open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Balancing - Identifying problems
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.

Pages: first : previous : ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... : last (47)

Author Topic

Saleswoman Sarah
Posted - 2009.04.17 21:29:00 - [271]

1. Blobs
2. Titans
3. Cynojammers

Argent Moon
Posted - 2009.04.17 21:32:00 - [272]

To keep it short:

1, Electronic warfare
Dampener spec. ships. At least douple their ship bonus.
Matar EW ships. Double painting bonus, introduce 7,5% web strength bonus (60% webs would become 78-81%).

2, Weapons systems
Large projectiles. Arty: boost ammo capacity, dmg mod, tracking. AK: better tier = better falloff, minor dmg boost for tier3.
T2 ammo. Remove/ease some penalties; perhaps boost damage.
Rockets. Do something.

3, Ships
Matar capitals. Make Naglfar a big Tempest (shield tank and 4 turrert slot). Boost Niddy's remote repping bonus and cap; perhaps cpu boost and slot changes to shield tank.
Black ops. Jump range boost and fuel bay.
Assault frigs. Need a 4th bonus at least. I could go on for a full list, but even a "10% AB speed boost per level" would be a good start.
Nighthawk. Needs grid boost.

See how I made to fit it into three categories? Smile

Posted - 2009.04.17 21:33:00 - [273]

1/ NPC should not loot Tech 1 module.

2/We should not have an insurance when we are concordoken.

3/ Analyze the impact of the BPO Tech 2 on the Tech 2 total production, Tech 2 module price and BPC tech 2 buisness.

Posted - 2009.04.17 21:37:00 - [274]

1. T2 close-range ammo. No experience with anything other than lasers, but Gleam/Conflag are laughable compared to faction Multifrequency. Either reduce the penalties somewhat or increase the damage more to compensate.

2. Aggression mechanics. Docking games and logoffskis are completely ridiculous when it comes to how easy it is to avoid a fight. Thirty seconds after the target deagresses is usually not enough time to kill it, especially if you're not flying around with a bunch of people. Targets should remain in space after they are warp disrupted, regardless of whether the person is logged in or not. I've disconnected in the middle of fights before and lost ships because of it, but the number of times it happens isn't worth keeping this mechanic in for people to exploit.

3. Citadel torpedoes. Every race besides Caldari and partially Minmatar has a long-range and short-range variant for their capital class weaponry. Caldari only have the close range variant. Minmatar can use artillery or autocannons for half their weapon systems, but the other half is stuck at close range. The easiest solution would be to create citadel cruise launchers and let Phoenix and Naglfar pilots choose what kind of range they want on their weapons.

Yana Kaar
Beyond Divinity Inc
Posted - 2009.04.17 21:39:00 - [275]

1. Blasters.

2. T2 short range ammo. They plain suck since full availability of faction-ammo.

3. Naglfar.

Sloth Arnini
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.04.17 21:44:00 - [276]

1) Excessive disparancy in the value of 0.0 regions, especially the weighting of Dysp/Prom towards the west of New Eden (by which I mean the regions from Venal to Esoteria, not just Delve/Fountain) and appalling true sec across much of the rest of 0.0.

2) Large artillery: Too little range, alpha advantage is not particularly noticeable in large fights.

3) Titan DDs: in these days of coalitions and mega alliances, it's getting easier and easier to muster up enough titans to make an attack on a cynojammed systems (in particular, but also anywhere a large fight is likely to occur) virtual suicide. The nature of the DD is such that it is a low risk means of destroying a fleet.

Infinite Improbability Inc
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2009.04.17 21:48:00 - [277]

1/ T2 ammo
With the faction ammo TII ammo are unbanlanced, to much drawback some ammo not worth the time to produce them

2/ Moon reaction, Some moon produce far to much money compare to other moon. You start to modify that, finish the job

3/ Pve ship vs Pvp ship. Some ship are use mostly in Pve, Other only in pvp. That's came to racial feature. have a look at every faction and give them ship for pve, ship for pvp. That's the hardest part, but you need to make this. ex: Caldari bonus to range is useless compare to damage for the gallantean,

Intergalactic Syndicate
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2009.04.17 21:51:00 - [278]

1) Lack of Caldari damage bonus gunboats.
2) Lack of room for tackle on Caldari ships.
3) Amarr BS too much better than all other races (aka boost Minmitar)

Posted - 2009.04.17 22:00:00 - [279]

Originally by: Sertan Deras
See, I think instead of nerfing L4 missions, they need to fix L5 missions to be worth the risk.
This. Most people running L4s are doing it to fund pvp, so the isk they generate is destroyed on a regular basis. Makeing L5's worth getting a PVP fit gang together to mission in low sec would be better than nerfing L4 missions.

Something does need to be done about the loot drops though. There are so many named items on the market that getting into manufacturing is a near impossible. Nobody wants to buy the T1 mods a manu-noob can make inefficiently and T2 manufacturing is a long way off for a beginner.

Posted - 2009.04.17 22:04:00 - [280]

Originally by: Sertan Deras
See, I think instead of nerfing L4 missions, they need to fix L5 missions to be worth the risk.

i actually find them quite worth the riskVery Happy

Posted - 2009.04.17 22:18:00 - [281]

1) POS and POS mods need to have anchoring time reduced significantly. Making alliances devote that much manpower to a single system every day during a war is highly unbalanced in that it favors large alliances very strongly (more so than I believe is necessary or wanted)

2) Large projectiles are very underpowered, as are the Minmatar battleships. In most every way, actually.

3) Stealth bombers need a greater damage increase than the recent patch provided and bomb volume needs to be reduced substantially (I would ask for 1/3 it's normal size) to allow stealth bombers the longevity in fights that their roles require. They can only carry about 4 bombs as is right now and must restock very very often, which hinders gameplay.

Posted - 2009.04.17 22:21:00 - [282]

1.) Armor tanks are to over powered compared to shield tanks. You cant tank and use utilities with a shield tanker but armor tanked ships can throw out massive DPS, tackle/utility all they want, tank and RR. You cant do that with any caldari ships and still be as effective as a amarr/gallente. The rokh is the most undermined BS next to the scorp because you cant even buffer tank well with hybrid turrets since the shield mods all require cap and theres no possibility of fitting tackle since you have to have a MWD.
2.) salvaging is an exploit. If a player comes into your mission and salvages a wreck that is deemed your property he should turn flashy because he just stole your property. Its the same as stealing loot because salvage is more valuable.
3.) Destroyers...this is the largest waste of a ship class yet(just barely ahead of cov ops, recon and black ops). A destroyer is a valuable asset and insturmental to naval warfare. At the current time the destroyer is a salvager...that's just stupid. Why not just make a salvager ship? A destroyer is a fast and maneuverable yet long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy or battle group and defend them against smaller, short-range but powerful attackers (originally against torpedo boats, later submarines and aircraft). You couldnt fit a tank on this ship if you wanted too...its insta pop city!

US navy definition of the destroyer role:Destroyers are fast warships that help safeguard larger ships by operating in support of carrier battle groups, surface action groups, amphibious groups and replenishment groups. Destroyers primarily perform anti-submarine warfare, anti-air warfare and anti-surface warfare duty and are also able to provide naval gun fire support.

*note* Ships in general are off track in regards to "roles". If these ships were role based as they should be, you wouldnt have alot of solo PvP pwn mobiles. Solo pvp is awesome but group/gang and fleet battle is the best aspect of this game. Making pilots perform more in role's enables all of the ships in eve to be better implimented and not just the 20% (popular multi role pwn mobiles) that are currently in use. This wouldnt end SOLO pvp if done properly because everyone would be on the same page, Im sure this was the intent in the beginning but mass crying by the loudest minority usually trumps good game play in MMO's. In a nut shell If a ship can fit blasters, MWD, tank, tackle and fit is the point in having ship types? just have 4 ships and 24 slots to fit how you please....Rolling Eyes

Sakura Nihil
Selective Pressure
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2009.04.17 22:28:00 - [283]

Highsec level 4s need to be next.

I could write a treatise on why they're jacked up, but let me keep it simple for you devs:

1) Their risk v. reward is seriously jacked up. Short of doing something in the mission like aggroing an entire group, highsec L4 runners are almost never in threat of being attacked by players - wardecs can be evaded by being in the alt corp, and suicide ganks become the only reliable (and costly) way of hitting 'bear targets. In comparison, 0.0 ratters that make competitive amounts have to deal with roaming gangs, blackops/recons stalking them, log-on traps (aka "logonskis"), the works. Even if they do counter it with alt scouts, cloaks, POS humping, et cetera, they're at least at risk on a decent basis, unlike the other group.

2) Its boring. Its AFKable. The rats' are predictable and it allows ships to get extremely specialized and not have to worry about anything while the cash rolls in. What's being done with the Sleepers right now is a good first step, one I'd love to see applied to more places than just W-space.

3) Your window of dealing with it is closing. Frankly, think with me here for a second - what percentage of EVE lives in highsec versus lowsec/nullsec? Now, while the distribution of 0.0 professions is pretty well spread out (combat, mining, construction, piracy, so on), what about highsec? I'd be willing to bet at least half of those players in highsec are missionrunners, most of those doing L4 missions - I'm sure I don't need to say it, but Motsu... Dodixie... these systems are just eaten up by the L4 players, and its only going to get worse as time goes on. The more players that do it, the more revenue you get from them, and in turn the more revenue that is at stake when discussing game changes - curb this before your vested interest in leaving them alone gets too great.

Other worthy nerf target?

Sovereignty mechanics, and the fact that people can be AFK landlords (see RedSwarmFed for an example).

zion law
Posted - 2009.04.17 22:29:00 - [284]

1. Naglfars
2. Large Artillery
3. POS LOGISTICS- i.e.: setting up pos, fueling pos, etc.

Noah Emn
Posted - 2009.04.17 22:33:00 - [285]

1) LOLrockets

2) low range high power ammo sux. Make those good and the scorch whiners will STFU.

Posted - 2009.04.17 22:46:00 - [286]

Edited by: endest on 17/04/2009 22:47:36
1. Low Sec Gate Camps
The number one way to grow Eve is to encourage PVE players to make the jump into low sec and get exposed to PVP. Gate camps do the exact opposite. Even the impression that you will be insta ganked at the hi sec/low sec boarder is enough to keep most folks away. It is the impression that is the worst part no matter what the reality. So CCP should make a big splash with a balance patch that makes any gate camping at the high sec boarder impossible. Do this and promote low sec with some special events and I promise you there will be a massive increase in low sec activity that will be fun for everyone. Pirate and PVE players alike will have more action and opportunities if we can just get fresh pilots into the low sec. Knowing that you can always safely get through the gates will open up a huge population to low sec adventure.

2. High Sec - Decrease Grind increase fun
High sec should be for the newbie experience and pure PVE play all the way up to the most elite level. Build on the epic mission arc and add a variety of missions that are easy to jump into without boring rep grinds. Build fun missions for both solo and fleet PVE play. Focus high sec on immediate 30-45 minute bursts of fun and rewards rather than endless grinds for tons of isk but little action. Also, kill afk strip mining.

3. Balance tanking and tackling
No reason for mid slots to compete between shield tanking and tackling. Make tackle modes available to low slots so shield tanks have to choose between damage and tackle.

Doc Oxley
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2009.04.17 22:47:00 - [287]

1) POSs. Everything about them is just wrong.
2) Minmatar suck. Fix them.
3) Titans-Online. 0.0 has become a game of DD or get DD'd.

Deschenus Maximus
Digital Fury Corporation
Posted - 2009.04.17 22:59:00 - [288]

1. Non-laser weapon systems:
1.1 Rockets and HAMs: not enough damage difference vs long range alternative to warrant loss of range (and harder fittings in the case of HAMs).
1.2 Missiles in general: Needing a target to be painted, webbed and scramed before torps can do good damage is a little silly. Rework missile formula.
1.3 Projectiles: Large ACs and all Arties need a boost. Moar damage?
1.4 Blasters: Keep overall range the same, give more optimal, less falloff to lessen the effect of the web nerf.

2. Field Command Ships: While they are fine ships in and of themselves, their prohibitive cost makes them less than useful in general. Give them a better defined role than "fatter, gankier and tankier HACs".

3. Level 4 missions: While I understand that there needs a way to make money in High Sec for when things go **** up, they are a tin bit redonculous. My idea would be to have lvl 4 agents in high sec only give missions against opposing faction navies. So the high sec missioners would get tags to use in the LP store, but to actually get ISK, they would need to sell things. Less inflation, more player interaction, a reason to do missions in low sec (as they would give missions against pirate factions). Also makes sense RP wise: invading navies attacking their enemy in their front porch, whilst the pirates are taking advantage of the diversion to raise hell in low sec.

Sekundar Burnes
Black Legion.
Posted - 2009.04.17 23:12:00 - [289]

1. End the Monopolies on High End Moon Mining
Big capital fleets get the best moons, which generates huge isk, which funds big capital fleets - and so on. There's a reason why we haven't seen many new large alliances evolve, and it's called dysporium. Do something to give small and medium sized alliances a chance to turn on the isk-tap.

2. Capital Ships Hot-dropping Sub-caps
Motherships, dreadnaughts and carriers are hot-dropped regularly against sub-capital gangs. This is not the role originally intended for them - make these ships far less nimble against smaller ships. Seriously increase locking time against smaller targets. Get rid of the ability for capitals to assign drones to others in fleet.

3. Anti-Cloaking Device
Right now a cloak is an unbreakable defense, and that's the only one in Eve. Create a module that has at least some chance of revealing a nearby cloaked ship.

Lachesis VII
The Python Cartel.
Posted - 2009.04.17 23:14:00 - [290]

Lets see here:

1) Rockets.
Current rocket situation makes those ships that focus exclusively on rockets (Malediction, Vengeance, etc) seriously underpowered, and those ships that use them as a secondary weapons system (Tristan, etc) also lack power.

I'd suggest a change to rockets whereby they have a small clip size and a very high rate of fire. They could deal significant DPS, but only for a short period of time before needing to reload (10-15 seconds). This mimics real-world rocket launchers. Concrete example would be to take your normal rocket launcher II. Reduce the clip size to 20 rockets, but quarter the firing time (to about 0.6 seconds). A max skilled Vengeance will now be capable of doing 320 DPS.... for 10 seconds, after which time it does 0 DPS for 10+ seconds while it reloads. Real DPS is close to 160, which is about right for a tanky AF I think. Smart players could ripple fire their launchers to keep steady DPS on a large target, or overload all 4 launchers at once to rapidly pop a small one.

2) Destroyers.
I'd love to see more destroyer variants. I think the base T1 hulls are fine for the most part, but why is our only TII choice the interdictors? Why not have an 'armored destroyer' type ship? Something that fits between AFs and HACs. Enough grid to fit a MWD for fast attacks, a tank, and some tackle. 8 weapon slots like the current destroyers. No ewar bonuses or drones.

For a specific example, take the Coercer (why is the T2 version a Khanid ship, anyway, when the Devoter is Viziam?). Turn the dictor version into a proper Viziam boat with some lasers and maybe a nos/neut bonus. Make the Khanid version of the ship something like the Vengeance and Sacrilege. A bonus to standard missiles or Rocket Launchers, good speed, and a nice tank. Give it 2 or 3 mids so it can tackle. Let it kick out around 300-350DPS with max skills.... and voila. Enough power to seriously threaten interceptors and AFs (and stealth bombers), enough survivability to not die horribly when looked at by a cruiser.

3) Blasters.

Pretty much everyone else's complaints. By the time you get in range in a gang situation the target is already dead. Solo, you can't track single targets. Hell, in small gang situations I'll often bring the most DPS in the form of a gank Brutix or something similar, but end up last on the KM because my buddies with lasers and ACs can put damage on from 10+clicks out when I've got to close to 2km. Not really all that fun... so I end up flying a Harbinger or something instead.

Issaries Valran
Posted - 2009.04.17 23:19:00 - [291]

1. Minmatar:
The Minmatar have taken a number of hits in the last few expansions.
The Minmatar use to be known for having the fastest ships good for hit and run, but with speed nurfs hit and run become less and less effective.
The Minmatar weapons, “projectiles weapons” are in sore need of looking over, ACs having to always fight in falloff, and Artillery being massively weak alpha strikes have scare people like they use to and artillery is to weak, slow and short or range and lacking of ammo to be any good.
Minmatar ships need some looking at, their battleships are weak and generally underpowered compared to all the other battleships and their supposed versability with spilt weapon systems and no really tank specialization is more of liability than a boon. Eve is a game of specialization and the Minmatar need to specialize in something again. And Minmatar Cap ships are hands down the worst of all Caps just about everyone agrees on this especially Naglfar the worst Dreadnought split weapon systems is lame in a cap.

2. T2 Ammo:
T2 Ammo is plainly worst than faction ammo and could use more verity to choose from.

3. Solo game play:
The game is moving farther and farther away from the middle ground of group play and solo play. I enjoy group play and teaming up with others fleeting and all of that but you shouldn’t let solo play just fall off the radar. It’s important to have good mixture of both, and you shouldn’t need a fleet a ton of friends to do everything, sometimes people just want to solo, and having fun and enjoying yourself shouldn’t be completely dependent on others. Solo play shouldn’t be the sole realm of PvE, the blob mentality and the lack of really good solo PvP is pushing the game to far into mandatory grouping.

Posted - 2009.04.17 23:36:00 - [292]

Originally by: Sekundar Burnes
1. End the Monopolies on High End Moon Mining
Big capital fleets get the best moons, which generates huge isk, which funds big capital fleets - and so on. There's a reason why we haven't seen many new large alliances evolve, and it's called dysporium. Do something to give small and medium sized alliances a chance to turn on the isk-tap.

2. Capital Ships Hot-dropping Sub-caps
Motherships, dreadnaughts and carriers are hot-dropped regularly against sub-capital gangs. This is not the role originally intended for them - make these ships far less nimble against smaller ships. Seriously increase locking time against smaller targets. Get rid of the ability for capitals to assign drones to others in fleet.

3. Anti-Cloaking Device
Right now a cloak is an unbreakable defense, and that's the only one in Eve. Create a module that has at least some chance of revealing a nearby cloaked ship.

This is just pure insanity...where do the nerf cries stop?
Make a module that takes more effort out of the game so I dont have to stay on my toes incase a cloaker is near by? WOW....

Zarnak Wulf
Posted - 2009.04.17 23:36:00 - [293]

1) Titans. DD or DD'd is occuring on a much more frequent basis. Not fun.
2) Large Projectiles. Especially artillery. Range is too short for fleet battles- my alliance asked specifically for people NOT to show up in them. Alpha doesn't hurt enough. Tracking is abysmal. SOMETHING should be done about them.
3) Gallente and Minmatar e-war. Not feeling the fear.

Ferris Tefo
Posted - 2009.04.17 23:37:00 - [294]

Originally by: Willy Nerfalot
[1] blasters. not overpowered before web nerf, definitely suffering from 400% tracking nerf.

[2] blaster ships in general. they need a large dps advantage and the ability to reliably hit their target once in range, in order to overcome the typical damage incurred from closing range. a mere 10% advantage (or worse once shots start missing due to poor tracking) over equivalent missiles is simply not good enough.

[3] gallente recons. need much better bonus to damps to be worth flying compared to other recons.

this is pretty much my top 3 too

Posted - 2009.04.17 23:43:00 - [295]

Edited by: Parapolizei on 17/04/2009 23:53:57
Edited by: Parapolizei on 17/04/2009 23:43:34
1. Artillery / Tempest
2. Minmatar capital
3. POS setup. Seriously this. Make it easier/less painful


Broski Enterprises
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2009.04.17 23:44:00 - [296]

Looks like just about everyone forgot to read the part of the OP that said "This is not a discussion thread."

Just do a simple 1, 2, 3 and save the ideas for when the threads get created.

Posted - 2009.04.17 23:49:00 - [297]

Here are my top 3.

1. The Political system, and sovereignty.
Being able to "Blue everyone" is a rampant problem with politics in EVE and thus 0.0 life, and access to 0.0 in general. I want to see lone alliances, or even lone corps being able to compete in 0.0, take space and hold it, without thousands in manpower, hundreds of capital ships and without having to choose a block or coalition to side with to achieve that.

Sovereignity and the political system is what keeps the political development twosided, 0.0 territorial life conservative and NPC, lowsec and empire overpopulated. These mechanics are what keeps you from being able to carve out your own piece of space with your friends, your own organisation and your own ideals. Hammerhead's comments during AT6 sounded promising, and cemented the belief that the issue is aknowledged. I may be beating a dead horse with this post, but i wanted to put focus on the issue when asked. I am a strong supporter of the ideal put forward in that sofa.

2. I put the political mechanics and the territorial mechanics together for convenience. I'll add a new issue as #2 once i can think of one. Updates ahead.

3. Hybrid weapons (and their platforms).
There have been several threads about Blasters in the ship forum. As far as i am concerned the issue is not with Blasters alone, but with the entire line of Hybrid weapons (Rails being even worse off) and the ships that use them. At least in the Cruiser-sized department where both Caldari and Gallente turret platforms seem to underperform. Webs is not the solution here, what the Blasters need is longer range, while still being somewhat short range. Double the base optimal will still keep them as short (within web) range weapons before applied bonuses. Rails just have an overall poor performance between range, damage and tracking.

Most of the changes in QR and Apochrypha has been very good, i don't think the game has ever been better balanced; and i like the idea of the changes (the way engagement ranges have changed in particular, has been very positive). The hybrid platforms have just not been adapted to the new more fluent style of engagement that came with the changes to speed and webs.

Joe Martin
Locus Industries
Posted - 2009.04.17 23:50:00 - [298]

Edited by: Joe Martin on 17/04/2009 23:53:03
1. Give AFs their 4th bonus. All of them need it, especially for how much they cost now.

2. Faction ships (mostly frigates and cruisers) need a huge work up. They got left behind in the cpu/grid/hp updates and are nigh impossible to fit properly and are generally worse than t1 frigs in combat because of it.

3. T2 close-range ammunition. The availability of faction ammo (being only slightly less competent in DPS while not having ridiculous, ship-crippling penalties) completely obsoletes t2 close range ammo.

The Constructerer
Posted - 2009.04.17 23:54:00 - [299]

You know what would be hilarious?

Prevent T2 BPOs from being copied and reseed them when they are destroyed.

Band of Brothers
Posted - 2009.04.17 23:55:00 - [300]

- Minmatar capitals
- Minmatar battleships
- Large projectile turrets

Pages: first : previous : ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... : last (47)

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


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to

These forums are archived and read-only