EVE Information Portal

 
^ Back to top

Topic is locked indefinitely.

 

Dev Blog: Back to the balancing future!

Jump to first DEV post
Author
Tactical Narcotics Team
#61 Posted: 2012.11.06 15:53
CCP Fozzie wrote:
HydroSan wrote:

Basically Gallente sucks because the game mechanics suck. Can we just get fixes to active tanking and drones? Drone UI needs to be completely redone.


Those are going to be a different dev blog


There better be frog legs.
Acquisition Of Empire
#62 Posted: 2012.11.06 15:53
Adapt or die right.

"As a side note, as we announced a while ago, we are not pleased by having Warfare Links work outside the battlefield zone, and will be investigating options to move them on grid. Command and Tech3 ships providing that much of an advantage should commit to an engagement instead of being safely parked inside a POS bubble."

I would beg and implore you to not nerf offgrid boosting. While i agree that there should be risk in using em. I dont believe you should remove that ability completly. A suggestion to that would be to make it impossible to boost behind a pos but allow it off grid at safe spots. It will allow the boosting ship to be scanned downed and dealt with.
Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
#63 Posted: 2012.11.06 15:53
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

we are not pleased by having Warfare Links work outside the battlefield zone, and will be investigating options to move them on grid.


Of the coming changes I might like this one the best.
#64 Posted: 2012.11.06 15:54
Antoine Jordan wrote:
So if I have Battlecruisers V and Amarr Cruiser III, after the patch I'll have Amarr Battlecruiser V, right? So that I can fly them to the same effectiveness I could before the patch.

This deffo needs to be answered imo.
RvB - RED Federation
#65 Posted: 2012.11.06 15:55
Great changes!

One question will ships such as the Claymore still require the logistics skill to fly?

o7
Drac
Tactical Narcotics Team
#66 Posted: 2012.11.06 15:56
fukier wrote:
Pattern Clarc wrote:
Your current plan for the Ferox is doomed. Short range shield brawlling is the key here.

Brutix should have a utiliy high and active armour tanking bonuses should diaf. Otherwise, please proceed.


i agree...

though personally for racial flavour i would prefer caldari adopt a ROF instead of a damage bonus...

as this would make caldari higher DPS and make Galente Higher bust damage.

also i would not get rid of the tanking bonus for the brutix just increase to 10% per level and make it also affect incomming external armour RR. i would also make the bonus affect the effectiveness of ERNM...

This would allow a brutix to either setup for small pvp (active tanking)

or passive fleet setup using ERNM... instead of armour plates which slow the ship down and make it harder to turn...


I think you have it backwards shouldn't Gallente get the higher ROF and Caldari get better burst would be better for sniping rails this way.
Adhocracy
#67 Posted: 2012.11.06 15:56
I am not sure how I feel about the command ship changes. Being able to boost armor and skirmish links on the same hull is sexy and I'm already mentally EFT-warrioring an Absolution, but I fear for my Damnation. Are you thinking of changing their other bonuses as well, or are you just going to tweak their current gang link bonuses and leave the rest alone? I'd rather not have my Damnation turn into an armor-tanked Drake with some command boosts.
Goon Capital
#68 Posted: 2012.11.06 15:57
Fozzie: Care to comment on the implications that this devblog makes that you guys will be adding four entirely new battleships (3 disruption and an attack?) Smile
This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo
#69 Posted: 2012.11.06 15:57  |  Edited by: Harvey James
@ CCP Fozzie First off

Ferox needs to be a brawler Naga will outperform any sniping the ferox ever could do.
People have only started using the ferox again after buff to blasters not rails it should follow merlin-moa line.
Drake is this losing its shield resis bonus for ROF bonus it needs too missile range is simply too good for a brawling role they won't need.
Armageddon i was expecting this to be a droneboat otherwise amarr wont have a drone bs.
How about myrmidon bonus will it keep its active tank or more likely follow the hybrid dmg bonus line?

Also i think sig radius on the combat line needs to be reduced as the shield tanked bc's end up as bs size after rigs/extenders
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 assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Imperial Outlaws.
#70 Posted: 2012.11.06 15:57
The tears on the ogb pilots will be epic. Ground floor almost.

Ferox - Damage plus shield resist vote. You can't get it varied from the Naga otherwise.
Typhoon - I was so proud when I had all the skills for this. I haven't flown one in a long time though so..... Sigh.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#71 Posted: 2012.11.06 15:58
I think its worth remember that there is a fifth leadership type in eve. Have you taken into consideration how a nerf to off grid boosting would affect mining in eve?
Amarr Empire
#72 Posted: 2012.11.06 15:58

Your rebalance of the boni for the Command shps sounds sweet!

I can fly all of them and Command ship on 5. Finally the ship class would be worth something again. I cant wait to see this coming. Though I will miss the extra 2 % of t3s. Cant you patch this earlier? Big smile

The other idea, putting the Fleet booster on grid with the whole fleet has its limits:

1) In big fleet fights with several hundred enemies in BS it is clearly a mistake (atm FC mistake) if the Fleet booster is on grid.
Load grid ...
hostile FC: Primary fleet booster - kaboom (and I was raging)

You cant put such an important ship in the middle of such big battles. If you do, you can count the seconds until it is wrecked.

2) In small scale pvp, it became a common tactic to hide a t3 somewhere. I think, they have already a disadvantage then, because they do not take an aditional ship, which they can use on field like a Logi. Often if I have the choice in a small gang whether I take a fleet booster or Logi, I prefer the logi. Again, you can never take a current t3 on field, especially if you want it to carry several links, with the current tank, it can fit.

Just switch the rule boni and it should be ok.
C C P Alliance
#73 Posted: 2012.11.06 15:58  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
Intaki Kauyon wrote:
CCP: Would like a more clear representation of the BC/Destroyer skill changes.

Quote:
Reimbursement details:
•Let us repeat again: if you could fly it before, you will be able to do so after the change. Technically it means if you are able to fly an Oracle by having Amarr Cruisers 3 and Battlecruisers 3, we will remove the Battlecruisers skill from your character and give you Amarr Battlecruisers at 3. If you had Battlecruisers at 3 and Caldari Cruisers 3 instead, you would not receive Amarr Battlecruisers but the Caldari Battlecruisers skill at 3 instead. The same principle work with the Destroyers skill.
• With the way nested skill requirements work in EVE, it also means that you will still be able to fly an Apocalypse even if you don’t have the Amarr Battlecruiser skill trained at 4 after the change. It won’t matter as long as you have the Amarr Battleship skill at the proper level.

With this in mind, it becomes quite obvious to focus on training the Destroyers and Battlecruisers skills before the change to get the maximum return effect. We highly recommend you start doing so now.


That's all fine and well. But while you are warning us on what to train now, please help us understand the change. You talk about BC skills translating based on the race you own via Cruiser or Frigates, but you don't say how that translates based on reverse. For instance:

If I have currently:

BC to V
Gall Cruiser to V
but Caldari Cruiser to IV

Do I get each one of the 4 BC new skills to V just becuase of current BC is V, or do I get:

Gall BC to V
but
Caldari BC to IV

?

In that case you would get both racial battlecruiser skills to V.
You'll get exactly the same level of bonus to your ships after the skill change as you did before it, and since you only need the cruiser skills to 3 to fly those BCs and getting cruiser higher doesn't give bonuses to the BCs, any cruiser skill levels beyond 3 don't matter.

Antoine Jordan wrote:
So if I have Battlecruisers V and Amarr Cruiser III, after the patch I'll have Amarr Battlecruiser V, right? So that I can fly them to the same effectiveness I could before the patch.

This is correct.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#74 Posted: 2012.11.06 15:59  |  Edited by: ReK42
This looks excellent so far, though I think the numbers on the gang link changes should be looked at again. I don't like the new 2 vs 3% choice, I believe it should be kept 3 vs 5%, but only give the 5% to the one racial boost. For example: the Tengu would boost 3 types of links at 3% while the Vulture and Nighthawk would give 3% skirmish and 5% siege.
There are several reasons I think that should be done: in your current model we're losing a lot of EHP on everything due to the lack of a 5% hull, it further specializes the command ship hulls in a way that makes a lot of sense and it widens the performance gap between the specialized command ship bonus potential and the generalized T3 bonuses, making it a more meaningful decision in which to bring.

I am a little confused by the skill point reimbursement. If I had Battlecruisers 5, Amarr and Caldari Cruiser 5 and Gallente and Minmatar Cruiser 4, will I get all four Battlecruiser skills at 5 or just Amarr and Caldari?

Edit: Just saw your above post. Looks like I'd get all 4 at 5 :sun:
#75 Posted: 2012.11.06 16:00
quote:

Allowing for faster tech2 specialization, and slower multi-racial diversification.


How the flying fXXk can this 'faster specialization'?

I will have all battlecrusier V by December and I still I want to say, what can be the point of this change except punishing future newbies? Don't they have enough limitation already?

Does this change even benefit ANYONE except satisfying you own little OCD?

Please deal with it and leave the player alone, CCP
#76 Posted: 2012.11.06 16:00
Quote:
Oracle, Naga, Talos and Tornado: are mostly fine, except for the mobility which is a little too high, and signature radius, which could be increased a bit. Apart from this, little needs to change.


oracle has a double gun cap use bonus. This is is a wasted bonus compared to the other three. Cap use bonus should be a role bonus, since its the role of the ship to be able to use that large laser guns. The BC bonus should be something which makes the ship special.

wasting one bonus attribute just to be able to fire the guns is not cool at all.
eve style bounties (done)
dust boarding parties
imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW
C C P Alliance
#77 Posted: 2012.11.06 16:00
Iris Bravemount wrote:
Very good news overall, but it sounds like you guys don't want to tiericide the larger hulls. The devblog doesn't mention giving all 'combat' Battleships and all 'attack' Battleships the same amount of slots and roughly the same fitting stats.


The same tiericide principles apply all the way to BS, the blog was talking about roles primarily.
Repeat 0ffenders
#78 Posted: 2012.11.06 16:01
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Intaki Kauyon wrote:
CCP: Would like a more clear representation of the BC/Destroyer skill changes.

Quote:
Reimbursement details:
•Let us repeat again: if you could fly it before, you will be able to do so after the change. Technically it means if you are able to fly an Oracle by having Amarr Cruisers 3 and Battlecruisers 3, we will remove the Battlecruisers skill from your character and give you Amarr Battlecruisers at 3. If you had Battlecruisers at 3 and Caldari Cruisers 3 instead, you would not receive Amarr Battlecruisers but the Caldari Battlecruisers skill at 3 instead. The same principle work with the Destroyers skill.
• With the way nested skill requirements work in EVE, it also means that you will still be able to fly an Apocalypse even if you don’t have the Amarr Battlecruiser skill trained at 4 after the change. It won’t matter as long as you have the Amarr Battleship skill at the proper level.

With this in mind, it becomes quite obvious to focus on training the Destroyers and Battlecruisers skills before the change to get the maximum return effect. We highly recommend you start doing so now.


That's all fine and well. But while you are warning us on what to train now, please help us understand the change. You talk about BC skills translating based on the race you own via Cruiser or Frigates, but you don't say how that translates based on reverse. For instance:

If I have currently:

BC to V
Gall Cruiser to V
but Caldari Cruiser to IV

Do I get each one of the 4 BC new skills to V just becuase of current BC is V, or do I get:

Gall BC to V
but
Caldari BC to IV

?

In that case you would get both racial battlecruiser skills to V.
You'll get exactly the same level of bonus to your ships after the skill change as you did before it, and since you only need the cruiser skills to 3 to fly those BCs and getting cruiser higher doesn't give bonuses to the BCs, any cruiser skill levels beyond 3 don't matter.

Antoine Jordan wrote:
So if I have Battlecruisers V and Amarr Cruiser III, after the patch I'll have Amarr Battlecruiser V, right? So that I can fly them to the same effectiveness I could before the patch.

This is correct.


TY TY. Love you guys.
Drunk 'n' Disorderly
#79 Posted: 2012.11.06 16:01  |  Edited by: Warde Guildencrantz
Grideris wrote:


Also, I hope more Caldari ships moving over to damage bonus for hybrids doesn't start to step on the Gallente's "TONS OF DAMAGE" motif they have going on.


No, I think it's more of moving towards fixing the Caldari's "NO DAMAGE WHATSOEVER" motif they have going on their "we only want you to use rails too bad they suck" boats.

Bienator II wrote:
Quote:
Oracle, Naga, Talos and Tornado: are mostly fine, except for the mobility which is a little too high, and signature radius, which could be increased a bit. Apart from this, little needs to change.


oracle has a double gun cap use bonus. This is is a wasted bonus compared to the other three. Cap use bonus should be a role bonus, since its the role of the ship to be able to use that large laser guns. The BC bonus should be something which makes the ship special.

wasting one bonus attribute just to be able to fire the guns is not cool at all.


They typically have addressed gun cap bonuses with something less pointless (see the new maller for example)
Dark Stripes
#80 Posted: 2012.11.06 16:01
so while im on commandships... the damantion is famed for its awesom tank.. you want the abso to be used in the same role just for lazer users right?

so are you going to buff the abso's tank to be like the damnations? or are you going to CCP the damnation into being as pants at tanking in fleets as the abso?

OMG when can i get a pic here

Forum Jump