic strategic destroyer! why? : cause pretty charts and pie graphs said so.. now community please provide feedback and we take this serious ok! o7 THIS! is Eve Online.. going where batchit crazy has never ever gone before!! Resistance if futile will be NERFED!!!!!
tasman devil HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded 42	Posted - 2015.03.01 05:34:44 - [160] - Quote Try harder next time! Instead of removing the assist altogether, why not just ALLOW IT ONLY TO BC AND UP??? That would have been a simple and elegant solution, currently this relegates most pilots to reconsider the need for a capital ship. edit: also instead of removing the fighter warp function, why not have a checkbox, where the player can chose whether or not he wants the drones to pursue the target (as far as I can remember, we already HAVE this checkbox, have we not?) I don't belive in reincarnation I've never believed in it in my previous lives either...

tasman devil HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded 42	Posted - 2015.03.01 06:05:44 - [161] - Quote Oreb Wing wrote: Oreb Wing wrote: Now remove a high slot from the Guardian and we can fight those t3 blobs. ...and Basi only Basi and Oneiros, Guardians cannot fit **** all the crappy tech 1 modules which on a tech two ship is more than lame! I don't belive in reincarnation I've never believed in it in my previous lives either...
Angela Channing Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 14:37:16 - [162] - Quote As for nerfs: while you are nerfing Ishtars (hooray) and Tengus (yay) and Skynet (that really got out of hand), I am not sure Proteuses and Legions need nerfs, but I don't really care. However, what also needs nerfing is T3 destroyers and links. Properly fitted, T3 destroyers make entire ship classes redundant (frigs [except those fit in novice complexes in FW space], destroyers, and ass frigs) and can virtually not be beaten by a T1 (non-pirate) cruiser except perhaps a Vexor. If the only thing that beats a T3 destroyer is another T3 destroyer, there is something wrong in my opinion. Just like for the Ishtar, no ship should be a panacea against such a large number of ships. To give you an indication, look at the ships that solo kill T3 destroyers and infer (or look up the data to which we have no access) which ones do not get killed in solo fights. For example, I have distilled six rules of thumb to get your Confessor killed in a solo fight. 1. Fit an MWD instead of a 10mn ab 2. Fit a long point instead of a scram 3. Fit beam lasers (perhaps in combination with 2) 4. Fit no cap booster 5. Fit the low slots for yolo instead of tank 6. Engage a Svipul By induction, Confessors that do not make one of these fitting "mistakes" seem unusually unlikely to get killed by anything but a Svipul in solo fights. There are of course exceptions like insta blaps, but these seem to confirm the rule rather than give evidence of balance. Similarly, the bonuses of links are so large that they skew fights dramatically. Now you could say "get links yourself." But all they do in that case is restore competitive parity, which means they are redundant. But if one side has them and the other does not, then they simply create too large an imbalance that is too difficult to overcome with skill. Essentially then, links are fundamentally at odds with the goal of balance.
Uppsy Daisy Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 637	Posted - 2015.03.01 14:48:30 - [163] - Quote https://zkillboard.com/kill/44946821/ 10MN AB - check Scram - check Pulse lasers - check Cap booster - check Tank in low slots - check Not against a svipul - check Took about 30 second to find. Fail.
Angela Channing Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 14:57:27 - [164] - Quote Uppsy Daisy wrote: https://zkillboard.com/kill/44946821/ 10MN AB - check Scram - check Pulse lasers - check Cap booster - check Tank in low slots - check Not against a svipul - check Took about 30 second to find. Fail. Congratulations, you found what I called an "exception."
Senjiu Kanuba Precision Strike Brigade Easily Excited 3	Posted - 2015.03.01 15:07:08 - [165] - Quote How about changing the way the POS bubbles work? Right now a ship within a bubble cannot target anything and cannot be targeted. My proposal is that the edge of the bubble becomes wider, say, 5km wide. That would create three areas of space around a POS. Current situation: Area inside: You cannot target and cannot be targeted, you cannot combat boost and you cannot assist your fighters to someone. Area outside: You can target anything within range, you can be targeted, you can combat boost, you can assist your fighters to someone. Suggested situation: Area inside: Same as before Area "at the edge" (5km wide, or 3km or whatever): You cannot target anything you can be targeted, you cannot combat boost, you cannot assist your fighters to someone. Area outside: Same as before. This would expose capital ships that are in space to the risk that comes with it, because to become safe they'd have to travel 5km to the inside. It would also adress the problem (if there is one) of carriers repping a POS with virtually no risk at the edge of a bubble. About titans bridging: I would say that ships that don't have the POS password can enter the 5km area where they receive all the bad attirbutes of the bubble but not the safety that it provides. The password allows you within the inner area, you don't need it for the edge area. So ships waiting to be bridged sit at the POS in the vulnerable area while the titan sits in the invulnerable area. If someone appears and wants to fight the subcaps they will have to leave the edge area to fight back but moving 5km isn't that much of a problem, since the enemy can't web the whole fleet (and if they can, well, you're probably doomed either way). Disclaimer: I did not consider what that changes for nullsec, since I never lived there but I assume it would work the way it's supposed to. My experience is entirely from lowsec, is what I'm saying.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 789	Posted - 2015.03.01 15:23:30 - [166] - Quote Uppsy Daisy wrote: https://zkillboard.com/kill/44946821/ 10MN AB - check Scram - check Pulse lasers - check Cap booster - check Tank in low slots - check Not against a svipul - check Took about 30 second to find. Fail. LOL at the damage to kill it though XoD
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1026	Posted - 2015.03.01 15:32:51 - [167] - Quote Senjiu Kanuba wrote: How about changing the way the POS bubbles work? Right now a ship within a bubble cannot target anything and cannot be targeted. My proposal is that the edge of the bubble becomes wider, say, 5km wide. That would create three areas of space around a POS. Current situation: Area inside: You cannot target and cannot be targeted, you cannot combat boost and you cannot assist your fighters to someone. Area outside: You can target anything within range, you can be targeted, you can combat boost, you can assist your fighters to someone. Suggested situation: Area inside: Same as before Area "at the edge" (5km wide, or 3km or whatever): You cannot target anything you can be targeted, you cannot combat boost, you cannot assist your fighters to someone. Area outside: Same as before. This would expose capital ships that are in space to the risk that comes with it, because to become safe they'd have to travel 5km to the inside. It would also adress the problem (if there is one) of carriers repping a POS with virtually no risk at the edge of a bubble. About titans bridging: I would say that ships that don't have the POS password can enter the 5km area where they receive all the bad attirbutes of the bubble but not the safety that it provides. The password allows you within the inner area, you don't need it for the edge area. So ships waiting to be bridged sit at the POS in the vulnerable area while the titan sits in the invulnerable area. If someone appears and wants to fight the subcaps they will have to leave the edge area to fight back but moving 5km isn't that much of a problem, since the enemy can't web the whole fleet (and if they can, well, you're probably doomed either way). Disclaimer: I did not consider what that changes for nullsec, since I never lived there but I assume it would work the way it's supposed to. My experience is entirely from lowsec, is what I'm saying. you can still assign fighters and be immune to pvp, just be somewhere and align to a pos/station. there's no point trying to salvage this mechanic, it adds nothing good to the game. also a pos can have a load of stuff on it, and carriers are difficult/impossible to kill with very small gangs anyway. things would still be enormously skewed in favour of the risk averse link bads/capital bads.
Cardano Firesnake Section XIII Tau Ceti Federation 171	Posted - 2015.03.01 16:25:37 - [168] - Quote I think the way you analyze things is the problem. For example you are nerfing Rail guns because they are making more DPS over time. The reason is that there is more Tengu Fleet than other fleets as the heavy missiles when their were Drakes everywhere. Just look at caracteristics of modules objectively with all 5 skills and best modules, then with the lowest skills, how they apply on best speed/signature average speed/signature lowest speed/signature. I don't think it is so hard. BS and BC need better Range, slightly better firepower and better tank because they will not be able to run. Mobility is the biggest power on the battlefield, if you can't run or catch your enemy you'd better be very strong. BS and BC and Capitals should be the kings on large scale engagements. Cruisers should be there to support the biggest ships not taking their place. Cruisers should be the basic fleet for incursions, harrassments, and scouting. BS/BC/Capitals should be the conquest fleet. Posted - 2010.07.01 11:24:00 - [4] Erase learning skills, remap all SP. That's all.
ctx1769 Wychwood and Wells Beer needs you 9	Posted - 2015.03.01 19:55:17 - [169] - Quote the tengu won't be worth flying soon
Esceem Suns of New Eden 12	Posted - 2015.03.01 21:33:13 - [170] - Quote If this balancing thingie would finally come to an end I would be so happy... sigh

Adaahh Gee Black Serpent Technologies Black Legion. 153	Posted - 2015.03.01 22:04:30 - [171] - Quote For the T3 Balancing, is there any chance of an active rep SubSys for the Loki? (Armor/Shield or both). Also, I was always under the understanding that T3's are very special ships, battleship DPS and tank in a cruiser size package, very skill intensive, expensive to purchase and fit well, also the only ship class to have a penalty if lost in combat. surely they should be capable, powerful and dangerous? if they get nerfed to any silly degree, they will just be replaced by HAC fleets etc. The problem currently (which cannot easily be solved) is you have good retention of players, these players have a high average skill set, therefore, more people in any given group are able to fly T3's well. If you could get more newer players onboard, the average skill set of any given group would be dragged down. Either that or carry on dumbing down, all the older players will leave and you can just let the new guys fight in Rifters and Merlins.
Circumstantial Evidence 170	Posted - 2015.03.01 22:48:12 - [172] - Quote Carrier fighters / "Skynet" I wonder how much of the increase in this tactic, is due to the buff some time back, permitting drone mods on carriers to affect fighters? If carrier fighters went back to being much less effective at hitting something smaller than a battleship, the 'skynet' tactic might drop away. (Players who farm combat anoms in carriers wouldn't be happy.) Fighter assist and attack-and-follow, are part of the unique ability and history of carriers and fighters, I wouldn't want to see those abilities removed entirely.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 22:52:05 - [173] - Quote CCP Rise, please look into the Legion's sub-systems and the number of Lowslots they provide. As it stands currently, the Amarr T3 Cruiser in ANY configuration can not go over 6 Low slots, while the Proteus can. Proteus' 3 Navigational sub-systems have (-1 Mid, +1 Low) configurations, while the Legion's don't. Please
Hanibal Khan Rothschild Blades Of Athena Bad Intention 0	Posted - 2015.03.02 05:15:50 - [174] - Quote Hello CCP Rise, I would like to express my opinion on the upcoming changes. First, I agree the Ishtar is heavily favored and used too often. I think you're rebalance concerning the Ishtar is spot on and will significantly improve PVP. I'm not such a fan of the changes made to the Proteus. The fact players lose training when the lose a T3 is punishment enough for flying them. The train into one is significant and as such should be rewarded. I love the effective hit points my Proteus has and would appreciate if you left it as is. In my opinion the Tengu is overpowered and should be considered for rebalance, which brings me to rail guns. Rails are under powered not over powered. Missiles are dominate in EVE right now. Rails do not provide the DPS, or the range and the tracking is a problem, which missiles do not have. In case you haven't noticed the Caldari race is like playing EVE on easy and is probably the first place you should look for a rebalance. Please reconsider your proposed changes. Thank you
Mr Spaxi meatshield bastards The Bastards. 27	Posted - 2015.03.02 07:50:24 - [175] - Quote Milla Goodpussy wrote: just wait till ccp rise & fozzie decides to nerf catalyst and well here's the flow of the dev blog (please excuse me ccp rise but im going to copy from you.. cause well dude.. you're sooooooo pro!) Catalayst Problem : it kills too many ships and doesn't cost money, its one of the leading gank ships in the game Proposal : we've decided to change its role into a .........covert electronic attack logistic strategic destroyer! why? : cause pretty charts and pie graphs said so.. now community please provide feedback and we take this serious ok! o7 THIS! is Eve Online.. going where batchit crazy has never ever gone before!! Resistance if futile will be NERFED!!!!! Your parents really need to stop paying for your subscription. Blog Youtube The Bastards are recruiting! Check us out @ www.the-bastards.net or join our channel @ DBastards. Fly hard!
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 792	Posted - 2015.03.02 11:25:19 - [176] - Quote Hanibal Khan Rothschild wrote: Rails are under powered not over powered. Missiles are dominate in EVE right now. Rails do not provide the DPS, or the range and the tracking is a problem, which missiles do not have. In case you haven't noticed the Caldari race is like playing EVE on easy and is probably the first place you should look for a rebalance. Sorry, what? Maybe in PvE...
Jacus Noir Phoenix Productions Headshot Gaming 0	Posted - 2015.03.02 11:26:32 - [177] - Quote Warp changes are incredibly annoying for battleships. The only real viability you see in them is close to staging areas unless they are T2/faction BSes in which they pose a greater movement speed. In all honesty I love the strategy in warp changes, its awesome to see a cruiser warp away, you chase after it in a ceptor, and land waiting for it to exit warp. However, I think the warp changes were a tad bit extreme. Consider the difference between a T1 Frig and T1 BS. The frig aligns quickly, accelerates quickly, and decelerates quickly. A battleship aligns slow, accelerates slow, and decelerates slow. In all honesty, the frig is going to beat the BS on align time alone. Assuming the two are aligned perfect already, the frig still lands on the opposite side before the BS. You guys have put so much emphasis on acceleration and deceleration that its pretty painful. I do not mind warping slowly and a frigate beating me to the other side, I DO mind have to see the grid and wait forever for my ship to stop in order to do anything. We are talking about a form of propulsion that is faster than light. In my opinion ALL ships should go into and exit warp damn near instantly. Acceleration and deceleration shouldnt even be factors in a warp. The only reason this didnt work before was because so much time is spent accelerating or decelerating that the ship's warp is pretty much split evenly 3 ways in an average warp. Accelerate, Cruise, and Decelerate. If all ships entered their max warp speed as soon as they go into warp and exited warp instantly, their warp would then be defined as their cruising (aka max warp speed) which is as it should be. In this manner a BS aligns slow, enters max warp instantly, exits max warp instantly, but is warping at 2 AU/sec. The frig likewise is aligning fast, enters warp instantly, but is warping at 5 AU/sec, and exits warp instantly. Essentially you take out the wait time between subwarp and max warp or rather effectively reduce it to 1% of the total warp curve and thus 99% of the warp is based on the true max warp speed of the ship. Does the frig and BS have the same speed going into and leaving warp? Yes, but considering that time is a second or less, it plays such an insignificant part of the warp curve that align time and max warp is the true warp. Thus the BS and Frig may hit max warp at the same rate (1 second or less) but the frig will still overtake the BS in warp and land on the other side before it arrives. Only the Battleship pilot is given the illusion that he is going the same speed as the frig because of the lack of acceleration and deceleration times when in reality the speed differential remains the same as it is currently.
IlIIlIIIlllIlIllIIIIll Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 8	Posted - 2015.03.02 13:02:58 - [178] - Quote Damn that is really dumb. You should start playing your game before patching it...
Mr Floydy Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 269	Posted - 2015.03.02 14:04:46 - [179] - Quote Sounds good to me for a first pass. Keep itterating changes like this and the game will be in a good place. I'd much rather see people get upset as their new favourite ship gets brought down in power a bit - compared to years of Drakes online that we had at the start of the decade! I do feel it is the tracking of the Sentry Ishtars that is the major issue rather than the outright damage. I'm glad T3s aren't getting a huge nerf straight out, much better to let a complex ship class bed in with the changes and if further power reductions are required do so.
Mr Spaxi meatshield bastards The Bastards. 27	Posted - 2015.03.02 16:01:47 - [180] - Quote Jacus Noir wrote: Warp changes are incredibly annoying for battleships. The only real viability you see in them is close to staging areas unless they are T2/faction BSes in which they pose a greater movement speed. In all honesty I love the strategy in warp changes, its awesome to see a cruiser warp away, you chase after it in a ceptor, and land waiting for it to exit warp. However, I think the warp changes were a tad bit extreme. Consider the difference between a T1 Frig and T1 BS. The frig aligns quickly, accelerates quickly, and decelerates quickly. A battleship aligns slow, accelerates slow, and decelerates slow. In all honesty, the frig is going to beat the BS on align time alone. Assuming the two are aligned perfect already, the frig still lands on the opposite side before the BS. You guys have put so much emphasis on acceleration and deceleration that its pretty painful. I do not mind warping slowly and a frigate beating me to the other side, I DO mind have to see the grid and wait forever for my ship to stop in order to do anything. We are talking about a form of propulsion that is faster than light. In my opinion ALL ships should go into and exit warp damn near instantly. Acceleration and deceleration shouldnt even be factors in a warp. The only reason this didnt work before was because so much time is spent accelerating or decelerating that the ship's warp is pretty much split evenly 3 ways in an average warp. Accelerate, Cruise, and Decelerate. If all ships entered their max warp speed as soon as they go into warp and exited warp instantly, their warp would then be defined as their cruising (aka max warp speed) which is as it should be. In this manner a BS aligns slow, enters max warp instantly, exits max warp instantly, but is warping at 2 AU/sec. The frig likewise is aligning fast, enters warp instantly, but is warping at 5 AU/sec, and exits warp instantly. Essentially you take out the wait time between subwarp and max warp or rather effectively reduce it to 1% of the total warp curve and thus 99% of the warp is based on the true max warp speed of the ship. Does the frig and BS have the same speed going into and leaving warp? Yes, but considering that time is a second or less, it plays such an insignificant part of the warp curve that align time and max warp is the true warp. Thus the BS and Frig may hit max warp at the same rate (1 second or less) but the frig will still overtake the BS in warp and land on the other side before it arrives. Only the Battleship pilot is given the illusion that he is going the same speed as the frig because of the lack of acceleration and deceleration times when in reality the speed differential remains the same as it is currently. I like this, but maybe make the warp difference harder - frigates warp even faster, and battleships warp slow. After all, they are designed as immobile platforms and as such they're best used for defense. Anyone with some more understanding of the game (compared to me) thinks that wouldn't work? I'm talking about the quoted suggestion. Blog Youtube The Bastards are recruiting! Check us out @ www.the-bastards.net or join our channel @ DBastards. Fly hard!

Slider POL Babylon Technologies The Methodical Alliance 0	Posted - 2015.03.02 16:12:18 - [181] - Quote STOP breaking this game... Instead of implementing new mechanics better fix other bugs. Removing asssist option will make the carrier even more useless! The only thing in my opinion you could change is to turn off "the follow target" option so that the fighters will stop chasing the locked ship through the whole system. Better focus on cloaky campers that are killing all the fun in this game... Like 30min of non activity (keyboard, mouse) and dc from server. It could also be varied by different cloak modules: like tech I - 10min, tech II - 20min, covertops - 30min.
Styphon the Black Forced Euthanasia Soviet-Union 7	Posted - 2015.03.02 16:54:42 - [182] - Quote In regard to medium rail guns instead of nerfing a weapon and reducing its abilities. How about asking why people aren't using the other weapons? i.e., missiles aren't as viable for pvp vs other weapons because of delayed damage vs. instant damage etc....
Bo Bojangles Interstellar Renegades Advent of Fate 38	Posted - 2015.03.02 19:25:50 - [183] - Quote CCP Rise, Your graph showing pvp damage appears to include damage done by structure bashing. If this is the case, your conclusions are flawed. Structure bashing is not 'fun'. Please include damage done only to other ships and compare again. Even before BS warp speeds were reduced by a third, they were rarely seen on a proper roam. Now, other then the occasional Machariel, they are never seen aside from a specialized op or pve activities. Even for home system defense vs. roams they are not used. Even at the lowsec to nullsec bubble camps, an activity that typically never see those ships ever leave the system, they are not used. BS's are too easily avoided, and too easily caught. When have you joined a roam, undocked a BS, and NOT been asked to change your ship? As a player, this issue is painfully obvious. In the very least you could improve the comical 'accelerate to warp' & 'decelerate to out of warp' speed. This process alone is so slow as to give any enemies ample time to burn out of web, point, and neut range of any BS arriving on the scene. Thank you.
Loken Grimsward Easy Co. Fatal Ascension 3	Posted - 2015.03.02 21:32:58 - [184] - Quote Where the **** is the Sov changes Dev blog numbnuts
VIP HOLDER Therapy. KIA Alliance 0	Posted - 2015.03.02 21:34:57 - [185] - Quote Hey Rise, So some of these changes seem awesome and I would just like to leave some food for thought. Tengu/Rails - The problem with rails is that its optimal range with the tengu subsystems are to great. For example is one of the only t3 that can fit a decent tank with low sig included and throw damage out so far. The loki and even the legion don't come close to the range with damage and tank. Prot lacks the damage. Ishtar- I kind of think the ishtar needs to be treated like the gila. The Gila role kind of goes straight for medium drones, I believe that the ishtar bonus should go directly to small/medium/large drones. Leave the sentry out of the bonus completely. The other think i was thinking was either the drone bay shrinks or bandwidth goes down. Other than that I am looking forward to SOV change updates. Thank you
flapie 2 Planetary Traders Union 15	Posted - 2015.03.02 22:10:58 - [186] - Quote Quote: Note: Shout-out here to CSM member mynnna for a great internal discussion on this topic. He raised the point that if you look at these weapon systems on their own, rather than comparing the ships using them, they look very balanced. It would follow then that the problem is more about Tengu, Eagle and Vulture than about rails. So lets down the effective DPS of rails with 7% so not only the PvPers get a slap in the face but also the PvEers. :facedesk: On the other hand im getting a extra 150 armor points for my PvE proteus \o/ thanks for that, though im not quite sure about the reasoning behind it. I also agree that sky-netting is a bit daft at best, but like many before me have mentioned in great concern, making them be more exposed (like actually on-grid !!!!!) would be a far better solution then just removing a feature because people are creative with its intended purpose. But hey what do i know i sold my Carrier after coming back from my forced brake and read about Jump drive changes, Capital are no longer a ship type i aspire to train for/use (i agree with those changes though, things were getting out of hand for some time already, i just cant be bother with the risk/hassle unless i at some point get back into 0.0 again witch i dont see happening any time soon either).
h4kun4 Heeresversuchsanstalt The Bastion 20	Posted - 2015.03.03 01:53:10 - [187] - Quote Hi CCP and Rise, that one was probably already proposed, but i didn't want to read all the 10 pages. Keep the fighter assist mechanic like it is and add the range mechanic from the cynos - basically: no launching fighters within 25km off the forcefield so you have to stay either at a station (where you can't dock when using them in pvp) or on a save where you can be scanned down by a prober. If you take the safe way (cloaking up/docking up) the fighters will become useless and you dont have any possibility to recollect them without scanning them down later/doing a boomark at their location...so risk vs. reward i'd say. Risk: Losing hundreds of millions in fighters/losing the carrier Reward: better ticks in nullsec/more kills in pvp/whatever else
Aineko Macx 331	Posted - 2015.03.03 09:34:38 - [188] - Quote Tbh I have no idea how those BC damage stats came to be, I rarely see BCs at all. I'd say what they currently offer is not competitive. Also since you took care of power projection, can you please start to undo the nerfs to titans and supers which were originally done in the name of curtailing power projection? iveeCrest: A PHP library for CREST \|\| iveeCore: The PHP library for industrial activities
dongoble Teh Hive Collective Carebear News Network 0	Posted - 2015.03.03 10:26:31 - [189] - Quote Why are teh SKYNET changes coming now as opposed to earlier or not at all? I'd like to see T2 BPOs ended but that ****'s still here too ... just kinda seems rediculous to cut the legs off of assist.... Why not make it require a minimum distance from a station / pos, so they cant just magic save themselves... come on... enough with the capital nerf bat already
Jhaelee de'Auvrie Underworld Protection Agency Fatal Ascension 21	Posted - 2015.03.04 13:26:08 - [190] - Quote The idea of changing things so PvP does not continue to be dominated by a few ship types/fittings is a good thing. That said, I think some of the changes are in the wrong direction. Firstly, Sentry drones are the core of a lot of the problems and the rise of the current methods of fighting. They need to have some work done across the board, not just to one flavor. The Bouncer sentry drone is not the problem, nor is it better than the others. The primary reason it is favored so heavily right now is the overwhelming presents of Caldari and Gallente ship hulls being fielded (primarily the Ishtar really). With the two races having higher Kinetic resistances, that leaves EM and Thermal for remaining long range damage types to be used. The Bouncer can reach out farther than the higher rate of fire Curator. That is all it is. Not some kind of Bouncer superiority, recent fleets I have been part of which have fielded Sentry drones have actually been carrying flights of both. The balance between the four types of Sentry drones (when compared to each other) is actually in a pretty good place. Rather than trying to solve a symptom of the problem, look at the issue as a whole. One flavor of sentry drone is not overwhelming all other PvP options, they all are. They have good tracking, range, and damage output and do not require any kind of special fitting or odd setups. Simply use the hulls with the bandwidth and maybe even related bonuses. The downside of the sentry drones being able to be destroyed is often negated by quick GÇÿscoopingGÇÖ and redeploying them or by having 10,000 more in the bloated carrier bay. Often, even skilled bombing runs have trouble effectively forcing this downside to be an issue. Moving on, the Ishtar. Personally, I think CCP needs to bite the GÇÿout-cryGÇÖ bullet and drop the Ishtar to below 125. None of the other HACs can match their battleship counterparts damage output potential without severely compromising their fits. The Ishtar just has it built in, Dominix/Armaggedon bandwidth with Dominix-like bonuses. Simple fix, switch the IshtarGÇÖs bonuses over to GÇÿall dronesGÇÖ and give it 100mb bandwidth. That leaves the Eos as the only 125mb bandwidth ship below battleship weight/vulnerabilitytobombing. Oh yeah, the Vexor Navy Issue should not have 125 either; drop it down to 100 at most. Same reason as the Ishtar needing to have less, it should not have Battleship damage output with no downside. If we look at a normal cruiser as having 4-5 turrets (not counting ship/skill bonuses), Navy versions tending to get a effective 25% bonus to that, bring them up to effectively 6-7 turrets. Overall, very good and able to out damage their non-faction counterparts. The VexorGÇÖs 75mb compared to the VNIGÇÖs 125mb is an increase of 66%, making it an already higher end of T1 Cruiser in to an effective 7-9 turret cruiser . . . that could still fit three more unbonused turrets. See the issue here? So, the Medium Railgun changes are one of the things I am in favor of. Right now Hybrid weapons are king. Look at the supremacy of the Rail-Harpy, Rail-Eagle, and Rail-Tengu (despite the submod being subpar). Instead of just singling out the Medium sized railguns, look at all three of the normal sizes (small/medium/large). If/when battleships become viable again it will just turn back into Megathron 23/7 if the large railguns remain as good as they are right now. The carrier/fighter changes I am torn on. While I am all for eliminating riskless advantage, I think an over all revamp of fighters needs to be done instead of a wedged-in change. With the fighters no longer being as versatile in their usage, they are no longer going to be worth their mineral cost to build. They barely are right now when compared to the vastly superior and cheaper sentry drone (which more of can be carried). If the fighter drones are intended to just be XL sized drones (or XL+ for the bombers) drop their cost down to be in scale with their damage. Drop their bandwidth and size/volume as well. That will also cleanly solve the problem of near infinite non-fighter drones being fielded by carriers. If the Fighters are only 50m3-100m3, the carrier drone bay can be scaled down to reflect that and thus the carrier can no longer hold hundreds of drones. Finally the T3s. I do not know what to really say on this except wait. There are a wide number of changes being made, most of which are reactions to very specific issues. Assuming all the other changes go through as written originally, see if the medium railgun rebalance fixes the dominance of the Rail Tengu. Part of the idea of the more rapid development cycle is to be able to make slow improvements, why not do that. Make an adjustment, see how things go, make another adjustment. Sorry for the wall of text, but a lot of things are being purposed and most of them raise some concerns.

Wolfensrevenge Black Aces Against ALL Authorities 2	Posted - 2015.03.04 16:22:03 - [191] - Quote This needs to be said so im saying it here... maybe Someone will pass it along and spam it like a bad Chuck Norris joke... Ishtar's need fixed we all agree but its not the bonuses that are the problem we all know this... The problem is that they can kite away from their deployed sentry's its a broken game mechanic that needs addressed in eve as a whole. My personal opinion is that these sentry's should have a range 10-20km to be from the controlling ship to prevent kiting in a 750 DPS ship when no other kite cruiser fit can do over 500 dps. If you want to have that damage you need to be stationary while doing it to give it a vulnerability.... problem solved sentry's were never intended to be deployed and ran away from but the current CCP mechanic controls all drones with "control range". Im not sure they know how to fix this. Just my thoughts maybe somone else agrees this would be better than just playing with some bounus numbers. all that will do is make ishtar fleets need more members to get the same dps. Fix the problem not the ship. Its the Kite problem not only the DPS problem. P.S I flew an ishtar before it was cool.
Steve Atreides Phoenix Interstellar Enterprises 2	Posted - 2015.03.04 19:05:26 - [192] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: are these 'anti-nerf' people actually serious? is it even possible to be that dumb? For those of us that are quite dumb and have bothered to strinmg together more than a sentence to air their views maybe you'd like to prove your obvious superior intelligence and justify what you say....at the moment you havent said anything of substance.
Wolfensrevenge Black Aces Against ALL Authorities 2	Posted - 2015.03.04 21:12:40 - [193] - Quote Steve Atreides wrote: TrouserDeagle wrote: are these 'anti-nerf' people actually serious? is it even possible to be that dumb? For those of us that are quite dumb and have bothered to strinmg together more than a sentence to air their views maybe you'd like to prove your obvious superior intelligence and justify what you say....at the moment you havent said anything of substance. I don't think anyone here is anti nerf we all just know that the ship bonuses are not the problem...
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 1998	Posted - 2015.03.05 14:30:53 - [194] - Quote Gilbaron wrote: The only buff battleships really need is a nerf to bombers Some warp speed would be nice to have though Problem is that makes bombers easily useless. BOmbers are too much focused. They need a redesign so that they do not need to be SO GOOD at killing battleships to have a reason to exist. And then battleships can get some bufffs (like fitting for some of them) "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!" For the rest hire PoH \| Recruitment
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 1998	Posted - 2015.03.05 14:32:44 - [195] - Quote Aineko Macx wrote: Tbh I have no idea how those BC damage stats came to be, I rarely see BCs at all. I'd say what they currently offer is not competitive. Also since you took care of power projection, can you please start to undo the nerfs to titans and supers which were originally done in the name of curtailing power projection? You know where they come? from high sec POCO bashing. Every freaking day a nameless number of POCOS are killed with Taloses with neutron blasters. "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!" For the rest hire PoH \| Recruitment
fredtheevil modro Circle-Of-Two 0	Posted - 2015.03.05 18:11:23 - [196] - Quote tasman devil wrote: Try harder next time! Instead of removing the assist altogether, why not just ALLOW IT ONLY TO BC AND UP??? That would have been a simple and elegant solution, currently these changes press most pilots to reconsider the need for a capital ship. edit: also instead of removing the fighter warp function, why not have a checkbox, where the player can chose whether or not he wants the drones to pursue the target (as far as I can remember, we already HAVE this checkbox, have we not?) Or restricting assistance from fighters to ships that have no drone bandwidth just an idea?
Centurax Dracos Dozen Unsettled. 60	Posted - 2015.03.05 21:23:27 - [197] - Quote With the Skynet changes and Carriers having to now be on grid to use fighters and fighter bombers: Is it possible that the Drone Control Unit will become redundant, as there is a good chance that all Carriers will be logi fit for their own protection. So with that thought would it not be better to apply fighter damage bonuses through the "Advanced Drone Interfacing" (ADI) skill. Maybe 10% per level which would mean a pilot with 10 Fighters will have the equivalent fire power of 15 which you would have if you had Carrier and ADI skill. Also might be worth considering not locking out all drones when in Triage mode now that carriers have to be on grid, even if they have a 50% reduction in Fighter DPS, it would be useful to be at least able to defend the ship.
Krystyn Serenity Rising LLC 404 Alliance Not Found 198	Posted - 2015.03.07 02:42:35 - [198] - Quote Nami Kumamato wrote: So how exactly did the shuttles damage... anything ?! Skynet
Chaos Primal Black Market Ops 5	Posted - 2015.03.07 10:51:31 - [199] - Quote I'm just curious, has ccp completely forgotten that we still need to make the isk to buy anything? From a PVP perspective all this balancing over the years has been great and has made for a great sandbox to play in. However have you guys stopped to consider PVE even for a second? You've nerfed the life out of anything to make isk in. Every single update you guys make me groan and reconsider paying for another month, why? Because I can't for the life of me figure out how anyone makes the isk required to even consider PVP, every boat that could make any decent amount of iskies no longer can without countless hours of boring as grinding with high a high risk of losing ones ship leading to losses instead of gains. Is every player expected to have a Jita trade alt or what? Most ships and mods still worth using require weeks of grinding out missions, hauling infinite cargo runs or groans mining to afford a single unit now. Null sec pilots don't seem to have any trouble here but honestly I can barely afford to buy a standard T1 battleship 99% of the time and yet you guys keep making everything weaker cept the enemies which seem to be forever gaining hit points as our damage gets more and more pathetic. I've been playing since 2009 and can barely keep myself in a ship let alone go out buying fun shiny ships to go get blown up in. Why does CCP hate PVE'ers? Its a basic requirement in eve in order to finance ourselves yet with every "update" and "balance" it becomes more and more unfeasible and a total waste of millions of skill points. Us "carebears" are often mocked yet moving to null requires massive amounts of isk, let alone living there. Please CCP tell me, HOW are we expected to keep playing when earning in-game money becomes less feasible with every update? You want more people out in low/null sec right? Yes? Then please double the bounties or 1/2 the npc's hit points, SOMETHING to make getting there more financially possible. As things stand I could move to null yeah sure, no problem, cept I can't afford anything to fly while I'm out there and will likely loss it after 5 minutes of use anyway.
Blake Thunderchild Blades Of Athena Bad Intention 0	Posted - 2015.03.08 04:54:39 - [200] - Quote Very unhappy about the nerf on rail guns and the Proteus, only true counter to a navy Navy apocalypse fleet. Navy apocalypse fleets will now be untouchable other than with a capital fleet engagements. In High sec War Dec's they will be unstoppable with a good logi chain. A least buff some of the other battle ships to counter the Navy apocalypse or balance the Navy Apocalypse . The range bonus on them is ridiculous with short range weapons. Since there is a double nerf of the Proteus with its tank and rail guns then at least consider dropping the training time penalty. or no one will fly them. It will become the laughing stock of the game like the drake after it was nerfed. I also suggest we nerf mining lasers since the miners and care-bears keep wanting to nerf pvp weapons so bad. A reduction of mining yields would drive up prices and add more risk in the game. CCP could take a holistic approach to balancing rather than cherry picking and what looks to be appeasing pressure groups. Balancing is fine as long as it is balanced and we are not left with some having huge advantages over others.

Logan Revelore Symbiotic Systems 45	Posted - 2015.03.08 12:33:02 - [201] - Quote Chaos Primal wrote: You want more people out in low/null sec right? Yes? Then please double the bounties or 1/2 the npc's hit points, SOMETHING to make getting out there more financially possible. As things stand I could move to null yeah sure, no problem, cept I can't afford anything to fly while I'm out there and will likely lose it after 5 minutes of use anyway. This wouldn't fix things for you. It would just cause prices on ships and modules to rise as people have more cash between their hands. The market works according to supply and demand. The average player can afford to live in EVE, but there are outliers, you might be an outlier if you can't afford to live in EVE.
Estella Osoka Perkone Caldari State 553	Posted - 2015.03.10 21:48:15 - [202] - Quote Why not just make the T3 cruisers like the T3 Destroyers? Get rid of subsystems altogether and reimburse the skill points.
Zekora Rally Negative Density 13	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:07:58 - [203] - Quote Blake Thunderchild wrote: Very unhappy about the nerf on rail guns and the Proteus, only true counter to a navy Navy apocalypse fleet. Navy apocalypse fleets will now be untouchable other than with a capital fleet engagements. In High sec War Dec's they will be unstoppable with a good logi chain. A least buff some of the other battle ships to counter the Navy apocalypse or balance the Navy Apocalypse . The range bonus on them is ridiculous with short range weapons. Since there is a double nerf of the Proteus with its tank and rail guns then at least consider dropping the training time penalty. or no one will fly them. It will become the laughing stock of the game like the drake after it was nerfed. I also suggest we nerf mining lasers since the miners and care-bears keep wanting to nerf pvp weapons so bad. A reduction of mining yields would drive up prices and add more risk in the game. CCP could take a holistic approach to balancing rather than cherry picking and what looks to be appeasing pressure groups. Balancing is fine as long as it is balanced and we are not left with some having huge advantages over others. A proteus really has no business dealing that amount of damage while retaining similar tank and offering far more mobility.
Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 211	Posted - 2015.03.11 19:00:03 - [204] - Quote Esceem wrote: If this balancing thingie would finally come to an end I would be so happy... sigh I have some terrible news for you... Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
Karsha Amerel Psy Corp. 0	Posted - 2015.03.23 09:54:15 - [205] - Quote I don't really want to distract from the main aim of this post, but the PvP damage graph is really bad. The issue is that larger ships tend to do more damage and fights tend to get dragged out for longer, which means there is more repping and hence they do even more damage over the duration of the fight. If you accounted for this, then BSs and BCs (to a lesser extent) are going to drop down the list. Sorry about the long post. Anyway, I have been thinking about ways to make BS better and I think it can be done without improving their stats. One way could be to buff large modules and make more modules that compliment a large ship doctrine. I think the micro-jump drive was an excellent way to improve the hull by adding a new module, rather than a strict buff. BSs are slow, have a large amount of EHP and have good damage projection. I think the proposed Sov mechanics are going to give a lot of room for maneuver warfare, which favours the smaller ships, but I think there is still room for tanky, slow, high damage fleets, and BSs should be better at this than any subcapital fleet, but they need the tools to do it. One of the problems with BSs is that T3 cruisers have similar tank, less but still decent damage and project, and so much mobility that they really overshadow BSs. While some might argue that the T3 should be nurfed, I think the BS should get a little something something to really make them the nuggety bulwark on the grid. There are a few ways to do this and perhaps this is madness, but I thought I would suggest it at least. One module that most ships can use, but only seriously used on the BS is the smart bomb. The reason is that the large smart bomb has an area of effect that is actually useful, and I wonder if an area of effect doctrine might be good for BSs. Now, what I mean is area of effect reps and area of effect cap transfer. Perhaps this type of module would be too server intensive, but I think it would definitely make mass BS tactics incredibly tanky in mass numbers, but not actually buff a lone BS. The range of the module could be used as a method of balance, and would also mean that it becomes less effective as ships move to pursue an enemy or drift apart from each other due to bad discipline. The way I foresee this working is that you would have to have the order of 6 ships within perfect spacing before you start to break even over local reps and cap transfer, but the more BSs you have in close range of each other, the better it gets. You could even have the FC in the centre of the rep ball, so they get the most repping, the ships of the outside of the ball get the least repping and would also require repping from logistics when faced with focused fire. Logistics ships would not need to cap chain since they can mooch off the area of effect cap boost. It would mean that light ships that are damaged could fly through the rep ball and get incidental reps (both friendly and hostile) or give bumping ships out of the rep ball if they were feeling brave. This would also provide some defense against bombers, because unless the bombers can bring enough bombs to alpha the BS fleet, the BS fleet could be back at full health before another run could finish them off (maybe, it would need some serious looking at for balance). Fast fleets can fly away, but the BS fleet would be the perfect fleet to break a choke point or at least clear a choke point of tackle ships, so that your own side could get faster ships through and go zap some objectives. Another idea would be projected smart bombs (perhaps one per ship so it does not get too out of hand). Projected smart bombs would not really be a problem for the BS AE repping fleets, but it would easily drive off the fast fleets that rely on logistics, and since the objective is to control the grid, these ships would definitely do it. It would also mess up all those dirty drone users. Filthy! Perhaps this idea could be exploited, but I think with some fine tuning it could give a purpose back to BS fleets without buff the hell out of them. Powerful, but slow, just like it should be.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 57	Posted - 2015.03.23 14:17:06 - [206] - Quote Despite the reduction of the sentry damage bonus, I still predict Ishtars to cause massive ship-spinning Eve-wide. ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Xenuria Marcabian 5th Invasion Fleet 1007	Posted - 2015.03.23 17:14:28 - [207] - Quote Why rebalance the T3 subsystems but not fix the way in which NPC EWAR affects them? CSM 10 Candidate
Sissy Fuzz Sissy Fuzz Communications 28	Posted - 2015.03.23 23:05:47 - [208] - Quote "The Ishtar has been slightly rebalanced. "10% bonus to Drone hit points and damage" becomes "10% bonus to Light, Medium, and Heavy Drone hit points and damage, 5% bonus to Sentry Drone hit points and damage"." This is a 16% nerf on sentry DPS and as such nothing like a "slight" nerf. And it is another blow to the exploration community. A little perspective: Let's talk for a moment about how you practically destroyed exploration as a game style - was de facto the only "deep" niche left for solo players - when you effectively took exploration out of it and made it into grinding, which is what it is today. Swarmed by so many players that it is now common to enter a system to see two or three sets of Sisters probes in space. This not only in hi- but also low-sec, much due to the press-button-to-explore mechanics now in place and one of the outstanding result of your rather immature analysis that by making things two-dimensional and LOLeasy to access, you are adding to the player experience. Not the case. What you are doing is installing cookie-cutter play style templates instead. You call it diversity and opportunity but it is, in fact, player experience spread thin and bland from lack of potential and depth. The average number of players on Tranq hasn't exactly exploded since the dumb-it-down-and-more-colors dogma caught on. But from what we learned at the 2015 Fanfest this is still the gospell. Everything layed out on a silver platter right there, for god's sake no barriers whatsoever. Well, I don't believe one second that you are "retaining" anyone this way, and what used to be the exploration community is not happy, that's for sure. Back to the Ishar: The only way of getting a little bit of the exploration feel back is to go to lesser populated outskirts of EVE and play. Out there, of course, the "exploration" mechanics are still dumbed down and no challenge whatsoever, but there is still the challenge of staying alive. Which comes in two flavours: Avoiding or being able to kill / capsuleers on the prowl (bless 'em), and being able to actually do the complexes you find there. And the Ishtar was one of a very small number of hulls (maybe the only one, right?) that offered the combination of DPS and mobility to pull this off. The ship has no tank when fit for reasonable DPS but by using distance, sentries, one could actually complete a complex in a fair amount of time (time * exposure = risk , so not trivial) and not die. Well, not so much anymore. CCP, it has been said a lot of times before, and I appreciate that you are in denial about it and that you have found what seems to be a surefire way of designing the optimal game, statistics and the mathematical equilibrium. No devblog without an effin graph these days. But nobody cares about your pathological rebalancing programme (especially when you try to be charming about it "blood on the nerf bat") except for a handful of math nerds, who happen to be playing EVE from a spreadsheet instead of designing it from one. But I recognise that rebalancing for the sake of spreadsheet karma is in perfect line with the overall effort to remove all depth and potential in game by making everybody equal and omnipotent. I'll find a way, though. I am criticising your design philosophy and compulsive "rebalancing" here, not whining.
Jake Reece Unimatrix003 0	Posted - 2015.03.24 13:22:56 - [209] - Quote Dedbforucme wrote: 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. I agree - total nerf for long time playing and skilling players with NOTHING in return
Ellariona Negative Density 159	Posted - 2015.03.30 16:51:39 - [210] - Quote War Kitten wrote: The "awesome graph of PVP damage by class" needs some explanation of the various colors. I'm also not convinced that total PVP damage, which is dominated by large fleet engagements, is a good metric for balancing ships that now suck at small-gang warfare due to lost mobility. This!!!!! Total damage done is an awful metric. The big blocks might as well pick and choose what gets nerfed next.



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