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 : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : last (47)

Author Topic

Sera Ryskin
Posted - 2009.04.17 18:36:00 - [211]

Skipping over the ones (rockets, etc) that have already been recognized by the dev:

1) Command ships. They're simply not cost effective. Tier-2 BCs provide almost the same performance for a fraction of the cost, while T3 cruisers now out-perform them on the high end and T1 battleships beat them at everything but tracking. Meanwhile fleet command ships are pretty much useless for anything but sitting AFK at a POS running 7x gang links (what "fun"). And just to add insult to injury, half of them are crippled by fitting issues (Nighthawk, lol?). What needs to be done, or at least considered, in general:

  • Change the gang mod fitting bonus to -100% grid and CPU.200 grid and 50 CPU makes it difficult to balance the ability to fit a gang mod with the desire NOT to have overpowered setups without one. Simply removing the fitting requirements entirely on command ships removes this dilemma, and solves a lot of the fitting problems.

  • Give field command ships full T2 resists. I can understand the reasoning behind not doing this originally, but the "impressive" tanks on a command ship are now much less impressive in a world of buffer tanks on everything and 200k EHP T3 cruisers. Full T2 resists would give the advantage back to the command ships, as well as distancing them a bit more from T1 BCs. In addition, a little more base HP might not be a bad idea.

  • Make fleet command ships proper combat SUPPORT ships. Currently, they suck. The best use for them is sitting AFK on an alt with a full rack of gang links fitted, and this is BORING (and no, forcing them on-grid to give their bonuses doesn't help, it just encourages sitting at 300km instead). Also, it deprives each race of a proper T2 BC for half their weapons (Khanid, rails, drones, artillery). Leave the field command ships the small-gang gank/tank ships, and focus the fleet command ships on support roles in large fleets.

Now then, the specific changes that are needed:

  • Nighthawk: there is virtually unanimous agreement that it needs more grid. Regardless of any other changes, this MUST be fixed or your "balance" efforts are a joke. In addition to the obvious grid problem, it also needs 7x launchers (+1 high for the gang mod) and probably a bit more speed.

  • Vulture: why does the T2 ship have less dps than the T1 ship? This is a sad joke. 7x turret hardpoints (+1 high for gang mod), add enough grid/cpu/cap to allow a sniper setup with 7x 250mm rails and MWD.

  • Sleipnir: It's pretty much perfect as-is. This is the standard the other command ships should be balanced by.

  • Claymore: the Sleipnir makes it redundant for everything but sitting AFK with 8x gang mods. Make it a proper fleet artillery ship, 7x turrets and change the tracking bonus to an optimal bonus.

  • Astarte: Why does a command ship not have a spare high for a gang mod? Fix this problem. Otherwise, the ship itself seems alright, its problems are shared by all blaster ships and you're looking at those.

  • Eos: This needs to be a proper drone/ewar ship. Remove the hybrid damage bonus and possibly the gun slots in exchange for 125mb bandwidth and 10% drone damage/HP per level. Also, restoring the 5th mid would be appreciated.

  • Absolution: You know the deal, 7x guns, 8th high for gang mod, fix the lack of CPU.

  • Damnation:: 7x launchers, then poll the Khanid pilots on whether they'd rather keep the existing uber-tank bonuses or trade them for damage and/or missile precision (frigate removal), or possibly a second range bonus.

Sera Ryskin
Posted - 2009.04.17 18:37:00 - [212]

Edited by: Sera Ryskin on 17/04/2009 18:43:37
2) Faction ships. They range from awesome (Phantasm, Nightmare, Machariel, CNR, etc) to "useful only for reprocessing" (Ashimmu, all faction frigates). These desperately need to be re-balanced to be valid alternatives to HACs/BCs/etc instead of just hangar ornaments. Since the good faction ships are balanced just fine with everything but other faction ships, the solution is to bring the terrible ones up to their level. Some general ideas I'd like to see:

  • Sanshas: good as-is, with one exception: the Succubus needs a grid/CPU increase to allow a proper MWD/medium extender/cap booster fit without leaving the 2x spare high slots empty.

  • Blood: terrible. No mids for webs, damage bonus competes with nos/neut bonus, impossible fitting, generally they just suck. Change the laser cap bonus to a drone damage bonus, then adjust fitting and high slots to allow a reasonable amount of neuts along with MWD/cap booster/tank. Also, an extra mid or two for webs would not go unappreciated.

  • Serpentis: In addition to the problems of blaster ships in general, they just don't have the dps they should (why fly a Vigilant when a Deimos does 25% more dps and tanks better?). Trade the useless MWD cap bonus for a 5% ROF bonus, then change the speed and slot layouts to essentially make them into blaster Vagabonds: fast, shield buffered, but using that speed to get in close and do OMGWTFIMDEADALREADY dps instead of kite with AC falloff.

  • Guristas: Split weapon layouts = fail. Add +1 missile hardpoint on the Worm and Gila, change the missile bonus to 7.5% ROF (10% damage on the Worm, for lag reasons), change the hybrid damage bonus to +5/10/25 bandwidth and drone bay per level (for Worm/Gila/Rattlesnake respectively), and fix the absurd fitting problems on the Worm and Gila.

  • Angels: these are kind of a problem. They are pretty bad, with the exception of the Machariel, but I don't really know how to fix them without just copying the other pirate factions. Why is there a second Minmatar/Gallente faction in the first place? Anyway, they really need some work, so I suggest polling the people who fly them on what they would like to see.

  • All faction frigates: they're completely worthless. All of them. In addition to the changes from their faction listed above, they need a full 4x hardpoints for their primary weapon, and a fitting increase to allow non-comedy setups.

  • Navy ships: Overall, they're in much better shape than the pirate factions, but while you're looking at faction ships, you should take a closer look at them and open discussion on any changes people would like to see.

Sera Ryskin
Posted - 2009.04.17 18:38:00 - [213]

3) Lowsec. Currently, risk vs. reward is completely broken. Adding battleship spawns was a step in the right direction, but it's nowhere near enough. Currently, few people (besides newbies making their first and only mistake of going into lowsec) are willing to face the insane risk to get rewards that are barely, if at all, better than highsec. So:

  • Increase rewards. Since lowsec has the highest risks, it should also have the highest rewards for a solo player or small corp (NOT the big alliances, leave the empire building/moon mining/etc in 0.0 where it belongs). Some things to look at: increase ore values, increase frequency and value of battleship spawns, add cruiser-size officer spawns, increase mission payouts, move some of the 0.0-only exploration sites and complexes to lowsec, etc. The end result is that carebearing in lowsec MUST be able to pay off the inevitable frequent ship losses and still make a profit compared to highsec or friendly 0.0.

    It even makes sense from a RP perspective, why do the empires claim lowsec but not 0.0 if there's nothing worth claiming in lowsec?

  • Keep rewards random. Lowsec should not be about harvesting static resources and 500-man blob fleets occupying the best systems. So yes, you have better rat spawns, but you don't know if you're going to get a couple worthless frigates or a 3x 1.8 mil battleship spawn, and the only way to find those good spawns is to start hunting all over lowsec. By keeping a high degree of randomness, there is no incentive to focus on single systems, if one system is occupied, why not try your luck in the empty system a couple jumps away? Similarly, there's no incentive to blob, and lots of incentive to go off solo and keep all the rewards to yourself.

  • Nerf gatecamping. Yes, lowsec should be dangerous and all that, and no pirate wants to lose kills, but think about it: how many kills do us pirates lose just because of fear of gatecamps? Losing your ship trying to finish a mission is one thing, but how much fun is it to lose that ship before you even get there? Even if you carefully scout your way through, running into a gatecamp pretty much means log off and go do something else for a few hours.

    But: killing targets of opportunity should not be nerfed, that AFK autopiloting hauler should be just as vulnerable as it is now. The solution: add a TIME factor to NPC responses. Every shot fired by the sentry guns adds to an aggro counter, and as that aggro counter builds up, it starts to trigger NPC police spawns of increasing difficulty. They can be killed to keep the gatecamp going for a while, but eventually you're going to be forced to leave and go somewhere else. Then the counter decreases over time, say, after five minutes with no sentry fire, it begins to decrease towards zero at the same rate it increased.

These are of course just options, the ideal solution may be something different, but consider them at least a pointer in the direction of the problems. Fixing lowsec benefits everyone: carebears get more money, and us pirates get rich carebears to ransom and kill.

Urhgo Khanab
Posted - 2009.04.17 18:42:00 - [214]

1. Large and XL projectile Weapons.

2. T2 ammo in general. Esp the high dmg one.(Way to much drawback)

3. Naglfar. Subpar compared to the other dreads.

Hottie McGee
Posted - 2009.04.17 18:49:00 - [215]

Edited by: Hottie McGee on 17/04/2009 18:49:38
-projectile artillery turret range/damage/fitting compared to beam lasers (especially on an apoc) and rails (especially on a rokh). could be a dual issue concerning minmatar bs as well (no t2 minmatar bs can easily equip artillery, etc)

-Naglfar fitting. in order to compare to damage being done by the other dreadnoughts, the naglfar is forced to use damage mods in the low slots and attempt to shield tank in the medium slots. however, a very large lack of cpu creates major fitting issues, as well as not being able to do as much damage or tank as much as any other the other dreads on top of that.

-citadel torpedoes. useless against supercaps and carriers (since smartbombs destroy them in one hit and they move so slow), and deal hardly any damage to pos mods.

i fly minmatar, so that's what effects me the most at least and what i'd like to see fixed. i'm also not going to post on my alts, so figure this post 3 times over.

Gloria Lewis
Posted - 2009.04.17 18:50:00 - [216]

1. Minmatar capitals
2. Minmatar battleships
3. Large projectiles

Clueless Alt
Posted - 2009.04.17 18:50:00 - [217]

2 - Artillery
3 - Falloff design

Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.04.17 18:53:00 - [218]

1: Boost low-sec and 0.0 rewards to be on par with risk. Risk/Reward used to be one of the fundamental aspects of this game. The real problem is in high-sec level 4's of course, but if you want to avoid the inevitable backlash of mission runners if you nerf those, then simply boost low-sec and 0.0 rewards in appropriate proportion to the relative risk.

(These next two coming from a caldari and amarr spec guy)

2: Minmatar dreadnaught and battleships. The tempest can't fit a tank and still snipe, the other battleships are just hilariously useless, and the naglfars are rarer than titans and blackop ships (because they suck).

3: Blasters. the web nerf was good, but not boosting blasters at the same time has made the entire weapon group useless and underused.

Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.04.17 18:55:00 - [219]

1. Minmatar need some luvin'.
  • The capitals are the worst in the game. Naglafar and Nidhoggurs are usually primaried, if they are brought to the fight at all. People would much rather cross train and get something else. It takes much longer to train to use split weapons and split capital reps anyway.

  • The BS are the weakest right now, the Tempest doesn't compare damage/tracking/tank to Mega/Geddon. Phoon isn't too bad and Maelstrom is probably on par with the Rokh.

  • Recons suffered from the web nerf, they were great at tackling nanoships and it gave them a very useful role in a gang and with the web nerf 2 60 percent webs don't stack too good against a dedicated speed tank now anyway. They are still a little useful though I guess.

  • Nobody uses the Muninn, nobody.

2. Agility/Webs
  • I personally think the web nerf was heavy handed and should have been done on a much more gradual bit by bit method. 60 Percent leaves it really hard to track small ships (unless you are amarr). The huge amount of inty/af gangs kinda shows that. I think you should test 70 percent on Sing.

  • MWDing back to the gate, or off the gate, or back to the station is really easy now and you basically rely on bumping or more people (more dps/more webs)

  • Catching smaller ships in bigger ships is really difficult - bs catching commandship/bc, bc catching cruiser etc.

3. Capitals camping stations with impunity
  • Fighting on stations these days is plagued by the use of capitals. It is very difficult to kill one, it used to be that you could grab a machariel or a nanophoon and bump them off but that's a little harder to do now. What I propose is a bigger aggression timer for capitals.

  • While I am whining about capitals I'll take the opportunity to whine about the prevelance of supercaps - there's just so many and they are used against small gangs all the time. I get motherships warping in on 1 or 2 ships all the time these days. Titans doomsdaying 5 man gangs etc.

Rip Striker
Posted - 2009.04.17 18:58:00 - [220]

1. Rocket launchers
2. Rocket damage
3. Rocket ship bonus

In total, way too weak.

Two ships immediately comes in mind. Hawk and Vengeance. They really should be able to assault other frigates, which they currently cannot do.

Naomi Knight
Posted - 2009.04.17 18:58:00 - [221]

Looks like most players fly matar ships for pvp maybe thats why there are so many matar whiners. I hope ccp will count this into the final evaluation when they decide what needs to be changed.

Jack Gates
Posted - 2009.04.17 19:06:00 - [222]

Edited by: Jack Gates on 17/04/2009 19:09:32
The stealth bomber is now worse than it was before. I honestly don't give a **** about the stealth bomber, since it will always be a useless piece of ****, but you people need to start thinking critically or something.

Giving the SB a covops cloak muddles the distinct roles of the covops and the bomber. Honestly, now its only viable role is as a ghetto covops. In one stealth bomber with torps, you'll take off a third of the shields of a battleship before either getting blown up or having to run away. A gang of stealth bombers is just stupid, considering that for the cost you could have a gang of insurable t1 ships that do equivalent dps and don't die if you give them a mean look. The bomber's only role in a well-balanced gang would be as a ghetto covops, considering that for the cost you could have three t1 gank cruisers, and if you were to take platinum insurance into account, you could fund a hurricane, both of which will outperform the bomber in every way except intel gathering and baiting. Using a stealth bomber in a large fleet is stupid unless, again, you're using it as a ghetto covops.

The intent was to be able to "pick your targets" with the covops cloak. I don't know what targets you'd pick, unless you were idling by a hostile jump bridge, waiting for a freighter to come through, and hoping that you'd be able to take it out before support arrived (you wouldn't). Furthermore, if you knew what you were doing, the bonuses for the advanced cloak on the bomber (negligible recloak delay, no velocity penalty, no targeting penalty) pretty much ensured you could generally pick your targets and wouldn't get caught unless you were either really unlucky or really stupid. Considering anyone who flew a stealth bomber as anything but an overpriced bait ship was exceptionally ******ed, it's no wonder most of the feedback you got on the thing was from stupid people.

And bombs are still ****.

oh yeah, and fix large artillery and buff non-ecm ewar

Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.04.17 19:06:00 - [223]

Edited by: Deldrac on 17/04/2009 19:06:44
1) ECM. (overpowered) vs All the other ewar. (underpowered) - I think the real issue is that the chance to jam is far too high on ECM ships, and everything except ECM sucks. You need to look at the whole set of 'buff/debuff' roles as a group.

2) Long range (overpowered) vs Short range (underpowered) - In large fleets, range has always dominated, since the speed nerf it is more and more true in smaller battles.

3) Drones suck monkey balls.

A Cell
Posted - 2009.04.17 19:06:00 - [224]

For the love of all that is holy, fix the Nag. Hell, just give it more CPU.

Push Level 4s and 5s out into lowsec thereby making lowsec more interesting. ( Maybe. I'm sure the carebears will just stay cranking level 3s or whatever else they have to do to stay in highsec no matter what which leads me to my next point.... )

At 5 or 10 million sp ( pick an arbitrary level ), automagically transfer players from newbie corps into their respective factional warfare corps so you don't have old or high sp players that are un-wardec-able/perfectly safe in highsec. Would make FW a bit more interesting as well, I think. You could call it the 'conscription' or something to make it all roleplay-ey.

Bring other EW in line with ECM. Rethink/rework the web nerf. Fix the Nag.

Posted - 2009.04.17 19:07:00 - [225]

1. Assualt Frigate 4th Bonus
2. Blasters
3. T2 Ammo

Caius Severus
Galaxy Punks
Dead Terrorists
Posted - 2009.04.17 19:08:00 - [226]

T2 short range ammo definately needs looking at.

eg, Javelin - Has pretty much the same damage as faction ammo, but has a 75% range penalty, a capacitor use penalty (like railguns didn't use enough cap already), a 25% tracking penalty, and a speed penalty that gets added up for each gun you load with it.

These penalties are so bad that even if it were free and faction ammo cost 5x as much, people still wouldn't use it because it compromises things so badly.

Gabriel Karade
Noir. Mercenary Group
Posted - 2009.04.17 19:09:00 - [227]


Nozh, the problems with Blasters are not simple, as it doesn’t scale through small-medium-large variants. The short of it is, small Blasters are spectacular, large Blasters are kind of craptacular and mediums are somewhere in-between.
It comes down to 1) The ability to hit/DPS applied and, 2) Role.

Is quite simple to illustrate, small Blasters hit everything for rather good DPS, particularly compared to the effective HP of the ship using them, while large Blasters struggle with anything other than a Battleship and aren’t particularly special in the DPS department compared to their peers these days.

My Ion II Taranis hits basically everything for 267 DPS while having 1908 HP effective (fitting screen). Compare to my Ion II Megathron, which post QR can be kited by a module-less Stabber in web range if the pilot is competent, hits for 1206 DPS, while having 50,610 HP effective.

The reason large Blasters in particular are struggling with hitting isn’t because their tracking is crap, because on paper it isn’t. It’s because the tracking formula is confused between ‘actual target size’ and ‘sig radius’. This figure explains exactly the problem; it simply does not take into account the changing aspect size of a target as you get closer. Thus the ‘uber close range weapon of doom’ cannot hit as well as it should, because as far as the tracking formula is concerned, being at spitting distance, a target appears no larger than if it were hundreds of km away…

For reference This figure explains how it *should* work…

Gabriel Karade
Noir. Mercenary Group
Posted - 2009.04.17 19:10:00 - [228]

In a way, ties back into 1), pre-QR the Megathron when fitted with large Blasters had a good ‘balls-to-the-wall’ niche role of flying solo or in very small groups hunting other lone Battleships. It could fight off cruiser sized ships with its Blasters just fine, and batter down most things if it survived to get into 5km range. It was pretty useless in medium-large gangs as it has to MWD over to the primary, get stuck in, then MWD over to the next target, capping out in the process, or spend the fight trying to warp in/out to get on a target…
Post-QR it can now be kited by cruisers both within and outside of web range (Ref: Stabber Test). It can have its MWD shut down preventing from getting into range or manoeuvring to make its Blasters hit. It simply no longer has that solo role, and is as useless in medium-large gangs as before.

If you fixed the tracking formula as I and others discussed at length, it would regain some of that solo role, without becoming ‘winsauce’ against every type of target out there. Being biased as an author of suggested ‘fixes’ to the existing formula, and as a (former) solo pilot, I would be happy to go for this solution and not worry about how well it does in a medium sized gang.

If you don’t want to see it in back in its solo niche/can’t fix the tracking formula you now have a problem: Where do large Blasters fit in a world of Pulse-Lasers and Torpedoes in the Anti-Battleship role, in medium sized structured fleets i.e. ones where tackle, DPS, EW e.t.c are all taken up by specialist ships? The answer is quite simple, you dock, remove Blasters and fit Railguns, because a ship that cannot hit the primary from the same range as the others, has to MWD into 5km range to hit ‘optimal DPS’ is a waste of a slot in a squad.

In a way, you guys made Pulse Lasers and Torpedoes impinge upon Blasters (and to a lesser extent AC’s) role with the tracking boost/changing torps into higher damage shorter range weapons. Everything was much more cleanly distinguished before, now you have two really good medium range weapons that fulfil the role the dedicated short range weapons used to occupy.

People can harp on about station camping in low sec/high sec wars, but 99% of the time you can do as good a job with a Torpedo Raven or a Pulse boat, while having the advantage of hitting at range measured in km, not metres. Maybe the anti-Battleship role isn’t where they should be, perhaps breaking heavy tanks (read smashing Capitals) is where large Blaster-fit Battleships should fit in (huge DPS, poor accuracy). Not my preference but at least make them useful for something in a fleet if you don’t see them as ‘solo’ platforms anymore. Maybe turning Torpedoes back into longer range, lower damage weapons, while tweaking down the tracking on Pulse Lasers, is the answer? I don’t know, it really all depends on where you guys see them [Blasters] fitting in.

So to recap in one sentence; fix the tracking formula and the larger Blaster boats have their niche solo/small scale role back or, change them to give a specific, perhaps unique role in medium-large scale structured fleets.

Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.04.17 19:15:00 - [229]

1) E-War: Sensor damps are junk. Target Painters are worthless. Tracking disruptors are marginally useful in the right circumstances but too narrow a niche to usually bother with. (ECM is still up in the air right now but nerfing it doesn't suddenly make the other three useful).

2) Minmatar: Once you progress beyond battlecruiser hulls everything they have is substandard next to its counterparts in other races, particularly Large Artillery and the Naglfar as a whole.

3)Missiles in PvP: too slow, too tankable. The kinetic missile bonus that Caldari ships have is too restricting (no other race has a bonus which only applies to one ammo type).

The Greater Goon
Clockwork Pineapple
Posted - 2009.04.17 19:18:00 - [230]

Edited by: whydirt on 17/04/2009 19:19:05
1. Rockets

2. Large projectiles/Minmatar BS

3. Neglected faction ships (Cynabal, the whole Guristas line, probably make faction cruisers and frigs a lot cheaper from the LP store)

Prometheus Exenthal
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2009.04.17 19:20:00 - [231]

- Rockets need a nice buff
- The Deimos needs a bit of love (try comparing it to a Zealot Laughing)
- Scorch/Beams/Railguns needs to be balanced

Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.04.17 19:21:00 - [232]

Edited by: BurntCornMuffin on 17/04/2009 19:22:28
1) Minmatar BS and Naglfars are underpowered. The BS could use a boost in range so that T2 snipers can actually snipe, while the Naglfar needs to be brought in line with other dreads performance wise.

2) EWar needs to be rebalanced, as right now the only viable ewar mods are ECMs. I'm not necessarily saying "nerf ECM," but I am saying that the other ewar mods need to be brought in line with its performance. In particular, Tracking Disruptors, Target painters, and Sensor Disruptors are pretty bad in their current form, especially compared to ECM.

3) The resources available in general needs to be looked at. Right now, there are too many hi-sec systems and the resources there (particularly Lv4s and the amount that can be mined from belts) are too plentiful, causing people to simply live there and get fat off of agents and veldspar with Concord protection, rather than using as a place for newbies to sharpen their teeth and move out less secure systems where big isk can be earned. Low-sec systems should be made more dense and have more resources to gain, as right now, they're just places for PVP alliance wannabes to camp, instead of a place for the average player to get a pretty average income, but must do so with some risk. 0.0 also needs a resource boost and also a massive reduction in the work necessary to maintain POSes and claim sov, so that there is both a greater draw to push into 0.0 as well as a means for newer alliances to challenge those of us who've been holding sov out here for 4 years or more now and allow their players to make the most possible isk, but also at the most possible personal danger.

Posted - 2009.04.17 19:22:00 - [233]

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Mecinia Lua
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki
Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:42:15
Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:37:32
1. High Sec lvl 4 missions
(needs to be adressed, way too much profit for no risk, this ruins so many other activities as they cannot compete in ish/h and risk vs reward. Also the loot from missions screws mining. PLUS it injects too much isk into the economy, making things too expensive so that you cannot compete with the activities that earns you less isk/h)

This is the biggest single issue I have in EvE, alongside with 0.0 POS-grind-for-sov.

Seriously, every single time you see some economic activity discussed you always see the same "meh makes thr same/less ISK than level 4s for more effort".

Missions URGENTLY need reforming. Yes there will be huge floods of tears on the forums, but the problem will get worse the longer it is left. It has been left too long already.

0.0 class rewards, collected with no danger, no competition, no real effort or skill, have no place in hi-sec.

Nerfing level 4 missions is not the answer, you have to understand that. If you move them to low sec they'll move to Level 3 missions.

You have to boost low sec and 0.0 to make them more enticing, and sadly you will never get a majority to leave empire..

So increase income from 0.0/lo-sec then increase ISK sinks to compensate?

That's just nerfing level 4s via inflation. Why wreck the economy even further to disguise what you're doing?

Because inflation already happened.

Removing ISK sources instead of bringing the baseline up would give the old players who already acquired wealth at inflated rates a HUGE advantage.

Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.04.17 19:22:00 - [234]

Edited by: LegendaryFrog on 17/04/2009 21:32:00
Edited by: LegendaryFrog on 17/04/2009 19:22:27
One other thing that I didn't mention because I don't think it will get in for popularity.

The logistics time sink.

I don't think ANYONE would disagree that POS logistics (onlining and anchoring modules especially) is a huge time sink (on the order of 6-8 hours of doing nothing but pressing a button every 5 minutes to fully setup a defensible POS). The fact that only one person can anchor or online one module at a time in a single POS makes it so that whomever is so unfortunate to have been tasked with alliance level logistics is generaly bored to tears the entire time and burns out of the game altogether.

There is NO reason for such a task to be implemented as a fundamental aspect of a video game. It says something that the only way to make it tolerable is to do something else while you "play" the game. There is a lot wrong with sov mechanics, the entire thing is one grind after another, but the logistics grind is the worst of them all.

This likely won't make it on your list because very few people actually engage in alliance logistics (for the reasons i have stated above), and it simply doesn't affect them. However, I think few would disagree that it is the most fundamentally flawed barrier to fun currently present in the game. Please pay attention to this.

GK inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.04.17 19:24:00 - [235]

1) Hybrid weapons, namely blasters, yes they have fair tracking, are capable of dealing high amounts of damage, but only if they get with in range (which is p*ss poor). By the time you do get w/in range the fight's over. Either your dead cause you couldn't kill the target due to lack of DPS while not being able to make it w/in range or he's dead cause everyone else in your gang killed him before you could even land a shot on the target. There's no fall off to rely on neither as is the case of the projectile turret and they suck too. Just give the blasters a bit more optimal range & added fall off. Railguns need better tracking & a slight boost to damage &/or ROF, there we go *fixed*. Smile

2) Projectile weapons, namely autocannons nice ROF, very nice tracking, but p*ss poor damage (in comparison to hybrids, energy turrets & missiles) & the optimal range is [email protected] too. Basically there is the same situational problem as hybrid weapons (refer to issue #1). Just add a bit more to the optimal damage & optimal range of autocannons. Artillery cannons need better tracking & a slight boost to damage &/or ROF *fixed* Smile

3) T2 ammo way too much drawback for what seems to be no gain or too little gain, more so in the case of t2 ammo specifically designed for ranged weaponry i.e. T2 Railgun & T2 Artillery especially for it's costs

Illudium Space Products
Posted - 2009.04.17 19:26:00 - [236]

1) Split weapons systems (the root of the Naglfar problem). All split weapon ships should not have an even slot layout, there should be the ability to fit more of both. Eg typhoon instead of 4/4 should be 6/6.

2) Large Arty: More alpha, less RoF (DPS is effectively the same). Also, unlike other races, there's no sniper ship to help boost the optimal range. Suggest changing Tempest to have an optimal bonus to give large arty a chance.

3) Pulse Lasers are way too good. You have a short range weapon with an optimal way greater than minmatar long range weapons on the appropriate BS. Shocked (have a look at GS/Kenny/RZR/TCF/et al killboards and look a the proportion of pulse apocs to every other ship in the fleet battles to see just how out of whack this is.

And, I'll add a +1 for the T2 ammo vs Faction ammo total imbalance issue that everyone else mentions.

Rage and Terror
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2009.04.17 19:26:00 - [237]

1) Nighthawk. 5 medslots is not enough for shield-tanking. Also need to increase its powergrid.
2) Citadel torpedoes. Their missile velocity is too slow.
3) Capacitor consumption of railguns. Rokh have more problems with capa than apoc, but it has reloadig time and consumable ammo.
4) Guristas ships. They are useless atm.
5) Raptor. Can't fit it with just mwd + 3x125mm railguns without modules boosting PG. Do something with its powergrid.
6) Carriers. I suggest to rename "carriers" to "jump logistic ships" or "capital logistics".

Martyr's Vengence
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2009.04.17 19:39:00 - [238]

2. LVL 4's

Myz Toyou
the Organ Grinder and Company
Posted - 2009.04.17 19:43:00 - [239]

1) Large Projectiles - autocannons falloff concept of dictating range falls apart at BS level, artillery is truly gimped

2) Recons (minmatar/gallente mostly)

3) Rockets lol

Jade TX
Posted - 2009.04.17 19:51:00 - [240]

Edited by: Jade TX on 17/04/2009 19:56:23
Edited by: Jade TX on 17/04/2009 19:52:15
Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki
Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:42:15
Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:37:32
1. High Sec lvl 4 missions
(needs to be adressed, way too much profit for no risk, this ruins so many other activities as they cannot compete in ish/h and risk vs reward. Also the loot from missions screws mining. PLUS it injects too much isk into the economy, making things too expensive so that you cannot compete with the activities that earns you less isk/h)

2. Projectile Artillery
(cause everyone says they suck...)

3. Tech1 Mods
(who uses tech1 stuff apart for invention? It simply has no use anymore imho, as even noobs can afford named stuff and tech2 mods are ridiculously low in terms of skill requirements. Though I guess some database mining would be needed to prove that tech1 is still used)

If you want risk do a level 5 mission. Or go and croke over and pop in your ship in some W-Space with billions worth in implants getting stuck in some W-Space please would ya. Highsec whine whine whine...

Level 1 is standard pay.
L2 is double pay of level 1.
L3 double level 2.
L4 double level 3.
L5 double level 4.

Missions scale with skill as well.

Its all about social skills and agent quality. It takes atleast 6 months of skills to solo a level 4 mission. Some of the highest quality missions require near maxed tanking skills. Enemies abound 5 for example. Or the AE bonus room, worlds collide final room. Apperently you don't do many missions.

I do navy low sec level 4's and 5's because of the higher quality and payouts in lowsec. Much higher then highsec.

Btw T1 is crap. Nothing special about T1. Thats why its crap. You don't know what your talking about. Your just going to have to deal with it. Level 4's will never get more difficult then they already are. CCP has no plans to change them. Only level 4's around epic arcs.

If your not having any difficulty doing level 4's then its time go to to level 5's. Your skill is too high for level 4's to be challanging anymore so you need to do level 5's. Thats why there are level 5's. Then W-Space is like level 6 missions. lol Go there if you really want to die... specially in a 0.0 system so you get a J6 WH or something.

CCP doesn't control eve's economy, the players do. Its the players fault not ccp's. The player is sipose to deside how much something is in eve. CCP doesn't tell them how much something is worth. One regain can be 50% lower or 1000% higher then the other.

Has nothing to do with mission level. Has everything to do with the players have control of T1 prices. End of story.

Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : 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