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: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... : last (13)

Author Topic

Tsubutai
The Tuskers
Posted - 2011.05.09 13:18:00 - [181]
 

Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: Vance Black

The big one, the Drake: remove that shield resistance bonus and replace it with a missile velocity bonus or launcher rate of fire bonus and make it a true mini raven.


Big problems here. Giving it a missile velocity bonus just makes it a big fat Caracal. We really don't need two almost-identical ships like that.

The cane is a big fat rupture and I don't see anyone complaining about that.

While I could go for a tier 2 BC nerf, nerfing them down to tier 1 levels would be silly - half of the tier 1s are terrible, and the other two are only so-so. Buff tier 1 BCs and nerf tier 2s so they're both sort of tier 1.5 but with different roles and you'd be there.

X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Posted - 2011.05.09 15:34:00 - [182]
 

Originally by: Viribus
... Post # 77...
Fully support Post No. 77. These are great suggestions for boosting Gallente hulls.

Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation
RONA Directorate
Posted - 2011.05.09 17:53:00 - [183]
 

Originally by: Kakari Ra
From my experience in Eve, I feel following ships needs to be rethinked.

1. Eos

As it stands now, this ship is really ..., hmm... I dare say that Eos needs to be deleted in its current status. I understand it is a fleet commandship and it is not meant for omfgod dps. But with its ganklink bonus nearly useless, it has nothing.

And it is a CreoDron ship. CreoDron, I'd like to repeat.

First of all, I would like to see it to have 125 drone bandwidth. In doing so, it must have its turrent hardpoint decreased to 3. It shall not have drone damage bonus. Modify its current 15+ drone bay bonus to 50+.

In addition, its current 7 / 4 / 6 could be 6 / 5 / 6 (or even 6 / 5 / 5) which puts it in line of other droneboats where they have fairly balanced slot layouts.

With this change, Eos will be a gimped drone boat, but at least it will have enough drone bay for waves of drones for support in a small gang.



you should have seen them back in 2006/2007 when they had those stats, a fleet of RR Eos with Orgre II's were just amazing.

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
DarkSide.
Posted - 2011.05.09 18:30:00 - [184]
 

Originally by: Tsubutai

While I could go for a tier 2 BC nerf, nerfing them down to tier 1 levels would be silly - half of the tier 1s are terrible, and the other two are only so-so.

But that's where they belong to. One shouldn't expect much from a tech1 ship even if it's a battleship, much less a mere battlecruiser. Penny-pinchers are really spoilt nowadays.

Tsubutai
The Tuskers
Posted - 2011.05.09 19:16:00 - [185]
 

Originally by: Fon Revedhort
Originally by: Tsubutai

While I could go for a tier 2 BC nerf, nerfing them down to tier 1 levels would be silly - half of the tier 1s are terrible, and the other two are only so-so.

But that's where they belong to. One shouldn't expect much from a tech1 ship even if it's a battleship, much less a mere battlecruiser. Penny-pinchers are really spoilt nowadays.

Every ship should have a purpose and be worth flying; reducing all BCs to the level of the Prophecy would be stupid.

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.05.09 19:24:00 - [186]
 

I'm kinda neutral on the nerf suggestion, but it does have to be said that the tier 1s are only "terrible" compared to the tier 2s. Put a tier 1 BC against a tech 1 cruiser and the cruiser is gonna die in a fire. Price difference isn't even that much factoring insurance.

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
DarkSide.
Posted - 2011.05.09 19:32:00 - [187]
 

Originally by: Tsubutai
Originally by: Fon Revedhort
Originally by: Tsubutai

While I could go for a tier 2 BC nerf, nerfing them down to tier 1 levels would be silly - half of the tier 1s are terrible, and the other two are only so-so.

But that's where they belong to. One shouldn't expect much from a tech1 ship even if it's a battleship, much less a mere battlecruiser. Penny-pinchers are really spoilt nowadays.

Every ship should have a purpose and be worth flying

Yeap, that's why we need to bring tier2 down to tier1. Otherwise - should CCP follow your advice - the amount of battlecruisers will be even more overwhelming than it is now.

It's pretty evident, really.

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.05.09 20:37:00 - [188]
 

Also gotta admit, looking at this objectively, the stats some BCs can reach really aren't far off BS level, but with the added mobility and wallet-friendly prices.

Gypsio may indeed have a point on nerfing tier 2s in general. =/

Mars Theran
Caldari
EVE Rogues
EVE Rogues Alliance
Posted - 2011.05.10 02:16:00 - [189]
 

Don't Nerf.

Buff!




..next thing you know we'll all be flying glass hulls with pee shooters.. cripes!

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.05.10 08:08:00 - [190]
 

Originally by: Fon Revedhort
Yeap, that's why we need to bring tier2 down to tier1. Otherwise - should CCP follow your advice - the amount of battlecruisers will be even more overwhelming than it is now.


Battlecruisers aren't used anything like 'overwhelmingly' and haven't been for around 6-9 months now since people switched to abaddons and maelstroms and began comfortably demolishing drake fleets over and over again. Nerfing them at this stage would be pointless and stupid.

Tsubutai
The Tuskers
Posted - 2011.05.10 08:30:00 - [191]
 

Edited by: Tsubutai on 10/05/2011 08:52:37
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: Fon Revedhort
Yeap, that's why we need to bring tier2 down to tier1. Otherwise - should CCP follow your advice - the amount of battlecruisers will be even more overwhelming than it is now.


Battlecruisers aren't used anything like 'overwhelmingly' and haven't been for around 6-9 months now since people switched to abaddons and maelstroms and began comfortably demolishing drake fleets over and over again. Nerfing them at this stage would be pointless and stupid.

eve-kill is down atm, but last time I looked, Drakes and Hurricanes were more common than Maels and Abaddons, and when you look at the overall top 20, ships that are primarily used in small-scale fights are noticeably more common than those used in fleet warfare. Even with a massive allwar on, large-scale fleet pvp (probably) accounts for a minority of all kills in the game, and tier 2 battlecruisers really are ubiquitous in smaller fights.

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.05.10 08:41:00 - [192]
 

Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington on 10/05/2011 09:41:11
Originally by: Mars Theran
Don't Nerf.

Buff!



Nice slogan. Shame it lacks any actual argument.
You do realise there is a time and a place for both?

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2011.05.10 11:32:00 - [193]
 

Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: Fon Revedhort
Yeap, that's why we need to bring tier2 down to tier1. Otherwise - should CCP follow your advice - the amount of battlecruisers will be even more overwhelming than it is now.


Battlecruisers aren't used anything like 'overwhelmingly' and haven't been for around 6-9 months now since people switched to abaddons and maelstroms and began comfortably demolishing drake fleets over and over again. Nerfing them at this stage would be pointless and stupid.


This argument deals only with the balance of tier 2 BCs vs. BS in the fleet environment. It does not address tier 2 BC balance in other PVP enviroments (as pointed out, they're ubiquitous in small-gang stuff), and it does not deal with the balance of tier 2 BCs vs. cruisers and close-range HACs (Sac and Deimos, although you can add auto-Muninn at a pinch).

As also noted by others, the tier 1 BCs only look terrible when compared to the tier 2s - they're still quite capable of kicking in the faces of a cruiser or two. But their fewer slots and generally trickier fittings means that it's a lot harder to make a tier 1 BC better than a cruiser at being a cruiser.

Leaving aside the nerf issue for a second, it's indisputable that the balance between tier 1 and 2 BCs is awful, with the result that there's little reason to fly the tier 1s. So it's self-evident that either tier 1s need boosting, or that tier 2s need nerfing. The normal response has been to propose boosting the tier 1s - but I believe that there are fundamental problems with the balance of tier 2s, relative to cruisers, close-range HACs and even field CS, and that these problems strongly argue that the tier 1s are a better model for BCs than the tier 2s.

I don't expect proposing a nerf to probably the most used group of ships in the game to be a popular suggestion, and frankly I don't expect CCP to enforce it, cos it'll just **** off too many people. Hell, the first time I saw the argument for nerfing the tier 2s, I reacted angrily too. But over the next day or two my reaction was something like this but angrier at the start and in extreme slow motion.

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.05.10 12:55:00 - [194]
 

I'm gonna admit I hadn't actually considered a nerf to tier 2s as the solution but looking at it now, it does make sense.

The Cyclone is a very usable BC, as is the Brutix and the Ferox but the Prophecy I believe needs a fundamental rethink. CCP don't appear to understand the concept that being a no-dps brick is an extremely niché role, if it can be called a role at all.

It probably wouldn't be too hard to tone the tier 2s down a bit while keeping their roles distinct.
Caldari - guns vs missiles. Simple enough really.
Gallente - gank vs tank. Myrm would still have enough dps to be worth flying but more staying power than a Brutix.
Amarr - just go back to the drawing board with the prophecy, to be honest. I'm in favour of the HAM suggestion personally. Does the Harbinger really need much of a nerf?
Minmatar - I'm not sure what to suggest here, but frankly the Hurricane is the poster-ship for the cruiser-bc imbalance. It has the speed and agility of a cruiser and the firepower and tank of a BC. Not sure what to suggest nerf-wise here to be honest.

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
DarkSide.
Posted - 2011.05.10 14:35:00 - [195]
 

Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 10/05/2011 14:40:50

One should always keep in mind that in computer games combat strength is relative. So the point of boosting all the other things - instead of nerfing just one - on grounds of 'progress' being made and other RP crap is nothing else but a pathetic demagogy. Game development is not a RL history.

And it's always easier and better to bring down one overpowered ship instead of making all the others equally overpowered, which at the end of the day inevitably results in everything becomming equally mediocre. It's nice to deal 1000 DPS when your rivals deal just 500, but what's the point in having 2000 when everyone else has 2000 as well and tanks proportionally better? It's just a useless inflation of game values.

Let's think for a second that CCP indeed becomes insane (I mean even more insane than they're now Laughing) and boosts tier1 BC up to tier2 level. But they can not make them 100% equal with tier2, so these new shiny tier1 BC will occupy another role - a role which atm belongs to some completely unrelated hulls. Nowadays close-range HACs are kinda obsolete. But with those buffed battlecruisers so will become long-ranged HACs, too. Or something else.
Then CCP will finally admit the balance is completely broken and obsolete classes need buffing. So they buff those and your beloved battlecruisers end up getting the very same (relative) position where they could have belonged to long before that.

Is it really what you want? 5 minutes of fame for few ships at the cost of justice, dev time etc?

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.05.10 15:02:00 - [196]
 

^ I believe the term is "power creep", and yeah it does need to be avoided, especially with a ship size as delicate balance-wise as BCs.

The thing that made me realise there might be an issue was when I was shopping around for some new throwaway PVP ships, and honestly couldn't justify a cruiser to myself. Cost of fitting the things is almost as much as a BC, but their performance is so much lower.

Not sure if I mentioned this in another post (sorry if I did) - but me and a friend added up costs in the region we were in.
A shield buffered Cyclone was approx. 4mil more than a fully fitted Rupture, factoring insurance.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.05.10 15:18:00 - [197]
 

Originally by: Fon Revedhort
..

Which is why most are talking about a buff+nerf, to let the BCs meet half-way .. individual bonuses is more than enough to differentiate them (easy when there are only two).
Benefit of such a balanced approach is that the power-creep in minimized and it should give a little more breathing room for 'lesser' ships .. especially if combined with a BC price increase to better represent their 'power'.

X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Posted - 2011.05.10 15:41:00 - [198]
 

Originally by: Tsubutai

eve-kill is down atm, but last time I looked, Drakes and Hurricanes were more common than Maels and Abaddons, and when you look at the overall top 20, ships that are primarily used in small-scale fights are noticeably more common than those used in fleet warfare. Even with a massive allwar on, large-scale fleet pvp (probably) accounts for a minority of all kills in the game, and tier 2 battlecruisers really are ubiquitous in smaller fights.

http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20

Abbadons have overtaken Drakes. Megathrons are now at No. 20 and will likely be off the list next week. On a high note for Gallente hulls, the Lachesis has pushed it's way up to 19!

Swynet
State War Academy
Posted - 2011.05.10 15:50:00 - [199]
 

Edited by: Swynet on 10/05/2011 15:57:12
Originally by: X Gallentius
On a high note for Gallente hulls, no one should fly them and specially newbs


Fixed 4U Laughing

Lets see:

1 Abaddon 153825
2 Drake 116986
3 Hurricane 100188

Then:

19 Lachesis 15787
20 Megathron 15576

Indeed for those claiming Gallente are fine, they are overpowered for expensive wrecks Laughing

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.05.10 15:55:00 - [200]
 

How is the Abaddon not attracting nerf threads anyway? I have no particular view on the subject but stat-wise it seems to be in a league of its own compared to other battleships.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.05.10 18:49:00 - [201]
 

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington
How is the Abaddon not attracting nerf threads anyway?..

Because it is pretty well balanced when you think about it, just scales horribly well as does all things and works exceedingly well with proper support (read: Guardians) .. it is the same for most Amarr hulls actually, mediocre solo/small-gang but pure awesome in numbers.

titains
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:29:00 - [202]
 

Caldari missile ships need to have then kinetic missile bonus replaced

Swynet
State War Academy
Posted - 2011.05.11 14:06:00 - [203]
 

Originally by: titains
Caldari missile ships need to have then kinetic missile bonus replaced


NOES !

The effective 17%+ dmg you get out of it replaces very well lower dmg missile in another average resistance and nothing, absolutely nothing tells you your dmg is crap if you choose to use thermal/explo/Em dmg.

Dammit, if my ****ing hybrids worked that well than your racial kinetic bonus I wouldn't be spamming all gallente/hybrids threads with my issues encountered using that stuff.

Get out please Laughing

titains
Posted - 2011.05.11 15:15:00 - [204]
 

Originally by: Swynet


NOES !

The effective 17%+ dmg you get out of it replaces very well lower dmg missile in another average resistance and nothing, absolutely nothing tells you your dmg is crap if you choose to use thermal/explo/Em dmg.


They are the only ships in game with a damage bonus to an ammo not a weapon system.
It would be like you only get the hybrid bonii if your shooting iron.

Scandal Caulker
Posted - 2011.05.11 15:58:00 - [205]
 

Originally by: titains

They are the only ships in game with a damage bonus to an ammo not a weapon system.



Errrm:
Helios 10% to drone thermal damage
Eris 5% to thermal missile damage
All the bombers are racial damage type bonused

The kinetic bonus is fine. It's the Caldari's damage type. Live with it

I still think that reducing the range of guided missiles and introducing modules that will increase that range again is the first major step to balance of battlecruisers

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.05.11 17:35:00 - [206]
 

Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington on 11/05/2011 17:42:54
Quote:
I still think that reducing the range of Heavy Missiles and introducing modules that will increase that range again is the first major step to nerfing the Drake


Fixed. It isn't about guided missiles at all, you just want a Drake nerf. Light missiles are fine and cruises are broken so I'd be rather surprised if you were dimwitted enough to want those nerfed as well.

Here's a more elegant solution: reduce Drake lock range (max skilled) by 20km or so. There, it now has to use a slot of some sort to reach max range. Mission accomplished without your moronic idea.

Oh in fact, while I'm talking about missiles in this thread:

Reduce flight time and significantly increase velocity, for cruises and to a lesser extent heavies.
No weapon (I'm looking at you, cruise missiles) should be relegated to PVE for being so utterly useless in PVP.

titains
Posted - 2011.05.11 17:51:00 - [207]
 

Originally by: Scandal Caulker

Errrm:
Helios 10% to drone thermal damage
Eris 5% to thermal missile damage
All the bombers are racial damage type bonused

The kinetic bonus is fine. It's the Caldari's damage type. Live with it


And the last two are the Breacher and Inquisitor.
Then you have no problem with changing Gallente so the are only bonused on the thermal part of hybrids and thermal drones, Caldari the kinetic part of hybrids, Armarr the EM part of lasers and EM drones, and Minmatar the explosive part of projetals and explosive missiles.
Now everyone has racial damage.

ITTigerClawIK
Amarr
Galactic Rangers
Galactic-Rangers
Posted - 2011.05.12 00:13:00 - [208]
 

Bellicouse - Needs compleatly gutting and reworked from the ground up

Omen - SMALL boost to grid and CPU

Destroyers in general need some tweeking to make a bit more newbie friendly

well thats just my 2 ISK for the time being in terms of balance.

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.05.12 09:32:00 - [209]
 

Quote:
Omen - SMALL boost to grid and CPU


Needs significantly more than a small boost.

Quote:
Destroyers in general need some tweeking to make a bit more newbie friendly


Umm, what? Being newbie friendly is just about all destroyers are good for right now, they need a total rethink to be honest. "Anti-frigate" would be a very nice role if there weren't a large selection of cruisers that can do the same job better while also not being made of paper with a bloated sig radius.

Mars Theran
Caldari
EVE Rogues
EVE Rogues Alliance
Posted - 2011.05.12 10:52:00 - [210]
 

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington
Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington on 10/05/2011 09:41:11
Originally by: Mars Theran
Don't Nerf.

Buff!



Nice slogan. Shame it lacks any actual argument.
You do realise there is a time and a place for both?


There's more than enough arguments here, thank you.

I shouldn't really need one, but since you insist: Nerfing makes ships die faster, and makes them less likely to be used. The more ships get nerfed, the less time each player who flies them will last on the battlefield, and battles will become shorter. Players with less 'good' ships to choose from, will end up all flying the same thing, which is pretty much what is happening now.

People want to stay in the battle, not float in a pod or wake up 10 jumps away with a session timer or three. Buffing ships means more likelihood they'll be used in combat, (and generally), and that they're more likely to stay in the battle longer. Currently ships are stupid, and very poorly balanced, and I am beginning to think that is the way it will stay.

Unblancing things a little is good. A Bugati Veyron should be better than a Camaro, but lets face it, they are also much very expensive. Things don't work that way in EVE.

Fact: Cruisers category is completely unbalanced, and most should be faster and stronger. So should their Tech II counterparts. Battleships should generally be better too, and Destroyers should have their place.

Destroyers are not, (roughly quoted), "..too easily bypassed by beginning players in skill traing." Sorry, but that opinion is blind and utter bull****, and CCP needs to rethink their , (also roughly quoted), "..intended to have" strategy on ship function.

A tier system is fine, as long as you actually use it as intended. Putting 4 different ships into a single Tier, within a class of ships, then reworking each of them to suit their faction philosophy while ignoring how that affects their use and effectiveness is dumb, and possibly just plain stupid.

fictional quote:

"It's not Gallente, it shouldn't have a reasonable drone bay!" -qfs, it should have one and no bonuses, as only Gallente should get those.

The latest bit from the Dev's in the question response thread was very disheartening in this regard, with answers to related questions revealing an attitude that 'intended' is always right. That's stupid and naive, not to mention lazy.

To balance ships within a Tier, all you need do is give them all approx. the same stats, then apply their faction bonuses. If they don't balance, then it's because the factions don't balance, and this will hold true through all Tiers and Classes. Randomly selecting crap doesn't work, so stop doing it. Creativity has no place in the design process. Involving creativity with real statisitics and effectiveness in gameplay is completely stupid, and should be avoided at all costs.

Balance ships by weight. Measure somethings effect on combat in real terms, and use that to balance removing it from one ship within a Tier, and adding it to another, while removing something of equal combat value from the first, and applying something of equal value again to the first. 1 Tier at a Time, and one class at a time, but see if the Factions need to be rebalanced a little first. This should also be approached assuming all other things are equal that are equal, and making those that aren't equal equal or using that to determine how you bend each ship in this fashion.

Either make all turrets equal, (like missiles), or make all ships fit only specific turrets by faction, or cause turrets to adjust the ship with modifiers that bring it closer to the turrets faction, and prevent if from being an exploit, while allowing it to be a way of changing ship characteristics. Better to just eliminate role bonuses applying to a specific faction of turret, and make them apply to any turret, rather than making a ship unusable because of them.


Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... : 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