open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked Summit Topic: Ship Balance
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (13)

Author Topic

Vile rat
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.18 23:52:00 - [1]
 

I'm sure none of you have any opinions on this and I personally think everything is fine just as it is so this is probably going to be this post and nothing else, sorry to waste your time.



Ok now that the laughter has died down we all have some strong opinions on this subject and I'd like this thread to encompass everything from individual ships to how they interact in fleets. The sky is the limit. I want your ideas on what is messed up and why you think it is messed up but also I'd like to hear from you what you think works particularly well and why. We need every bit of information you can throw our way because while I think the the Ferox is an industrious ship that is capable of taking on all comers I fear some of you feel this might not be the case. Arm us with your best rants and most thoughtful ideas so we can spend hours slamming our shoes on the table reciting our best poetry on why assault frigs truly are worthless and how they can be improved to be better utilized in small and big fleet engagements. Maybe you thought up a new way that fleet mechanics can be designed so your special snowflake electronic attack frig can be integrated into large fleet combat if only x was changed.

Don't let me down friends! We got a lot of work ahead of us on this one and I want your input so we can attack this properly.

Draco Llasa
Thundercats
Posted - 2011.04.18 23:56:00 - [2]
 

in b4 the rage on "fix gallente"


Corina's Bodyguard
Posted - 2011.04.19 00:08:00 - [3]
 

Yeah, there will be a lot of that.

I would suggest looking at faction frigates, and balancing them out a bit.

Mashie Saldana
Minmatar
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.04.19 00:17:00 - [4]
 

Increase the jump/portal range on the Black Ops.

Get rid of the tier system for T1 frigs, it would be nice to have some options besides Rifters to fly in PVP.

Fix the inconsistencies between meta 4 and T2 modules.

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.04.19 00:33:00 - [5]
 

See my sig.

Capital Ships of all flavors (except perhaps the Titans) need to be reviewed and possibly even revamped entirely, with special emphasis on Dreads.

Dumping the tier system would pretty much 'balance' the rest of the t1 ships.

The T2 lineups need review as well, too many ships out there that nobody uses for anything at all. Special emphasis on BO, CS, and the non ECM EW ships.

Vile rat
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.19 00:41:00 - [6]
 

Nobody is gonna be looking at your sig, just post your ideas here.

Mr DurkaDur
Posted - 2011.04.19 00:41:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Mr DurkaDur on 19/04/2011 00:42:17
For me the first thing I can think of as far as ships, is the dreads, I remember when I joined EVE and was like "Whoa, dreads are fawesome!" then I found out that they are basically big fat battleships that move 3x slower, have horrible damage against other capitals, can pretty much only shot stationary structures (rly?), only have 3 XL turrets, and not to mention the 10 minutes it takes to make your guns look all fancy.

They need some serious buffing, my personal, uneducated, and ignorant idea that will no doubt get trolol'd. Is to simply give the dreads more turrets. When I say this, I am thinking of the Star Wars, Star Destroyers, like 30 large, 20 medium and 10 small (and proper missile upgrades to the Caldari) all active at once.

Just my opinion, or whatever.

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.04.19 00:46:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Val''Dore on 19/04/2011 00:46:29
Originally by: Vile rat
Nobody is gonna be looking at your sig, just post your ideas here.


I didn't vote for you, but I'll humor you anyway.

Quote:
Originally by: Original Concept Thread
The odd name for this thread basically means Killing the Tier System.

Pros and Cons of the current tier system for tech I ships:

Pros
  • None


Cons
  • Obsoletes nearly half the Tech I ship lineup simply by existing

  • Arbitrarily dictates ship build cost

  • Impacts balance excessively

  • Has no logical basis


I see several ways to go about committing tiericide:

  1. Reduce all class appropriate skill requirements to lvl 1 (the skill that affects the bonuses)

  2. Change material cost to be based on mass (Tech 1 only)

  3. Adjust hp, cap, and fitting values to be more normalized

  4. Make the ship bonuses and slots be the differentiating factors

  5. Tweak individual ships to be more unique if there is excessive overlap

  6. Possibly add role bonuses to each ship to further define them (such as the Omen's could be 50% optimal range, Caracal's might be 25% shield resist, Stabber's could be 50% webifier range, etc)


Any thoughts?


Link to Original Thread

Addendums to be added.


[Mandate] Tiericide

Don't you have a Secretary?

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Posted - 2011.04.19 00:53:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite on 19/04/2011 00:54:50
Quick thoughts:
1.) EAF are too weak in the current PVP environment. Why does the griffin have 50% farther targeting range than the kistune? All the EAF's have a reduced targeting range, and most have reduced CPU.... Isn't this a little ass-backwards?

2.) The fourth bonus on AF's would be nice, but not required. Most AF's are fairly quality as is (as long as they have midslots). The ab bonus that was tested a while back sounded pretty nice, I wonder why it was discarded?

3.) The dramiel is a little tooooooooooooo fast for its tank and dps. Its ok for it to be the fastest dual-prop frig with a MSE, but not if it outputs 200 DPS too. The best compromise I've heard is to reduce its DPS by 10-20%. Keep it at the top, but engageable!

4.) SC's.....

5.) Hybrid's.... Realistically, they probably should have switched the minnie & gallente weapons platforms, but tis too late for that. hybrid platforms need more PG, and blaster platforms need a way to get in range. I would reduce autocannon tracking to less than their blaster counterpart, and boost blaster optimal by 25%.

6.) I think destroyer bonus's are all mixed up for their corresponding races.

7.) Ships with only 1 midslot are broken for pew-pew. If its a combat ship, it aught to have 2 mid-midslots!

8.) Give BO's some luvin.... Either make the ships *cough* Sin *cough* more combat capable, or allow them a longer jump range and the like.

GeeShizzle MacCloud
Caldari
Posted - 2011.04.19 02:00:00 - [10]
 

i'd like to reference something that eve facebook page brought me to in terms of ship balancing and that is this

throwing the math part of the link away for a moment if you look at the distribution graphs 1/4 of the way down and the near the end of the document you'll see graphic representations of why certain ships are favored amongst others when it comes to a ships navigational performance.

there needs to be a better spread, although i agree in part with a bit of ship type grouping and racial grouping in this area i don't believe certain ships should have such an unquestionable dominance over another.

It makes little real world sense either in terms of industry. just because intel used to make the 500mhz MMX processor doesnt mean its viable for the current era. Similarly id rather see ships more closely balanced and then shifted around constantly in the form of updates, improvements and upgrades to simulate shipyard industry rivalry and competitiveness.

this does NOT mean a constant chain of buffing, what might buff one aspect of a ship could nerf another aspect, which may be buffed in another update... providing a detrimental double nerf to another aspect. keeping the level of buffs and nerfs equal and constantly shifting will create dynamicism and a constantly changing combat situation.

i would also add with the now 64 bit database it could be made possible to opt a ship out of the update chain, preserving a particularly successful update thus making them extremely valuable commodities.

Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation
RONA Directorate
Posted - 2011.04.19 02:27:00 - [11]
 

From hot topics of the assembly hall

Black ops

TL:DR - black ops are too weak, their jump range and resists should be boosted and add covert ops cloak or a variation there of for black ops ship.


ORIGINAL CONCEPT - Many of you dont remember but when black ops were being tested they were going to mount a module that basically pinged cloakers that were on grid that were cloaked. This ping would allow black ops to temp "see" cloakers and fly to them to uncloak them.


Gallente -

Drone boats - they are fine, dont fix what ain't broke, anyone who thinks the ishtar or dominix suck dont know how to fly gallente.

-Blaster boats, hyperion, deimos, astarte, megathron if you are daring.

Simply put there are two problems, they are too massive (weight), and there is not enough capacitor due to hybrids requiring cap. This puts gallente ships below par of something like the vaga or zealot.

Fix - there are a few things I can think of.

1. increase capacitor
2. ship bonus that reduces the max capacitor penalty of mwd
3. lower the ships mass to allow faster acceleration.
4. increase base speed of gallente ships.

Minmatar

Tempest needs some freaking love. As it stands right now people would rather get a phoon or a maelstrom over a tempest.

Proposed fix -

Tempest / tempest fleet issue - raise the power grid by 1000 Mw

Possibility #2 - adjust the rof / damage mod to 7.5% per level

Tempest fleet issue only - add back the 7th turret slot.


Tech 3 ships


These also need some major love, especially the legion

One general thing - all defensive subsystems should have a drone bay of sorts, ranging from 10-25 m based on the type of subsystem.

Possible fix #2

why is there a reason to train strategic cruiser past level 1 other than for overhead. Have the base hulls give a racial bonus of some sort,
Example
Caldari - +5% flight time per level
Gallente - +5% falloff per level
Amarr - 5% bonus to energy turret use / 5% rof to missiles
Minmatar - 5% to cool looking wingy bits per level or 5% to shield / armor boost per level

*shrugs* These are just ideas.


ELECTRONIC ATTACK Ships

What to do about these.

ummm best guess is reduce sid radius and boost resists to shields and armor. to be in line with af. make them hard to kill like interceptors or give them durability like af.


Anyway those are just ideas.


Nauplius
Amarr
1st Praetorian Guard
Posted - 2011.04.19 02:39:00 - [12]
 

Improve the Maller and Prophecy so that they are something other than bait or an occasional comedy fleet option.

The base change should be either to "Abaddonize" or "Khanidize" each ship; Abaddonize meaning to have laser damage and resist bonuses, and Khanidize meaning to have HAM damage and resist bonuses. (My preference would be to make the Prophecy a HAM ship; the Maller could go either way).

Additionally, the Maller will need more CPU/grid; it does not have nearly enough of a CPU/grid advantage over the totally superior Rupture to compensate for the higher fitting requirements of lasers, especially considering the Rupture gets drones.

(And nerf Angel ships into the ground).


Javelin6
Dirt Nap Squad
Posted - 2011.04.19 02:47:00 - [13]
 

My 2 ISK for Blacks-Ops changes.


  • Change the cloaked velocity bonus to a 20% per level reduction of scan resolution and speed penalty of fitting cloaking devices.

  • Increase Jump and bridge range by 50% (should be enough to get some of those regional jumps that are just out of reach currently)

  • Change the Sin's agility bonus to a 7.5% tracking bonus per level.


  • Change the Panther's speed bonus to 10% falloff per level bonus.


  • Add T2 resists.

X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Posted - 2011.04.19 04:42:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: X Gallentius on 19/04/2011 04:42:38
Originally by: Draco Llasa
in b4 the rage on "fix gallente"
Damn, beat me to it. NERF MINMATAR!!!! /rage

Berendas
Posted - 2011.04.19 04:59:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Berendas on 19/04/2011 04:59:57
The Drake really needs some tweaking. It can simply accomplish too much at the same time in gangs of almost every size (except for megablobs). Massive buffer +regen, the huge range of Heavy Missiles, low reliance on cap, and shield tanking allows it to stay faster than the other BC's with the exception of the Hurricane (assuming its shield tanked). All this in one cheap, easy to train package that is especially hard to counter in small gangs.

Yes, yes, bring on the endless flames, but it is the #1 most used combat ship for a reason.

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.19 07:13:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Scatim Helicon on 19/04/2011 07:59:14
I should probably point out that the CSM have already said there's little point posting ideas for specific balance tweaks as CCP is more interested in hearing what the problem is than what you think the solutions are.

edit: by which I mean big picture ideas ("buff tier 1 battlecruisers") are probably fine, micro-level tweaks ("give the ferox another turret slot/5% more grid/500 more shield HP/whatever") will probably be ignored by CCP.

I'll wall-of-text a list of problems a little later.

Opertone
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.04.19 08:26:00 - [17]
 

replace tempest with freeborn model, CCP starship contest finalist - Freeborn - Tempest

replace ferox with vidar model - vidar - ferox

replace rupture with thor model - Thor - rupture

Marconus Orion
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.04.19 09:05:00 - [18]
 

I detest that the following statement is true in this game:

"Why fly a,b,c when x,y,z exists?"

That applies to so many ships right now. So many that are simply inferior to other ships so they see no use at all. Granted you could name any ship and there will be some die hard out there who had some mild success with it once out of a hundred times and swears by it but lets be realistic here.

MrLobster
Cosmic Odyssey
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2011.04.19 10:34:00 - [19]
 

1) Oneiros and Scimitar
Both need a Remote Energy Transfer bonus, just like the Basilisk and Guardian.

2) Black Ops
Jump/bridge range increase, because sometimes its quicker to go through a stargate than jump. I wanted to do single jump to a system that was 2 stargates away. But instead I had to travel 10 stargates to get to a mid jump system, then 10 stargates back.

3) Damps and EW as a whole.
With the damp "reduction" a few years ago, the arazu and lachesis were rendered fairly meaningless. Where as you could damp a single target down to less than 5k, these days your lucky to get the target below max scramble range.

I'll use the base raven for reference:
Raven = 93km range
Damp (lvl5,arazu,rigs) = 60% per damp.

0x = 93km
1x = 55km
2x = 33km
3x = 20km

My scramble range with a T2 scrambler is 16.2km, 18km with lvl5 skills.

What I would like is more modules that works similar to the ECM Signal Distortion Amps which gives 10% bonus to use of EW modules (damps, ECM, tracking disruptors, even perhaps webs and scrams).

This would enable better use of damps and tracking disrupter's, but also will make you decide whether to compromise the low slots of ships for tank or EW Amps.

Another side effect of increased EW efficiency would be for Electronic Attack Frigates.

4) Electronic Attack Ships
a) Increase tank, whether thats by Resists or HP.
b) Increase lock range.
c) Using #3 would increase the usefulness of EAF's

Halycon Gamma
Caldari
The Flying Tigers
United Front Alliance
Posted - 2011.04.19 11:09:00 - [20]
 

My ship balance problem with the game, from a macro instead of a micro world view. Logistics. Once a certain level of DPS is on the field, you have to RR to keep ships up. And since there are two types of RR, everyone standardizes to the type that the greatest number of ships in the game use, making life easier on everyone.

Fix this.

And no, this isn't a "ZOMG Fix My Caldari Shield" rant. I want there to be strategic or tactical reasons to standardize a fleet to one or the other, beyond the number of ship types you brought.

Its a bit beyond the boundary of simple ship balance, but if one type of fitting or tactic becomes the norm because its so overwhelmingly better than all others... its probably a good idea to introduce a balancing factor against it. Or, to introduce a new mechanic which gives reasons for, or against, implementing it.

Kyang Tia
Posted - 2011.04.19 11:48:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Kyang Tia on 19/04/2011 11:56:04
Edited by: Kyang Tia on 19/04/2011 11:51:48
DISCLAIMER: The following is written from a small scale PvPer's perspective only.

I will begin with what I think is good about the current system. The rock/paper/scissors model basically works. It ensures that, theoretically, no ship class is useless and even for a veteran with 50 million SP, there can still be a reason to fly a Rifter over a battleship, in a given situation. This is a point where EVE differs from other RPGs and i like it. There is an ever-changing world out there and you have to use your brains, adapt to it, theorycraft new setups, test them, iterate them and so on. This is what PvP in EVE is all about, in my opinion. So, in your attempts to balance ships, do not overact until all ships are the same, the diversity must be mantained and even emphasized!

That said, there are issues with ship balancing, a lot of them actually. But we have a good foundation upon which we can build. I will adress several things, in order of importance:

1) The medium-sized ship class as a whole. (e.g. all cruiser and battlecruiser-sized ships). The addition of strategic cruisers has even more added to the problems here. I will give some examples instead of explaining the theory for three pages:

-Command ships are almost completely useless at the moment. Field command ships are not worth their price and training time. When you look at the strong Tier2-Battlecruisers, there is just no reason to justify flying a command ship instead when it only performs a slight bit better. Just look at the Harbinger, which does more dps than the Absolution, or the Myrmidon, which has better tank and versatility than the Astarte. Fleet command ships used to be powerful, but nowdays, unprobable T3 cruisers offer even better gang bonuses while being almost completely invulnerable.

-Tier 1 battlecruisers are vastly inferior to their Tier 2 brothers and are used very seldomly.

-Balance between races is bad in Tech 1 cruisers. The Rupture is the best of them with no other being able to compete, with the possible exception of the Blackbird. All races need good Tech 1 cruisers. When have you last seen a Moa, Omen or Thorax used in PvP? The whole ship class needs some work.

-A role must be found for some HACs that currently don't see much use. HACs as a whole must be more focused on speed and maneuverability, so there is a reason to use one over a BC. At the moment, a nano Hurricane is about as fast as a Sacrilege or a Deimos while also having superior damage output and versatility. That does not sound right to me.

-Some of the Empire faction cruisers, especially Fleet Scythe, Navy Exequror and Navy Osprey, are way to weak.

-I consider the Tier 2 battlecruisers too strong in total. They can be used with success in almost any situation and offer such a good compromise in speed, tank, damage and price that they often replace HACs, command ships or T3s altogether.



2) Hybrid weapons. Especially medium sized hybrid weapons are very weak and need some kind of buff. I will not elaborate on this any further, it has been discussed for years.



3) Active tanking. It is more skill intensive than buffer tanking, usually requires more slots and is more difficult to do (cap management and all). It makes total sense that active tanked ships are not supposed to be viable in large engagements, but it should be possible to win a 1on1 in an active tanked ship without using stuff like drugs, implant sets and faction fittings. This matter must be adressed carefully, so as to not make fully pimped Maelstroms the ultimate solopwnmobiles.

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST

Kyang Tia
Posted - 2011.04.19 11:50:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Kyang Tia on 19/04/2011 12:01:25
Edited by: Kyang Tia on 19/04/2011 11:58:56
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE POST

4) Angel cartel ships, while expensive and difficult to fly, are a bit too strong. When you fight one, you either die or the enemy can run away, unless he makes a crucial mistake.


5) Destroyers and intedictors. Generally the minmatar ships are the only good ones in this class. The others need to be put in line.


6) The Arazu and Lachesis need some kind of improvement to their EW bonuses, so as to make sensor dampeners viable to use. //edit: Forgot about the Keres, Maulus and Celestis. Same applies for those.

So, basically, just what Marconus Orion said. Every ship should be resonable to use in some situation. There sould be no such thing as a useless ship.

Kyang

Naomi Knight
Amarr
Posted - 2011.04.19 11:54:00 - [23]
 

ship what??? :O never heard that word related eve sorry

Papa Boats
Northstar Cabal
Posted - 2011.04.19 11:55:00 - [24]
 

Vile Rat,

Thank you for setting up a topic for this much needed area of adjustment. Being a bitter vet that is truely getting burnt out of changing ships I can say gallent, cald hybrid systems are totally broken. I am an avid Gallente pilot they would really be good if Hybids were not so totally broken with rng/dps ratio's. It makes no sence that I can fly a mega and do piddle for DPS against anyone regardless of setup. Then add in they are the slowest bricks you can throw into a pool and you get broken blasters on a ship that can never get into range. What is the point of staying race specific.

I have now taken up the common practice of fitting lazors and auto's to all my ships even losing the bonus I am better off. My ferox is full of 220's auto's and can take darn near anyone. My mega is pulse lasor fit and get a large Shocked factor. I hate this bring back a reason for me to fit hybrids.

Papa Boats

Yankunytjatjara
Amarr
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
Posted - 2011.04.19 12:18:00 - [25]
 

The omen needs more powergrid and base speed. It should be quicker than a rupture, but slower than a stabber. It should be capable of fitting HPLs without tank or grid mods. It should be capable of fitting FMPLs with serious tank, and HBLs with grid mods.

The only t1 cruiser worthy of flying is atm the rupture... Please change that!

Vile rat
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.19 12:19:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Marconus Orion
I detest that the following statement is true in this game:

"Why fly a,b,c when x,y,z exists?"

That applies to so many ships right now. So many that are simply inferior to other ships so they see no use at all. Granted you could name any ship and there will be some die hard out there who had some mild success with it once out of a hundred times and swears by it but lets be realistic here.


You know I love this post. I agree. I hate that whole classes of ships end up obsoleted because some other class does it better. Dreadnoughts I'm looking at you!

Keep the ideas coming guys. Don't worry about interpreting the thread too much, just post all your hair brained ideas on how to fix things and things you got a gripe with.

Poaw
Posted - 2011.04.19 12:44:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Poaw on 19/04/2011 12:45:18
It would be nice if the specific ship bonuses were reviewed in general. In there effects both pve and pvp. A few are favored over all others (Max velocity, and +resist specifically).

Also some of the slot layouts are quite unpopular, (Retribution, Deimos, and others).

Larger drone bays.

And lastly, look at a lot of the Minmatar/Angel lineup and their effect on solo/small gang PvP. Based on player preference I think you greatly under-budgeted speed and agility when deciding ship characteristics. The ability to dictate an engagement is a very potent ability, especially when they also deal comparable DPS to their competitors.

PS, change something about Hybrids. Do anything you think will make them better.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2011.04.19 13:09:00 - [28]
 

This won't be popular because I'm calling for mostly nerfs, and the myopic always like the incessant turning of the power-creeping boost-wheel. Oh well.

1. Battlecruisers. Tier 2 battlecruisers are too popular because they're too good at too many things. Their abundant slots and fittings give them mobility competitive with T1 cruisers, while their abundant medium weapons give them vastly superior but still relatively-easy-to-apply firepower. They step on the toes of both battleships and cruisers too much, while obsoleting tier 1 BCs. Solution: nerf tier 2 BCs to tier 1 levels by cutting their EHP, slot counts and turret/launcher layouts. People will switch from tier 2 BCs to cruisers, tier 1 BCs and BS. The diversity of ships seen in space will increase.

2. Supercarriers. They've obsoleted dreadnoughts by being better at being dreadnoughts than dreadnoughts. Dreads are well balanced because they have a defined role, they have to commit to a fight and they're very vulnerable to subcapitals. Supercarriers have none of these weaknesses, and no defined role. Supercarriers need to be much less mobile, much more vulnerable to subcapitals and need to have a specific role. This will maybe require changes to cyno mechanics, removal of their ability to deploy fighters and their immunity to normal tackle.

3. Increase the 150 km minimum warp distance to 250 km. A wreck or probe result >150 km away can be warped to in seconds. This degree of mobility reduces the value and meaning of range, rendering long-range combat unfairly difficult. It reduces the value of ships designed to engage in long-range combat, and the value of fast ships, as restrictions on both range and speed can be bypassed in seconds by an appropriate warp. Change the minimum warp distance to 250 km, the lock range.

4. Rails. The defining feature of rails is range. It is therefore absurd that the ship with the most gun DPS around 240 km is not a railboat. While okay on the frigate level, they're flat bad at the cruiser level and rendered obsolete at the BS level by the existence of the Apocalypse. Boost cruiser rails, nerf the Apoc's range bonus to 5%/level or remove it entirely. Then see how BS rails look in conjunction with the change to the minimum warp distance.

5. Blasters. The defining feature of blasters is close-range DPS. But ACs and can also apply DPS effectively at close range, to the extent that they're almost as good at blasters at being blasters, but have vastly superior range to boot. Given their greater range, ACs and Pulse have unnecessarily good tracking, allowing them to hit small stuff by manipulation of range, while blasters always fall foul of range or tracking. Reduce the tracking of Pulse and ACs, increase the tracking of blasters, and maybe their raw DPS a tad.

Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Electus Matari
Posted - 2011.04.19 13:12:00 - [29]
 

Capitals / Carriers (nerf Archon)

Capitals need a full review. Including carriers.

As is, the Archon is simply the best, by a wide margin. It has the strongest local tank, by far, even compared to the Chimera (the Chimera loses out because it needs CPR IIs to be cap stable, which gimp the local tank), it has the best cap stability - and for carriers, cap is life -, and as it can fit 3 RR and run that from its cap partially, it even out-RRs (+50%) a Nidhoggur which supposedly gets a bonus (+20%/+25%) to that. There is no reason ever to fly anything but an Archon in an armor-based fleet, and with three carriers designed for armor tanks, that's kind of silly.

This goes as far as to making people prefer armor tanks over shield tanks in fleets because the Archon is simply so much better.

Logistics (boost Oneiros)

There is no redeeming quality for an Oneiros in a fleet. The Guardian has a better tank, better RR ability, has better fitting, is faster, has a lower signature, etc. etc. etc. The Oneiros needs a role.

Possibility: Make the Guardian slower with a higher signature so the Guardian is the cap chain based ship but the Oneiros being able to sig tank much better, and give them roughly equal fitting/tanking ability.

Command Ships (boost Eos)

There is currently no reason to fly an Eos. It needs a much better tank to be useful for armor fleets; it currently tanks worse than a BS. Information warfare links should do with a revamp, too. They're nice, but not nearly as useful as the three others.

Abaddon (nerf)

Right now, there is almost no reason to ever fly any other battleship than the Abaddon except a Machariel for "fast" fleets. The Abaddon has a much bigger buffer than any other BS, much better resists (i.e. logistics tank), absolutely fantastic range (80km with pulses and 2x TC, which also completely mitigates the minimal "tracking problems" of lasers), can fit artillery for alpha fleets and is in that role superior to the Maelstrom (same alpha, same range, much better tank, lower RoF is easily mitigated by the better buffer), and has in essence no real drawback. This is compounded by the Archon being such an awesome carrier compared to the rest (see above).

Picking Abaddons as fleet ships should have some kind of actual drawback in proportion to their advantages. If they have 50% more EHP and tank than anything else, they need, say, seriously reduced damage output and not just 10% less dps than the other options. There never should be one ship for a role that's simply better in every respect than the others. It's fine if there is a ship that is best in some qualities, but not in all.

Faction Ships (nerf Dramiel)

The navy faction ships are nice. They are close to the T2 versions and have different roles. The Hookbill needs a check because it's a tiny bit too strong compared to, say, the Slicer or especially the Firetail, but they're all quite ok.

Pirate faction frigates are so far out of scale it's not funny anymore. The Dramiel is the favorite example, but the Daredevil isn't much behind, either. It's boring if a single ship is simple "the best" in every way. Make the Dramiel have some kind of drawback compared to at least some other frigates. Doesn't need to big much, but as it is, the frigate class is dominated by 1.5 frigates.

The Angel lineup is also too strong, all in all, but I'm not sure if that is because the other pirate faction ships are so weak in comparison or because the Angels are so good.

PS. Fix FW plexes so they treat faction ships as T2. The "new player" minor plexes being dominated by Dramiels is un-fun.

Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2011.04.19 13:21:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 19/04/2011 13:22:43
Echo what Arkady says above. Carrier balance is out of whack (and I say this as an Archon pilot), and the Eos is just sad. The Astarte is also, but that's very much tied to the sad state of hybrid guns at the moment so could be fixed via that -- on the other hand, it's a command ship without a utility slot for the gang link (compare to Absolution), so there is that to fix in any case.

...and yes, the Angel ships are OP, I think pretty much everyone is aware of this. Some rebalancing needed there.

Though it's a minor issue, I'd also point out the active tank bonuses on blockade runners as something that could use a rethink. Even on Prowler fitting a buffer tank makes more sense if you do the math, and on Viator and whatever-the-amarr-one-is: who uses a lowslot on a hauler for an active repper, ffs?

Added: EAFs. Fix them, please. I don't remember seeing anyone fly them ever, outside the Alliance tournaments :(


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (13)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only