Balance Updates Coming with Uprising!

Feature Previews & Feedback Balance and Mechanics
, ,
272

It’s most aggrieving that an Alpha guy has to go into low sec to shoot at other ships at will.

You are not removing anything because Omegas are a thing and more numerous than Alphas. You can’t just stop dscanning while mining simply because Alphas aren’t able to attack you anymore. Not to mention that most ships require more than one char for the gank:

https://zkillboard.com/asearch/#{"buttons":["week","rolling","label-ganked","sort-date","sort-desc","page1","victimsonly"]}

The only thing 1 Alpha can gank is maybe a Venture or a shuttle, which brings us back to the griefing that CCP seems to see. Since you need more than one character for ganks, alphas cannot gank properly anyway. The potential exception from that rule would be Tornados in the pipes. But they kill targets that are so valuable that they have no issues with plexing their accounts.

273

Errr, I think you are being sarcastic. I understand it may be aggravating that you can’t mine safely in High-Sec. Your support for this change shows only that.
Again, the change isn’t the issue, rather it’s implementation. There is a more functional and logical way to implement it.

Err, not so. I think you are limiting your imagination to piloting Catalysts and Tornados. Alphas have access to many more ships than that, each with their own unique bonuses, and they should be allowed to engage in the game within their Skill limitations.

Again, the change isn’t the issue, rather it’s implementation. There is a more functional and logical way to implement it.

Also, linking “Ganks” in Z-Kill will show you ganks, which are more than 1 player. You proved nothing with your link.

Again, the change isn’t the issue, rather it’s implementation. There is a more functional and logical way to implement it without completely removing such a core gameplay mechanic from the free-to-play crowd. Pay-to-gank is not the way.

If a new player wants to fit the biggest guns they have on the biggest ship they can fly and hunt down and shoot some dude who rubbed them the wrong way (or anything really, it isn’t my or anyone’s business why someone may seek to destroy another ship, not even if for the Loot or for the thrills or giggles), they should be able to do it regardless of if they pay CCP to do so, and I should take precautions to avoid losing my stuff.

Again (and I say this multiple times for you @Dyver_Phycad because you have repeatedly shown no will to address the issue and instead argue something that isn’t the point while showing your lack of understanding on the matter), the change isn’t the issue, rather it’s implementation. There is a more functional and logical way to implement it.

274

A new player can still do that. Just go Omega. Or join a corp that has people and declare a war. The restriction to safety yellow is not hindering you from attacking someone in other ways.

Your implementation suggestion is laughable. It cannot fix the issue that CCP sees. If you just needed to finisht he career path or run x missions, the griefers that CCP sees would just do that on tons of accounts to have spare alts. You cannot prevent the griefing that CCP sees by locking red safety behind an thing that you can easily achieve by playing. That’s simply not a thing in EVE.

And none of them change a thing in regard to my point. Even if they flew a Talos to gank a Mackinaw, they still need 2 depending on the system. A Thorax or Rupture does not change a thing in regard to my point either. Nor does a Brutix or Naga or Oracle. Outside Venture and Shuttle ganks and the Tornado ganks, you need more than one character for the gank, and that’s prohibited by the EULA. Hence, alphas not being able to gank does not cause any tangible issues with regards to piracy.

You do realize that this thinking is exactly the reason why CCP prevents Alphas from going red and why CCP is finally changing how criminals and pirates feel consequences of their criminal actions?

275

Still, @Dyver_Phycad you have only shown you lack any understanding of the issue. Please refrain from cluttering the forums with more off-topic responses.
This is to address the Balance Updates Coming with Uprising, and my post was to point out how the implementation method is objectively severely flawed, not to cater to your narrow point of view taking an example and positive suggestion as a solid immutable method or subjective interpretation of how high-sec should be. I have nothing left to say to you mate. You obviously have nothing on the matter to say either, and I won’t be responding to any more of your 0-value input comments here. Sorry. Taking a step back and looking at the big picture might allow you to add some wider perspective to your responses and I would always engage that, but my patience is running low with your trolling above.

Back on topic:
Devs should take a step back and find a more effective and logical way to implement the changes without placing hurdles on Alpha players, and actually placing them on the griefing part. Placing it behind a paywall to access it is not the solution.
If a character for example had to complete an entire set of Career Agents before accessing the full potential of their Safety setting, it would deter anyone from constantly making a new character simply to bypass a low Security standing, since I imagine the issue is being able to jump immediately into the ganking, and they would have to spend some time grinding every character to access the red setting, eventually making them ask themselves wtf they are doing with their lives. Cuz it really isn’t hard for someone to gank a few times, loot a few times, afford PLEX, to Omega another account and do it again. That is griefing.

Alphas cannot multi-box, making the implementation of this change futile and simply a cash-grab by CCP (not that they shouldn’t get paid for their work, but placing a core mechanic of the game behind a pay-wall is not the way and very obviously not the vision EVE has had for the last 19 years).

If CCP can’t track Alphas illicitly mulit-boxing, then that is the issue, not high-sec ganking.

276

While marauders may be “cheap” you have to invest a TON of skills into marauder.
So you can’t compare marauders to normal t-1 BS.
Marauder takes a long time to train while BS can be flown almost instantly.

So while marauder may be cheap isk wise, it’s very expenssive to skill a marauder in time wise and skill wise.

Time in eve = €
Skills in eve = €

So marauders are expenssive.

277

Incorrect, you put one client on your computer and the 2nd on a laptop next to you and a 3rd on a 2nd laptop. That what some gankers do.

1 Like
278

Alpha clones were introduced in 2016 in Ascension. Before that, everyone had to pay a sub or plex. So access to any part of the game without a paywall has only been the ‘vision for eve’ for 6 years, or what will be six years in a couple of weeks time.

Plex have only existed since 2008, and remember they were originally a one-to-one conversion from Eve Time Codes at the time, and still have to be purchased with actual money - so even an account plexed purely through gameplay is and has always been funded by someone giving CCP dollars directly.

So I don’t see how anyone can possibly argue that content hasn’t been paywalled for 19 years. It has been paywalled for 19 years, and it remains paywalled. Alpha accounts are basically a free trial with limited access to content. Gating content behind PLEX/subs is CCPs entire business model.

4 Likes
279

I’ve read the posts so far, and it seems that most people’s interest is in change of HACs.

But I have concerned about another change that could have a big impact for future FW. It is a buff for Rifter. Honestly, I think the buffed Rifter with the update plan is OP.

The update plan is witten “Rate of Fire bonus increased from 5% to 7.5%”. By change of this, the RoF bonus at max Minmatar FG skill becomes 37.5% from 25%. This looks like a trivial buff numerically. But RoF bonus gives much grater benefits than damage bonus. The current bonus of 25% increases DPS by 33%. If the bonus increases to 37.5%, it increases DPS by 60%! And the bonus is given to projectile turrets that can match damage type to enemy weakness.

If the change is applied, Rifter will be High-damage dealer comparable to Blaster Incursus and Beam Tormenter. Moreover, it also has a maximum verocity close to tackler ships, a range that covers the entire scrum range even with short range turrets, and the 4 low-slots that can fit both of armor plat and SAAR. As a result, this Rifter may become a overwhelming champion in 1v1 fights in FW newbie posts.

I (accurately, my PvP alt) have had many 1v1 fights with Rifters in FW newbie posts. When enemy pilots were highly skilled (both player and character), the Rifter was a formidable ship. So I don’t think current Rifter is a weak enough ship to need a buff.

But if you still want to buff Rifter, I think the following are reasonable:

  • Hull HP from 350 to 400
    FG fits often increases Hull HP with bulkhead rigs, so this helps a lot for tanking.

  • Maximum Velocity from 365 to 375
    This makes Rifter the fastest combat T1FG, excluding tackler ships. Specializing in speed is preferable to Minmatar ship than increasing DPS.

CCP,
Lastly, I give you an advice for game balancing.

If we have some choices within a category, if you over nerf one of them, the result won’t have much effect on the category as a whole because the nerfed one itself just becomes garbage. But if you over buff one, the result will destroy the whole category because everything other than the buffed one becomes garbage.

Buffing something must be done much more carefully than nerfing it.

280

I made some calculations and it appears that if you fit new Vagabond like old Munnin (with some lowslot changes) you’ll lack 0.49 PWG.

Nice trolling CCP Aurora

281

If you are fixing ships. Fix the Arbitrator while you are at it. The vexor is better in every way. Bigger everything.

Remove useless e-war(use a frig) and mining bonus(use a venture). Add missile rof bonus and slight increase of drone damage bonus/ or a drone mb duff

282

Vexor should be compared to a Maller or Omen, not the Arbitrator. The Gallente equivalent is the Celeste.

1 Like
283

CCP are helter skelter with Amarr weapons. missles, drones, lazors, neuts, td. this would be a upgrade path into a geddon and sac.

Further more there is no t1 missile frig either. the whole amarr line up is confusing. neuts and tc could be moved to pirate/navy.

For gods sake, bring order to Amarr. Cut missiles or drones, then cut neuts or TD.

284

The arbitrator is an EWAR cruiser and would be comparable to the Celestis, Bellicose and Blackbird. The bellicose and arbitrator have comparable dps, even the celestis can get decent dps (even though it has no direct damage bonuse). The only one that doesn’t really have any DPS is the blackbird. But these ships are not primarily focused on DPS, they are focused on providing EWAR support in a relatively cheap and tankier hull (compared to frigs) and then secondary is dps.

The frigs are made of paper, the arbitrator can survive longer and actually get reps.

Two of those are EWAR (neuts/TD), not weapons. Which on an EWAR ship (arbitrator) fit its intended role. Amarr have diverse weapon selection because their primary weapons are hard locked to EM/Thermal damage. So some of the T2 variants typically transition to missile ships (Sac, Damnation, Vengeance, Heretic) with larger than average drone bays but no direct drone bonuses. While their EWAR platforms are drone bonused to keep slots freed up for neuts (curse/pilgrim/geddon).

The progression of the Arbitrator matches up with the progression into the pilgrim/curse because those are T2 EWAR cruisers. The arbitrator is still an upgrade path to the Armageddon because of the drone bonuses, and if you are upgrading into a curse/pilgrim, the neut skills benefit the Armageddon and now navy geddon.

Now I agree with you in that there is no missile frigate. There used to be with the inquisitor (which is why when you build/research a purifier, you need to use an inquisitor blueprint). But that got changed into a logi frig. But its not highly unusual, since Amarr don’t have any bonused T1 missile ships, only T2 or Navy.

Amarr is fine, neuts/TD are their racial specific EWAR, it would make zero sense to remove their EWAR. Then what purpose do the curse/pilgrim have?

1 Like
285

With a few exceptions, the only missile ships the Amarr have are those made by Khanid, who have very close ties with Caldari. The Khanid are more a client state than a proper Amarr corporation.

286

missiles and drones are skill intensive. ewar is not. this is why you should move it to pirate/navy/t2 . if ccp is going to insist on 3 weapons, there should atleast be 1 bonused missile drone boat somewhere in the t1 line and amarr doesnt need a t1 ewar cruiser. amarr has too many systems and no one uses it anyway.

If you are going to fly a abry you gonna go neuts or missiles, so just remove the damn TD and give it a missile bonus. From there you can go sac/curse/pilgrim/legion. all direct upgrades.

287

This is all just factually wrong on multiple levels.

For one, you’ve glossed over the fact that you will leave amarr without any EWAR in the T1 line-up when every other race has T1 EWAR that doesn’t require pirate/navy/T2

Secondly, it does not require any more skill points than other races when using T1 EWAR on a T1 EWAR cruiser. You say to “just move the EWAR to pirate/navy/T2” but these all take more SP and cost more.

Pirate requires skill training of two faction skills, compared to the one skill needed to fly an arby, and the EWAR skills are minimal to be effective (even level 4 skill is fine in most cases). T2 is even more skills to be able to just sit in the ship. Navy is the only one that would be comparable but then you’re significantly increasing the cost.

Missiles and drones are no more skill intensive than other races with multiple weapon systems. And every race has to train drones, since every ship has a drone bay once you get past destroyers. Most of Amarr’s dedicated damage platforms are not drone boats, its just the EWAR ships. The only outlier now is the Navy Geddon and somewhat the T1 geddon.

Simply not true. In solo or small gang, yes people are likely not utilizing the TD (though I have used a TD arby for solo) bonus, but in FW fleets or even nullsec responses, its not uncommon to see TD/MGD arbitrators because they are cheap and effective.

288

No other race HAS to train gun. missiles and drones to make use of bonuses. Gal have no missile boats and minis/cal can train drones at slower pace. lights are needed at some point, thats all.

migh wanna check the killboard because the bellicose, which is getting a small buff fyi, out paces it by a wide margin.

Furthermore, neuts or missiles. Just bonus the ship people are actually using(missiles) and make it a more useful ship.

289

You don’t need to be able to use all weapon systems though, nor do you HAVE to use the entire line of ships. If you aren’t interested in using EWAR, why bother with an Arbitrator? If you want to only focus on Lassors, you have like 90% of the Amarr tree available to you. (Maybe 85% if you take into account carriers and logi).

1 Like
290

No matter what race you are if you fly a battle cruiser with 0 sp in drones you are going to be at a massive disadvantage.

Like the guy above said why feel like you must now fly every single ship of a specific race pick what ever you like and specialize then branch out after you will have everything at some point anyways.

291

there is nothing wrong with ewar, tp/webs and point range are all more useful in deleting players off the field than TD.

The arby needs a buff, thats plain to see.