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 : ... 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 ... : last (47)

Author Topic

Kurik C
Posted - 2009.04.18 17:01:00 - [391]
 

1) Capitals

2) Missiles

3) E-War

wavre
Posted - 2009.04.18 17:07:00 - [392]
 

1. Large Projectiles - the tracking is absurdly slow and the range is very short. So you basically have to sit still and pray the other guy does the same. And you'll still lose because you have poor damage.

2. naglfar - there is a reason why these are hardly ever used. The worst defences worst damage. They are embarrassing to the pilot.

3. DD needs to go it should be made to do something clever not just be used multiple times to KILL ALL.

Patrice Macmahon
The Lost Minmatar Legion
Posted - 2009.04.18 17:18:00 - [393]
 

1) T1 Ships (frigs) and Modules (all) are not effective. Players only have the option to create T1 baseline modules to push to level II's. Its either T2 or Meta, and T1's are so far behind the power curve its not pleasent or funny. Introduce additional blue prints to upgrade T1's towards mid level meta status (like you do with the specialty drones), and require them to use additional manufactured goods. It would balance the production market. The only option to upgrade T1 frigs are the faction blue prints, and those are more cost prohibitive than a t2 ship, and less effective than a t2 ship. Bring prices back in line.

2) E-War, Its all over the place an highly unballanced in defence/effectiveness comparisons across the board.

3) Armor Tank to shield tank. Everyone Shield tanks supposidly armor tanking ships, no one armor tanks shield tanker ships... Lack of midslot armor mods for flexibility in armor tanking when compared to Shields (and the Passive shield tank VS Buffer Armor tank is not pretty either)

RedSplat
Posted - 2009.04.18 17:31:00 - [394]
 

Edited by: RedSplat on 18/04/2009 17:38:45
My Top 3

Highsec: Level 4 missions need to be re-balanced. Currently far too much profit for non-existent risks. Highsec is almost completely safe, suicide ganking has suffered successive nerf's, players have no in game recourse to Macro'ers.

Lowsec needs a serious buff. The NPC battleship spawn is a farce, perhaps drastically increase the likelihood of a faction spawn along with other matters.

Artillery and Autocannons. Respectively give us back appreciable alpha, increase clip sizes and in the case of AC's give us some form of compensation for having to fight in falloff all the time (Lower fitting req's and no cap use just don't cut the mustard).

Other

Most importantly: Local. Infallible Intel tool that ruins any pretence at stealth and favours passive non-confrontational gameplay. Make it delayed in 0.0 and Lowsec.

The Nagalfar.

Highsec Wardec exploits: Corp hopping, dec'ing your own corp with alts to raise costs etc... Needs sorting out.

HP buff. needs to be undone in part.

Allow Lowsec bomb use.

Stealthbombers. You really missed the boat on them this time around.

Malarkie
Posted - 2009.04.18 17:47:00 - [395]
 

Edited by: Malarkie on 18/04/2009 17:57:21
1) Matari L Ammo / Battle Ship class and larger
2) Missions
3) ratio of Empire <-> Low Sec <-> Null Sec activities, systems, risk reward


Minmatar need some love in the Battle Ship Class and larger arena. Currently Matari Battle Ships don't have a "strong role" anywhere...PvE/PvP This is based off similar levels of SP...yes an ALL 5 Character can do some nasty dmg and have a Fricken huge tank...but...thats at ALL 5.

Missions: This one is troublesome. I personally would rather see no "mission levels" anywhere. The difficulty level of the mission should be based off your standing with the "agent" you are running missions with. This would do 2 things. One..no more "corp" grinding for a higher level mission agent. You now just keep running missions for your current agent. the concept of agent quality should be greatly expanded upon. And...at the highest standings an agent is going to be asking you to do missions that are actually hard to accomplish solo if at all. This has NOTHING to do with the volume of ships to kill or dps to tank or dps to spit out...everything to do with actual difficulty. I see no reason why a max standing agent couldn't ask you to do a mission that requires on a shuttle to complete...as long as it takes you a week or more to actually finish..I don't see the issue. Or a mission that requires a dread or 2. Difficulty should not mean pew pew. It can mean that but that should not be the defining factor.

Ratio...this one is hard to quantify but I firmly believe the number of "lowsec" systems should be greatly increased. This would mean far more "tiny off the beaten path" systems for lowsec. And this would mean it would be easier for hisec dwellers to find and start utilizing lowsec systems...which in turn would increase the targets the "pirate" professions would have open for them.


Edit: did I just agree with Redsplat?

james126
Posted - 2009.04.18 18:04:00 - [396]
 

Edited by: james126 on 18/04/2009 18:21:53
Edited by: james126 on 18/04/2009 18:06:29
1) ecm, the ecm modules (withouth ship bonues) are to week, while with bonueses, they are to strong.
2) navy vexor can do 700 dps, either give other faction cruisers similer capabilities, or nerf this ship.
3) damps need a buff. especaily the recons/eaf.

also:

pimped tanking vs damage, is abit unblanaced, you spend 10 bill on a mealstrom defence, systems, you can tank 9,000 dps. but theres no way to spend 10 bill on a BS to make it do 9,000 dps.

Prometheus Exenthal
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2009.04.18 18:14:00 - [397]
 

BALANCE RESIST RIGS
Decrease the cost of armor resist rigs, or increase the cost of shield resist rigs, or put them somewhere in between.
Right now it costs roughly 5mil for an EM Screen and 20mil for an Explosive Pump. That isn't right Mad
Fix it already.

ROCKETS
They are in serious need of some love. Damage and explosion velocity, thanks.

THE DEIMOS
This ship needs some love. My suggestion, swap the slot layout with the Zealot.
This will give the Deimos a bit of a boost, but hardly hurt the Zealot since it's got its extra turret nowadays.

Noodly Appendage
Minmatar
Pator Tech School
Posted - 2009.04.18 18:14:00 - [398]
 

1) high sec carebearing
2) pos/sov mechanics
3) moon income

Cit'cen
Posted - 2009.04.18 18:22:00 - [399]
 

Edited by: Cit''cen on 18/04/2009 18:23:07
1. Artillery & AC's
It needs to be brought in line with other weapon systems. Its clearly the worst because it doesn't have ANY advantage from others beside no cap use.

2. Tanking in general:
Active tanking you need to use Cap, more slots and more pilot management
wheres the passive tank does not need pilot management, asks no cap and less slots but its more effective then active tanking.

Also seeing that Harbingers, Brutix, Myrms (ships that supposed to armor tank) are shield tanking and suprisingly effective. Brutix can achieve ALMOST with 1 shield extender the same HP as a hurricane with 2 shield extenders and the brutix is a bloody active tanker.

3. Boosters
Even with this patch, the good ones you want to pay for are way to expensive. A POS is needed for booster manufacturing which shouldn't be needed. Because of the POS it makes the whole booster production not fun to & way to expensive. Let us have the ability to do it in station. However POS is still a bigger advantage like you have that with LABS etc.

Sakura Nihil
Selective Pressure
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2009.04.18 18:33:00 - [400]
 

PS, I also think RR's lack of aggression flagging should be looked at, as well as the fact that capital ships have the same 30 sec vulnerability after undocking as a frigate Rolling Eyes.

Sakura Nihil
Selective Pressure
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2009.04.18 18:35:00 - [401]
 

Oh, and local should not be used for intel gathering, please make it like W-Space plzkthx.

POKER CHIP
Posted - 2009.04.18 19:00:00 - [402]
 

1. Alliance logo submission process requiring atleast 150 active members. what about those that want to keep it small and tight-knit? unbalanced? yes... and, i can just hire a bunch of carebears to fill the numbers and stop what were doing and wait for god knows how long for the logo to be noticed.

2. lolrockets

3. what is explosion velocity and where did it go? exp velocity of terror rages with all lvl5 skills = 130m/s.... iirc the explosion velocity of dynamite is 7700m/s. i think the scientists of new-eden might even be a bit more advanced then that eh.

POKER CHIP
Posted - 2009.04.18 19:02:00 - [403]
 

Originally by: Sakura Nihil
Oh, and local should not be used for intel gathering, please make it like W-Space plzkthx.


scary thought but that would be awesome :)

Diamaht Nevain
Gallente
Avatar Union
Posted - 2009.04.18 19:15:00 - [404]
 

1. Blasters
2. T2 Ammo
3. Webbing at extreme ranges in w-space complexes make blaster boats almost unuseable.

Rek Esket
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.04.18 19:28:00 - [405]
 

1. Imbalances in the damage and alpha of large Artillery

2. Imbalances in the balance of Minmatar battleships and capitals

3. If your new super servers could reset and recalculate lock timers based on the application of a target painter, that'd be great.

something somethingdark
Posted - 2009.04.18 19:42:00 - [406]
 

1) Blaster
its been talked to death ... visit one of bellums whine threads

2) Artys
needs more alpha to offset the lack of dps and range

3) Recons

a)pilgrim is still atrocious (and id take some more cap in the curse)
b)arazu/lachesis arnt the strongest performers there are
c)rapier/huggin got too punished by webby nerf
im not gona say anything about falcon/rook because the change has been to recent

Zaenna Dark4ngel
Posted - 2009.04.18 19:45:00 - [407]
 

1) PROJECTILE WEAPONS - Boost them.
2) RAPIER/HUGINN - need love
3) COST OF RIGS - specifically component cost of shield and armor resist rigs are strangely disparate. Possibly lower cost of armor rigs by simply changing up their components.

Rookie Info
Posted - 2009.04.18 19:46:00 - [408]
 

Mining, Loot reprocessing, Salvage and Rigs.
Mining cannot compete with missioners. Missioners can get more loot and more ISK/time than even Hulkers. Industrialists can get more low-sec minerals from reprocessed goods than from miners. However, Industrialists are starved for salvage -- in part because many missioners neglect to use Salvagers. What about altering the balance of loot and salvage. Missioners could still realize the same or nearly the same ISK/time as now. There would be a greater need for mining, and there would be a greater supply of salvage.

Energy Weapons: EM/Therm, EM/Therm, or EM/Therm
Maybe expanding the selection of weapons is in order to afford their users with options beyond EM/Therm. Even today we have X-Ray lasers and Electron guns. In the future? What about T-Ray and Ion or Beta Particle Guns?

Combat focused
Like most other MMOs, EVE is hugely focused upon combat. What about introducing a new career path (Rangers?) where players can influence if not create storylines within the EVE universe? I hail amongst the maligned Carebear career path. It is true that EVE offers other viable paths of game play: Trading, Industry, Mining. Industry is very well developed. The glaring deficiency is the risk/reward for Material Research. Using NPC stations costs upwards of two months or massive ISKs. Using a POS costs around a billion ISKs for the initial set up, and it could all vaporize with a war declaration. For Trading there is not much to "spice it up," beyond maybe Asset Consolidation through Teamsters. Mining is boring, unless you are mining in low sec. It could be fun to "find something out of the ordinary" like old ship logs, criminal or empire tags, or even a beacon to an Expedition.

Caelwrath
Posted - 2009.04.18 19:53:00 - [409]
 

1) Lower the cost of all ships across the board - you will get more pvp, and more people into pvp. For those of us with jobs/lives/family/studies/whatever this game is difficult to commit to given the cost mechanics.

2) Minnie ships - in general with the speed nerf, the web nerf, the sucky projectile damage output (really arties here), the whole class needs help.

3) Maybe boost active tanking slightly to give it a roll again in PvP (don't nerf passive or no one will tank and this will DPS-online).

MSpock
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.04.18 20:13:00 - [410]
 

Originally by: Grez
1) ECM drones (compared to other EW drones, they are superior)
2) Armour tanks vs. shield tanks (in a large majority of cases, a armor tanking ship is superior to a shield tanking ship)
3) DCU - has CPU requirements akin to a passive module (make it passive <3)


fyp

Sola Sun
X0 OPS
Posted - 2009.04.18 20:16:00 - [411]
 

1) Limit daily CONCORD bounties per account.
Since client code leak, bot programs create 200+ m ISK per day with zero risk.

2) "Duct tape and glue" rig effects should use SINGLE BEST effect.
Will affect insane passive tanks, and bring some sense to t2 rigs use.

3) Non-covert cloaking on ships should use lots of resources (like, consume 100% capacitor with 0 regen, can not move when cloaked, decloak radius depends on actual ship's signature).

kessah
Blood Blind
Posted - 2009.04.18 20:19:00 - [412]
 

Personally my 3 things are.

1) ECM - its an improvement with the falcon, but unfortunetly ECCM doesnt protect you enough, which leads me on to my next one...

2) EVE makes it very difficult to kill as a small or solo roaming player/gang. Especially as ECM and blobs can lazily be thrown at you for an easy defeat. Theres just not enough there to stop people from throwing numbers at a problem.

3) Active tanking could use a boost tbh, Large armour repping is so cap intensive and really should it? it offers such a nice change to buffer tanks but really too run the kinds of tanks that can hold off the blob you need to run dual injectors for Battleships.

There are many more, such as the Tempest being completely outclassed, Large Autocannons just not cutting it compared to the other races large guns etc i could go on tbh, but i think those are my top 3.


Hikash
Gallente
Angry Mustellid
Posted - 2009.04.18 20:20:00 - [413]
 

1) Pirate ships. Guristas line in general requires quad skilling (Two different ship skills, two different weapon skills).

I know that Caldari are, RP-wise, not that far off from Gallente. At least in the weapon system department, considering a few Caldari ships are hybrid-focused instead of missile focused. I believe it'd be a good idea to revise Guristas ships primarily, switching them to a missile or hybrid system instead of split-weapons like Minmatar. After a Guristas revisal was done, I'd say to move onto to the rest, it may be a good idea to look at the Sansha ones as well. The main differences between a Nightmare and a Paladin are the lack of T2 resistances, 40km tractor, cargo space and tanking type.

Additionally, I'd like to see some pirate faction ships introduced that made use of different race combos. The only ones not used are Amarr/Gallente and Caldari/Minmatar. Maybe we can see some like EoM ships? I know I'm not the only one who'd like to fly a Death Lord into combat.

2) Tech II Missile Launchers. Unless you're a fan of T2 missiles, namely the Torpedo ones, it's essientially pointless to use Tech II launchers over faction ones unless cost is an issue, or you have the Tech II skill at 5. Also, the signature radius penalties essientially turn you into a Las Vegas sign, which makes using them in ships that don't have very small signature radius figures to begin with, a bit unwise.

3) NPC Electronic Warfare. They're not kept to the same balance changes that players have been over the years. There are still instances IG where pirate HACs can continuously spam their faction's racial EWAR. Depending on your strategy/ship and the pirate HAC, you can either be permanently shut down, or just simply annoyed. I speak of things such as permacyclejamming Guristas HACs and 100km damping Serpentis ones, which can knock you down to a 100s lock time, and 16km targeting range.

keepiru
Omega Fleet Enterprises
Executive Outcomes
Posted - 2009.04.18 20:21:00 - [414]
 

Edited by: keepiru on 18/04/2009 20:25:58
Fix rockets, they're hilariously poor.

The combination of aiming a single-size weapon at a dps lower, when bonused, than that of an unbonused 125mm autocannon (the smallest) plus the launch-time delay of 1 second cutting a full 33% range has left them the province of people who either dont care or dont know any better, with predictable knock-on effects on the malediction, hawk, and vangeance.

Also, fix the bloody Raptor, it needs a MAPC to fit 125mm rails and an MWD, did its fittings even get looked at in the last 2 years? Its not like its a solopwnmachine, it does wet-paperbag dps even with 150s, so for gods sake let it fit the damn peashooters.

Finally: Dramiel. 5 High slots. 2 turrets. 3 launchers. 3 turret bonuses. Do I have to draw you a picture?

Addendum: since bombers are now useful, time to finally add faction painters, after a short delay of only a few years?

glas mir
Reaction Scientific
Posted - 2009.04.18 20:48:00 - [415]
 

1) t2 ammo
t2 ammo and t2 guns should be separate. T2 ammo is essential and it has too long of a critical path for the new player.

2) sov warfare
is boring

3) tactical warfare
There should be more tactical decisions for individual pilots.

Spenz
Gallente
PCG Enterprises
Huzzah Federation
Posted - 2009.04.18 21:00:00 - [416]
 

1. Blasters

2. Projectiles (especially large artillery)

3. T2 close-range ammo (absolute waste of space, isk, materials)

Zanquis
Caldari
Universal Exports
Cult of War
Posted - 2009.04.18 21:32:00 - [417]
 

Edited by: Zanquis on 18/04/2009 21:37:51

  1. Railguns - These need to be buffed one way or another. They currently have high capacitor drain, terrible tracking, tied for low dps (worse then Arty once you account for ship bonus), and low alpha. This doesn't hold true for every class of Rails, but it does hold mostly true. I would suggest increasing dps through ROF and making them much more cap efficient. This would leave the difference between Arty and rails with Arty having the alpha and zero cap usage, with rails having a slight damage advantage, range, and low alpha.

  2. Missiles - These have changed considerably with many of their former strengths being mitigated while they took a further dps. Missiles can now be mitigated by use of a simple speed module, defenders where improved, smartbombs skill kill missiles, and missiles are now more size sensitive then they used to be and hit smaller targets for less. Furthermore with the brutal damage lag of missiles vs instant damage of turrets it allows for things like outrunning missiles (RARE) or warping away before impact. Missiles should now be allowed to hurt considering all their additional disadvantages.

  3. Shield Tanking - This is the red headed stepchild in PvP. It is a solid tank but its lack of use on most ships combined with the brutal inefficiency of shield transfers makes them unlikely to receive support. The buffer tank while able to regenerate on shields lacks the HP buffer of a pure armor tank, and its passive regen does little to compensate for the lack of support in a fleet battle. However it is great in small scale engagements on a few ships. One issue with shield tanks though is in trying to fit a formatable tank to stand on its own, you use too many slots (LSE's don't give enough for battleship class tanks) and have very little utility to speak of. This is one of the reasons Shield tanks are generally chosen as the early primary targets, because they will go down fast. Some of the shield tank modules need to improved slightly so that you can accomplish a decent tank with a slot less then now, and changes need to be made so that more people are inclined to support shield tanks, or use shield tanks.


Draskuul Vrallis
Minmatar
PoliCratton Technologies
Posted - 2009.04.18 21:33:00 - [418]
 

Edited by: Draskuul Vrallis on 18/04/2009 21:32:48
1. Projectile weapons. No point going into details, I'd just be repeating 90% of the posters in this thread.

2. Naglfar. As soon as my current Nag pops, I'm switching to a Revelation and never looking back.

3. Missiles in PVP. Again, this has been covered in detail by most of this thread already.

Mr Vor
Killswitch Inc
Posted - 2009.04.18 21:35:00 - [419]
 

As people before me have said allready.

1. Blasters.

2. Titans. Not just the DDD, which is FUBAR. But the whole ship. By design it's just crap and is in need of a complete do over. Do it again - do it right.

3. Sov mechs. I'm sure, as it is now, is not what you intended.

cyonida
Posted - 2009.04.18 21:45:00 - [420]
 

1) GTCs / buying isk. It is absolutely stupid that people can use their RL money to acquire isk. I know it is difficult to stop isk sellers, but I think the GTC trade should stop. It is a covert, CCP endorsed way to buy isk and it is ruining the economy IMO. People can lose ships with impunity as they simply sell another GTC. This gives an unfair advantage to people with a large disposable RL income.

2) Macro miners/missioners. Again, these ruin the economy.

3) Webs. Change them back to the way they were pre-nerf. This would solve a lot of the current problems regarding blasters/projectiles. Blasterboats are supposed to be able to MWD up to their target, grab them, and beat them to a pulp. Counter this by having a buddy set up to tank web the blasterboat and use a ship that has ranged weapons kill the blasterboat. This is balance. The changes to webs were completely unnecessary.

When you change something and it doesn't work, it is ok to go back to the way things were. Instead, we seem to change things and say "Well that didn't work. Oh well, what can we change next?"


Pages: first : previous : ... 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 ... : 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 https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only