Dev Blog: October Balance Pass!

[PI_farmer1]

Rip griffin navy

[Ramona_McCandless]

“There is nothing more frustrating in combat than having literally no ability to impact your opponent while he is hitting you.” - So next to be neutered is neuts, I guess

“Turning frustration into a 1 vs. 1 fight is quintessentially EVE.” When was 1v1 a thing? And this does nothing of the sort.

[Arrendis]

. . . I see you’re still misusing the en-dash.

[Arrendis]

@Troubadour

However, the first thing people did was theorycraft an arti-Ares.

Malediction gets better volley.

[Brisc_Rubal]

@Minimax_Zed

Brisc, no where in this post is the HIC change mentioned.

Let’s take the patch notes at face value, though. Can you, or maybe @CCP_Falcon, comment on when you think there might be a hypothetical mass-affecting module that fixes something that isn’t presently broken in W-space?

Breaking core w-space mechanics for months at a time is going to leave a very bad taste in a lot of mouths.

It wasn’t mentioned because the Dev blog summed up basically our concerns. We noted that WHs would be affected, and we’d need to see something to address it in the future. That was already in the blog, and none of us felt like we needed to elaborate.

[Brisc_Rubal]

@Arrendis

. . . I see you’re still misusing the en-dash.

I just can’t stop - ever.

[Lquid_Drisseg]

@Minimax_Zed

Lquid, I’m honestly not certain you’re engaging on this thread with good faith intentions, but I’m going to give it a shot anyway.

Rolling wormholes is not just about “avoiding PVP” or “risk aversion”. Rolling a wormhole is a core part of how WH groups find other players to shoot at them.

It’s impossible to know exactly how much mass is left on a hole. Rolling HICs are/were a good solution to this problem – although they are not 100% risk-free; I’ve been left on the wrong side of a collapsed hole despite 4 HIC bubbles before.

So your arguments are that we need a safe, reliable, predictable way to be assured that during the course of playing a game based around risk, living in what is supposed to be one of the highest risk classes of space, to reduce the risk as much as possible to not only find other people to pvp but to also pve in near 100% safety?

Excuse me while I continue to taste the delicious tears of a “hardcore” playerbase crying that their risk free solution to controlling a space not ment to be controlled is an after thought considering the rest of the game.

[Arrendis]

Then they need to vote for one. Does it suck to not get represented? Yup. Totally does. But how many people in j-space actually voted for the CSM? Who’d they vote for? It’s not like the CSM is a new thing you’re not aware exists.

[Arrendis]

@Rikki_Bigg

So in response, and after reading the article linked*, it seems like suppressing immunity while a weapons timer is active is a much more elegant solution than selectively removing bonuses from hulls and the inevitable rebalancing that would follow.

Because that would have absolutely no effect on Claw fleets that just wait out the timer by bouncing safes, and then continue to be undeterred by traditional (ie: non-BFG) gate camps.

[Gleb_Koskov]

ECM boats could use a survivability buff to compensate for this catastrophe.

[Tempelman_N]

yea this cannot happen, UNLESS!!! you give WH groups a modal to manipulate mass, ounce again the CSM proves its run by goons and dose everything it can to dominate the ear of CCP, and leave the rest of the game community behind. NULL SEC IS DANGEROUS and SHOULD be dangerous! and CCP where are the changes to Cyno and Roqual panic’s!

[Hillbert_Alexis]

I have never felt the need to comment on any projected change until today.

I do everything in this game and have seen everything it has to offer. I am not some hard core PVP player, nor am I a highsec PVE pilot.

Removing the interdiction nullification from one set of ships does not solve the issue. If CCP does not have the gumption to change how warp disruption bubbles, interdiction spheres and generators work, then CCP does not have the foresight to remove functionality from ships because people complained.

Edit: Cloaking is a bigger problem than this nonsense. Cloaking is far too safe in eve, a game where there’s cnyo tethering, docking, gate and other timers that keep players abusing a mechanic so their ships are not lost.

[Zachri]

@Steve_Ronuken

Think of it being like a Taunt in a more normal MMO.

But you don’t see the open Door of normalisation there? It’s not a case of “like”, but one of “analogy towards”, in line with set policies of lowering the adaptation bars for other types of mmo players

Yes, it’s a change. And a pretty neutral one. The ARM/AMRAAM analogy is a good one. At the same time, there’s a deeper element here which - I think - most seem to miss.

[Sapporo_Jones]

Please reconsider the ECM changes. You actually have excellent balance in ECM already, it’s one of the few mechanics that is actually in balance right now. If you suspect ECM being a factor pack SEBOs or ECCM scripts or rsebos or other things that work to counteract ECM. You are eliminating ECM as a force multiplier in smaller engagements with this change when force multiplication is ECM’s primary focus (in addition to it being a core game mechanic in every MMO in existence atm, with it working as it does in every other MMO atm).

If you really want to make changes to balance ECM out give special role ships such as logi higher base sensor strength by less than an integer value and let RNG take the wheel from there.

TBH I think the best middle ground for what you are trying to do would be to have drones autoaggress on the ship applying ECM to you, but allowing you to continue to lock ships even the ship jamming you while you are jammed pretty much eliminates the purpose of ECM and leads to other balance issues you will need to address. As an example ECM bonused ships traditionally have drawbacks in the name of balance. They are slower, less agile and have less tank already because they ECM. So now you are going to make them vulnerable while jamming and while allowing them to continue to have the existing drawbacks. This as a balance action imbalances the ships themselves.

I urge you strongly to reconsider this not just because it’s a rushed change, it’s also extremely myopic to call it a balance pass when it will then require you to further balance things affected by this change.

[Minnerma]

This can be done by modifying sensor strenth of ship. Multiplier can be fixed to perform less computation. Example: basic strenth 20, multiplier 1.2, after 1 jam 24, 2- 28,8, 3 - 34,56 and so on.
Such mechanic will preserve from permajam as far as each successfull jam will strenthen sensors of ship.
Computation will be similar to boosts, target painting and so on.

[Ben_Ishikela]

Because balance is going to be out of whack in short term, this might be a good opportunity to move EWAR (or just ECM) to highslot.
Now ShieldTank and EWAR compete and EWAR-ships dont ridiculously special slot-layouts that are hard to balance.
Then EWAR will compete against DamageOutput on a fit. (Which is totaly fine and maybe fight can longer because of it.)

Caldari is shield, but nearly all reasonable fleet ECM ships are fitted Armor. This has to end. (Excluding weird things like the doubleweb hookbill.)

[stephan_Rin]

i can stand behind most of the changes cause they don’t effect me, but as ecm goes this is just dumb whenever i use ecm its to get out of a lock. guess ccp didn’t think about people just trying to get free from a warp scram/disrupt, without sacrificing a low slot. and finally i would like to end with a qoute “Some capsuleers claim that ECM is ‘dishonorable’ and ‘unfair.’ Jam them first. Kill them last.” -Jirai ‘Fatal’ Laitanen

[Rikki_Bigg]

Please elaborate?

It is impossible to probe down a fleet while they are bouncing safes? How is a hotile fleet able to create so many safes in hostile territory? Are you unable to manage defenses to catch the fleet as it fires and creates the weapons timer by bubbling it?

I’m sorry, but the immunity is a superb tool allowing a hostile force to penetrate into vulnerable areas, similar to how blops fleets can infiltrate. I don’t buy into the argument that a tool shouldn’t be allowed simply because the sp investment is low (the its only 5mil sp argument).

How is a fleet being able to rapidly move into position largely immune to impediment a bad thing when it is balanced with vulnerability once it finally decides to engage? This is literally moving in the trees waiting to engage its prey, to move back into hiding after. Catch them while they are not in the trees, don’t burn the forest down…

[Lugburz]

ahhh @CCP_Falcon HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
daaammn
you basically f*******d falcon, i dont use mine often tbh but as i rely on the target not being able to lock me… think i will be selling it before the price plummets.
Interestingly someone with a sensor booster or sentries can easily defend against falcon, its not all that overpowered… oh dang you really messed the navy griffin too i guess… and any fleet comp that uses ecm ships… lmao gj

zKillboard.com / Related Kills | 6RCQ-V | 2016-03-24 17:00

Combat ceptors… so will you be debuffing af’s or buffing combat ceptors? the speed alone (especially on taranis) isnt really going to make them desirable to use… the dps is lower than an af, the tank also, same mwd bonus… this wasnt well thought out was it?
The CSM are aware in regards to claw fleets and such just two or three well placed smartbombing bs can nuke the lot right?

500mn hic was needed and we knew it would happen. The rest is… peoples inability to adapt and deal with certain situations. “fozziesov” will now become… more blobby than before, i suppose we knew this would happen…

SOOO…
roaming sov space is pointless for pvpers… check; as long as the sov dudes dock = no content; pretty standard but at least we could bubble stations before…
roaming far in a capable frigate that doesnt get stopped by bubbles = check
small gang ewar just got wrecked by 50% will presume you guys will nuke damps in november…
sovereignty now no longer viable for any real smaller entites - check, blob will sit on choke point.

gotta admit your outdoing yourselves on this one, personally i would have made a t2 interdiction launcher with t2 bubbles and some sort of extra anti ecm thing… actually no, ecm is fine; its been fine for years - its just annoying when you get jammed… but thanks for making ratting easier!!

[Arrendis]

@Veryez

So CCP what role do you possibly see for interceptors (specifically combat) now, that an AF can’t do better (and in many cases far better)?

@Arrendis

Besides, we’re just gonna use twice as many fleet interceptors… especially since—given the changes to AFs—they have no actual purpose in a fleet anymore, except for a lone scout or two.

(IOW: Yes, exactly. I totally agree.)

I just want to circle back around to this and tie it to something I said during the discussions about the ‘fax nerfs’. This is a bunch of inter-related issues being addressed piecemeal. It is attempting to treat symptoms, while ignoring the existence of root causes.

@ccp_rise @ccp_fozzie @brisc_rubal @steve_ronuken : CCP needs to figure out how they want these things to fit together. All of them. Rise, Fozzie, you guys and the other devs (because I know it’s not just you, and I know you’re all working your butts off here) need to stop revamping balance for a moment, and make sure your scales are calibrated.

Start broadly. Work narrower.

What are the intended roles for each hull class (S/M/L/XL)?
How do these roles change distribution for different environments (High-sec/Low-sec/NPC Null/Sov Null/J-Space)?
How do these roles change distribution for different engagement sizes? (Examples: you wouldn’t use a battleship to be the lead ship through a gate for a small gang roam, but you’ll send a battleship fleet in ahead of your supercapital fleet. It’s relative.)

Establish that macro scale, then start to drill down.

What roles do each of the broad-spectrum ship types (Interceptor, Assault Frigate, Covert Ops, Logistics Frigate) and their T1 counterparts fill at their most common scale of operations?
And so on.

Figure out what it is you want this all to look like. Then figure out what it does look like. Then figure out why there are differences. That’s a very different thing than ‘How do we make B look like A?’ Understanding why means looking at how things are used, and why people choose to use them that way.

That won’t always be about mechanics. That’ll also be because of economics, and because of psychological/sociological influences. You can’t get people to do what you want if you don’t understand why they’re not already doing it. This bit here, btw? ‘Why is this happening?’ That’s where the CSM is going to be a huge resource—not only because they’re players, but because they can actually reach out and talk with their guys about exactly that, get feedback and opinions, and observe behaviors ‘in the wild’, so to speak.

And remember: actually asking people ‘why are you doing X and not Y?’ is simultaneously the best and worst way to get that answer. It gets you direct input, but it’s also 100% anecdotal from a bunch of people who never understand their own motivations half as well as they think they do. That’s why most analysis tends to overlay that kind of input onto mountains of observed behavioral data to filter out just what level of ‘I don’t really think about why, I just do it’ they can.

But you need to take a step back and look at the big picture, and rebuild your intentions from the ground up. It wouldn’t hurt for the rest of us to know what that big picture of ‘how we envision all these ships fitting together’ looks like, either, because right now, we’ve had close to 10 years of ‘we’re just looking to twist a few knobs’, and it’s amounted to more or less kicking the can down the road, and solving nothing.