Dev Blog: October Balance Pass!


(Arrendis) #1214

The issue of ‘what about how that screws inactive players’ is definitely a thing. If I were CCP, I’d do what they do in wormholes: 6 months, then you get punted to a lowsec station. My old corp lived in a C4 for a few years, but we fell below critical mass in #s to keep going, so we decided to pull out. Only one hiccup: we’d built a Rorqual in there.

Now, Rorqs are capitals. They can’t get in and out through a C4’s connections. We decided to make this work for us. We loaded him up with everything he’d need to re-establish a base of operations, in case we all got active again, and left a scanning alt in the hole with him.

6 months later, that Rorqual was in Korasen. So was my prober’s Buzzard. No muss, no fuss. Same principle could apply: you’re inactive X amount of time, your belongings get moved out of whatever cit they’re in, into the nearest NPC station. People who are playing still risk their assets, people who aren’t still have their stuff when they come back. (So they’re more inclined to be willing to come back.)

Another thing I was thinking re: ADMs was: if they want to preserve the idea of the distributed conflict system that command nodes (kinda) provide, that can be done, too: just move the TCU’s functions over to a multi-component ‘System Defense Grid’. The first module you can put down would be the TCU itself. When you hit Sov 1, you can put down the second structure, which duplicates the functions of the IHUB (with rigs/service modules in place of upgrades). Sov 2 allows Upwell Stargate connections within the constellation. Sov 3 allows wider stargate connections, and the addition of Beacons and Jammers.

And all of that, together: TCU/IHUB/JB/CynoGen/CynoJam get assaulted together. Each one that’s safe and secure gives a boost to the minimum dps needed to pause any of the others. Now, that’s all in 1 system, so it’s not as distributed as the command nodes are… but given the way tidi works, right now you can have one side of a fight stuck in heavy tidi, just trying to get into other systems where their opponents, free of tidi, are spooling up node after node.

(Sepheir Sepheron) #1215

Y’all never heard of 5k ehp 100 dps light missile crows? Honestly they’re better than claws even now idk why it’s not a thing. They can orbit much further out and still do full dps. Almost just as fast too with 4.2km/s compared to 4.3 standard meta claw…

(Sazina Ibruin) #1216

Brilliant, you just made my day : )

(Arrendis) #1217

Because a) missile flight time means targets can warp out between firing and damage applying, b) firewalling is a thing, and c) Crows don’t insta-align without sacrificing about a third of their DPS. A Rocket crow, btw, comes in around 124 dps with only 1 BCS. (Rockets being shorter range have less trouble with the flight time issue.)

(Sepheir Sepheron) #1218

Firewalling ratting carriers huh? Man the things people hunt with claws vary greatly but if you’re engaging a pvp fit capital with them it doesn’t matter if your weapons are being firewalled or not… Also who is warping when pointed by a fleet of crows?

Rockets need to get in overheated web range and neut optimal.

(dewk) #1219

The main concern isn’t about the extra mid-slot, but the lose of a low-slot to get it.

Being an armour tanking faction the lose of a low-slot is a major loose. Many believe a high-slot would have been the better option to sacrifice for the mid-slot.

As for tracking there is the low-slot tracking enhancer that increases not only tracking speed, but also optimal range.

But it’s been noted the precursor ships are naval factor ships, though have not the best EHP when comparing to other naval faction ship of the same class. The mid-Slot is an issue for the frigate and battleship. Though as to how to address this is questionable, though a few ideas have been floated in `blog-triglavian-technology-ships-weapons

(Peter Yurgin) #1220
As you can see interceptors can die often to smartbombs.

(Scooter6976) #1221

yes, lets talk about geography and the daily diet of RL bears. you crack me up man.

ps: haven’t mentioned delve once, but now you’ve forced me to. <<
perhaps you are meaning to simply confirm what I was implying; these changes are bad for anyone that isn’t in ns bearing. the alts you speak of, those must b the ones flying around in the cancer you think needs a nerf. ty, for again proving my points. id get tired of watching you whinge, except its soo entertaining!

(Scooter6976) #1222

one of many in this thread. more to come too im sure…

(Scooter6976) #1223

claws are I win buttons? rofl

(KRISDOX) #1224

Just pointing out that with careful planning, combat interceptor can be fun and engaging gameplay. I also wanted to refute that rorquals have nothing to fear from combat interceptors claim by brisc rubal as I often join these combat interceptor fleet and managed to kill several rorquals only with combat interceptors which I had link here:

(Festmester Uctionsson) #1225

Crows sacrifice a third of their DPS to be instant align?

They never become instant align.

With T2 rigs and full Inertial Stabilizers in low, it’s about 2.2 seconds.

(Sol Mortis) #1226

ECM changes are trash. Will you be able to lock a ship that is Sensor Damping you? Will your weapons work at normal range against ships that are Tracking Disrupting you?

I like how introducing the change you imply there will also be some sort of buff to them, but go on to reveal that “no, we are just nerfing them to the point of making them completely useless if you are flying solo. Also this breaks pretty much ECM ship but oh well maybe we might do something about it someday or maybe not.”

I can just go get in an Arazu or Lachesis with damps that reliably work every time, but it sucks that I’m losing an option to choose from. Very anti-sandbox.

(Arrendis) #1227

You really should try to stick to being coherent.

(Arrendis) #1228

Tsk. Nomads, baby.

(Zachri) #1229

That is an analogy of “here is a small swiss army knife, it can be used to do a number of interesting things, now we are removing a core element but it is ok because now you can only work screws with it”.

I think one important aspect you are missing is the concept of flexibility requirements of emergent behaviour. It strikes me that you’re either just repeating something of a discussion / narrative elsewhere, or you’ve gone a little too close to the detail level from a mechanistic perspective.

There’s three angles in all this:

  1. It never is about just mechanisms.

  2. It should also always be about room for emergent behaviour.

  3. The bulk of the observations described in the devblog are demonstrably somewhere between “incorrect”, “incomplete”, “ignorant”. From various angles, I should mention. These are not value statements, just classifications. There’s been ample argumentation and information passed back and forth in this topic clarifying the particulars, so there’s no real need to go into each aspect again. Suffice to say that this touches on something which historically is not an unknown where it comes to CCP’s product level after the summer. Historically such tweaks have never been without detrimental effects.

I honestly wonder if any CSM member is able to approach change / development topics from a different angle than CCP’s product level, namely, the functional foundation on which mechanisms rest. Emergent behaviour. If this is an unknown thing, or it’s a ball dodged in discussions, that’s a big sign on the wall.

(KRISDOX) #1230

Just to be clear, Inty fleets are my favorite fleets and i hate to see this gone with combat interceptor changes, we hunt for capital ships, dreads, carriers, rorquals anything big. This is the fleet I look forward to every single weekend together with about 80 other pilots. There’s something about smallest ship class being able to bring down capital ships, to me it’s a very interesting gameplay. The last rorqual we managed to kill seconds before their response fleet arrived. We also met strong counters being deployed on us: smartbombing battleships, more capitals, corm fleet, AF fleet and more. In these engagements we had lost ships (5k ehp is roughly average tank on these combat interceptors) and had to abandon our targets because of these counters. I can tell you more ways to counter but that should give an idea, so the argument that there is no strong counter is not making sense to me because I see it very often deployed against our inty fleet. One of the reason of nullified combat ceptor is preferred is because its DPS and second, in most ratting/mining systems people bubble the gates and being nullified enables combat interceptor fleet to scatter and warp to celestials or anomalies catching targets. Even with being able to immediately warp to celestials I still very often hear fleet members said on comms that they missed a tackle by a few seconds big or small targets (including several rorquals). Taking away the nullification means that it will be much more difficult to secure tackle and bringing the fight to these targets because we have to clear bubbles first before warping to celestials. I really cant see combat interceptor having any role if the nullification is removed, and as many has pointed out without nullification there are many other ships that can do better in tank, dps, and even speed than combat interceptors. If people are just gonna say git gud, then how much more git gud should one has to be? we are literally using the smallest ships to engage the biggest ships in the game. This smallest class vs biggest class fights are the few remaining interesting gameplay in EVE. Maybe if we have a CSM who actually knows how to use interceptors we may not get this change? I mean how many people put autocannons on their raptors?

(Peter Yurgin) #1231
These guys just welped an interceptor fleet.

(Peter Yurgin) #1232

It isn’t because of the ship that makes your fleet so dangerous. You have 80 pilots in it. When you have those kinds of numbers you should be able to kill anything that shows up.

(Sazina Ibruin) #1233

Based on I have read so far… number one system on the list would be CSM