These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: Capital ship balancing

First post First post First post
Author
Lyrrashae
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#921 - 2011-10-11 10:32:52 UTC
Florestan Bronstein wrote:
Pilk wrote:
We often enjoy comparing EVE SCs to the real-life ones. In this scenario, you're telling me that my USS Enterprise cannot do anything to stop some dude standing on the deck of a tugboat, vigorously slapping her across the bow with a piece of fresh mozzarella, from sinking her.

hmm... you think the USS Enterprise was engineered to provoke fun & interesting fights? Shocked


Both of you apparently think that EVE pixel-spaceships are even remotely comparable to R/L ocean war-ships...What?

Ni.

Nomad I
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#922 - 2011-10-11 10:35:26 UTC
Draahk Chimera wrote:
While changes (nerfs) to the supercapital roster is indeed welcome I do remain of the opinion that the only way to breathe new life into 0.0 warfare is to nerf remote repping. Fleets with 20 or more logistics can be nothing but negative; they promote blobbing and the homogenization of fleets, and is an absolute killer of small-but-elite fleets (such as BURN EDEN). While blobbing is to some extent the product of human nature, in a game enviroment where you cannot break a single enemy without hitting it with 100+ ships blobbing goes from an annoyance to a necessity.
.


Haha, someone from Burn Eden is whining masses of tears for being unable to adapt. Lol
Robert Lefcourt
BigPoppaMonkeys
E.B.O.L.A.
#923 - 2011-10-11 10:35:30 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
Kyjaro wrote:
I can see 2 problems

- Carriers should remain deadly against sub-capitals, so give them a bonus to fighters to counter the penalty. I'm thinking about carriers ratting and the fact that carriers can be killed easily. They shouldn't have the penalty to fighters


Or they could just avoid senselessly nerfing fighters in the first place...


Oh, i see perfect sense in that. They want to prevent, that a mom can single-handedly take on fleets of every size and get away with it. This nerf will take care of the problem. To encounter a mixed fleet, you will need backup from now on.

Ganthrithor wrote:
Kyjaro wrote:

- There should be a distinction between logging off and getting disconnected (or server down)


People will just yank their network cables if there's an advantage in doing so.


That be true :-D
Relnala
Perkone
Caldari State
#924 - 2011-10-11 10:38:36 UTC
Robert Lefcourt wrote:

Oh, i see perfect sense in that. They want to prevent, that a mom can single-handedly take on fleets of every size and get away with it. This nerf will take care of the problem. To encounter a mixed fleet, you will need backup from now on.


Because you see SCs deploying a lot of fighters in their current state. Wait, that was sentries and warriors. My bad.

Still think fighters should stay the same. With a decent drone bay.
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#925 - 2011-10-11 10:40:34 UTC
Obviously this is a bit of a derail from the topic at hand, but I've thought for a while now that the best way to balance caps and supercaps would be to simply do to dreads what the supercap buff did to titans-- give their hulls a massive bonus to capital turret dps, remove the siege module.

This would allow dreads to do their current siege DPS without a tracking penalty (they can hit moving caps), while able to receive remote assistance (they can be repped by a carrier fleet against incoming dps), and while NOT immobilized (If the hostiles lack a proper subcap fleet, it will be difficult to keep them tackled. Primaries could also warp out + back if incoming DPS exceeds incoming reps, provided they aren't tackled).

I think this change would allow a large dreadfleet to at least stay more competitive with a supercap fleet, whereas currently even a much larger dread / carrier fleet might kill one or two hostile supercaps, but at the cost of literally all their sieged dreads. Local reps are utterly useless vs the kind of dps output provided by even a small supercap fleet, and immobilization means that dreads will simply be killed in quick succession regardless of whether the hostiles tackle them or not. Doing away with siege would help to alleviate these problems.

Of course, this would also open another can of worms-- without siege, no party is forced to really commit to a fight. Then again, under current mechanics, people almost never commit to a fight anyway, since sieging is essentially suicidal. At least the possibility of being able to field dreads without losing them all might coax more dreadfleets onto the field, providing, at minimum, more opportunities for mistakes to lead to Goodfights(TM).
Draahk Chimera
Supervillains
#926 - 2011-10-11 10:42:25 UTC
Nomad I wrote:
Draahk Chimera wrote:
While changes (nerfs) to the supercapital roster is indeed welcome I do remain of the opinion that the only way to breathe new life into 0.0 warfare is to nerf remote repping. Fleets with 20 or more logistics can be nothing but negative; they promote blobbing and the homogenization of fleets, and is an absolute killer of small-but-elite fleets (such as BURN EDEN). While blobbing is to some extent the product of human nature, in a game enviroment where you cannot break a single enemy without hitting it with 100+ ships blobbing goes from an annoyance to a necessity.
.


Haha, someone from Burn Eden is whining masses of tears for being unable to adapt. Lol


Interstellar Exodus for those unable to read. Have been shot at but never a member of Burn Eden. I used them as an example to the fact that fleets with 20+ logis cannot be hurt by small fleets no matter how pro. And it is not a matter of adapting, it is in fact the opposite of being adaptive and inventive when the only answer to a tactic is to bring a bigger blob.

404 - Image not found

Jaari Val'Dara
Grim Sleepers
#927 - 2011-10-11 10:42:30 UTC
Nerf seems nice, but there needs to be some changes:
1. Fighter nerf only applies to SC's. No need to stop carriers from fighting effectively against smaller ships.
2. Let SC's have a small drone bay, just enough to kill a single ship, not enough to be effective in a fleet fight.
3. Dreads need to get even bigger buff, 5 minute timer is probably okay, but they still need to hit capital ships effectively.
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#928 - 2011-10-11 10:49:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
Robert Lefcourt wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:
Kyjaro wrote:
I can see 2 problems

- Carriers should remain deadly against sub-capitals, so give them a bonus to fighters to counter the penalty. I'm thinking about carriers ratting and the fact that carriers can be killed easily. They shouldn't have the penalty to fighters


Or they could just avoid senselessly nerfing fighters in the first place...


Oh, i see perfect sense in that. They want to prevent, that a mom can single-handedly take on fleets of every size and get away with it. This nerf will take care of the problem. To encounter a mixed fleet, you will need backup from now on.


I think you overestimate the degree to which fighters (or normal drones) from supercaps play a pivotal role in fleet fights. Even if they were used extensively, fighters are not as problematic as people keep making them out to be. They can be killed. As I keep mentioning, if people bring the right ships-- smartboming BS, bombers, or antisupport BCs (speaking of fleet diversity, remember when BCs and HACs used to be fielded alongside BS?) will *all* make short work of a fighter cloud. Once the fighters or drones are cleared, the supercapitals become deadspace-fit killmails waiting to happen. They're not like titans, where the only way to remove the dps from the field is to remove the ship. If people just kept that mind when putting together a fleet, they'd probably find it a lot easier to kill supercarriers.

E: Just to be clear, however, I do think that SCs need their normal drone bay sizes drastically reduced. Infinite waves of drones are no fun for anyone.
CCP Tallest
C C P
C C P Alliance
#929 - 2011-10-11 10:51:46 UTC
In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.

The poor performance of Minmatar capital ships is being looked at and was already being looked at before the blog was posted.

Pointing out flaws and issues with the balancing plan is very much appreciated. I will look into the issues and make changes where they are needed.

Once this hits SISI, I will start a thread in the test server feedback forums. Your concerns will be listened to and acted upon if necessary.

[b]★ EVE Game Designer ★ ♥ Team Super Friends ♥[/b]

Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
Goonswarm Federation
#930 - 2011-10-11 10:53:17 UTC
CCP Tallest wrote:
In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.

The poor performance of Minmatar capital ships is being looked at and was already being looked at before the blog was posted.

Pointing out flaws and issues with the balancing plan is very much appreciated. I will look into the issues and make changes where they are needed.

Once this hits SISI, I will start a thread in the test server feedback forums. Your concerns will be listened to and acted upon if necessary.



soem sence. can you please give teh moros its drones back as well? its short sighted to remove drones from dreads imo

OMG when can i get a pic here

Aase Nord
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#931 - 2011-10-11 10:54:17 UTC
Thank you CCP/goons/allies/alts.
Game is F.U.B.A.R

Its time for me to find an other game to spend my money on .

Bye
Liranan
Niflheim.
Pan-Intergalatic Business Community
#932 - 2011-10-11 10:54:50 UTC
Quote:
Fighters

Increase signature resolution to 400


That is seriously messed up. There is no point in nerfing fighters like this, they're rarely used in combat anyway and if you're nerfing them to prevent people from running anoms with them you are making a huge mistake there too.

Quote:
Dreadnoughts
Remove drone bay from all dreadnoughts.
Siege Module I: Boost damage bonus from 625% to 700% to compensate for loss of drones.
Siege Module I: Duration time reduced to 5 minutes. Fuel cost -50%.
Moros: Remove drone bonus.
Moros: New bonus: 5% bonus to Capital Hybrid Turret rate of fire per level.


Do tell us how a dread uses all this new DPS when it has no cap or when the ship they're supposed to be hitting is moving. Either do something about tracking or increase super cap sig radius. I'm sure you guys never thought of this and just looked at DPS.

Please rethink the fighter nerf and nerf Titan tracking instead.

As for the Goon CSM: looking for a job at CCP? You guys are so desperate it's pathetic.

http://www.youtube.com/user/zeitgeistmovie?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/23/Lio3n66bwOo This shit's got to go - Jacque Fresco

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#933 - 2011-10-11 10:55:56 UTC
CCP Tallest wrote:
In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.

The poor performance of Minmatar capital ships is being looked at and was already being looked at before the blog was posted.

Pointing out flaws and issues with the balancing plan is very much appreciated. I will look into the issues and make changes where they are needed.

Once this hits SISI, I will start a thread in the test server feedback forums. Your concerns will be listened to and acted upon if necessary.


Glad to hear there won't be a needless carrier nerf. They've already been relegated to repping pos, PVE, and hauling subcap hulls. It would have been a shame to see their utility further reduced.


I look forward to seeing what changes result from this next iteration of theorycrafting.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#934 - 2011-10-11 10:56:53 UTC
CCP Tallest wrote:
In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.
Tbh, the problem is more that there are some pretty grave imbalances between the different fighters — most notably that the close-orbiting ones do not have the tracking to support their own orbits (which sounds familiar somehow… reminds me of a different weapon system that begins with a “b”).

If that part was adjusted, you could probably go ahead with the proposed change and not do all that much damage to standard carriers. Yes, average DPS would be down by ~30% against battleships, but that still leaves them very capable, and if need be you could always balance that out with a sig res skill bonus.
Just Another Toon
Doomheim
#935 - 2011-10-11 10:58:28 UTC
CCP Tallest wrote:
In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.

The poor performance of Minmatar capital ships is being looked at and was already being looked at before the blog was posted.

Pointing out flaws and issues with the balancing plan is very much appreciated. I will look into the issues and make changes where they are needed.

Once this hits SISI, I will start a thread in the test server feedback forums. Your concerns will be listened to and acted upon if necessary.



nice back track... i say it again..carriers are not supposed to be offensive ships!! you bowing to the blobby carrier pilots YET AGAIN!!!! You know what why dont you just scrap the whole fecking idea!
Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
Goonswarm Federation
#936 - 2011-10-11 10:59:46 UTC
Just Another Toon wrote:
CCP Tallest wrote:
In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.

The poor performance of Minmatar capital ships is being looked at and was already being looked at before the blog was posted.

Pointing out flaws and issues with the balancing plan is very much appreciated. I will look into the issues and make changes where they are needed.

Once this hits SISI, I will start a thread in the test server feedback forums. Your concerns will be listened to and acted upon if necessary.



nice back track... i say it again..carriers are not supposed to be offensive ships!! you bowing to the blobby carrier pilots YET AGAIN!!!! You know what why dont you just scrap the whole fecking idea!



ccp understand reason and logical arguments. wow did i actually just say that

OMG when can i get a pic here

Tish Magev
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#937 - 2011-10-11 11:01:54 UTC
Quote:
nice back track... i say it again..carriers are not supposed to be offensive ships!! you bowing to the blobby carrier pilots YET AGAIN!!!! You know what why dont you just scrap the whole fecking idea!


Shush, back to your bridge!

Quote:
In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.


Good move, because you know there's a nerf and then there's an obliterate it to within an inch of it's life so all it has is the fighting capability of a wet doyley ..nerf.
Madner Kami
Durendal Ascending
Sindication
#938 - 2011-10-11 11:02:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Madner Kami
CCP Tallest wrote:
In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.

The poor performance of Minmatar capital ships is being looked at and was already being looked at before the blog was posted.

Pointing out flaws and issues with the balancing plan is very much appreciated. I will look into the issues and make changes where they are needed.

Once this hits SISI, I will start a thread in the test server feedback forums. Your concerns will be listened to and acted upon if necessary.


You guys actually respond to critique before **** hits the fan now? WTF is happening there?! You've all been replaced by aliens, are you? Stop with not giving us reasons to rage!!!11

But seriously now: By the Goddess! I love your new approach. I hope you keep it up and I'm frantically looking forward to the results Big smile
Fiberton
StarFleet Enterprises
#939 - 2011-10-11 11:04:18 UTC
Many of them enjoy League of Legends. Wreck this game np..Work for LOL

BadBoyBubby wrote:
Most of these changes...meh.

But reducing the drone bay on supercaps to 25 fighters/bombers max? That is seriously dumb. You've already taken out all the drones. You've nerfed fighters and fighter bombers again (how people forget so quickly) on sig radius, so they can't do much to sub caps anyway. So why reduce the drone bay capacity to the point where you can't even load a full flight of each type?? Seriously, WTF????

I'll repeat the question asked so often and never answered: DO CCP DEVS ACTUALLY PLAY EVE???

“Out of clutter, find simplicity. From discord, find harmony. In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity.” --  Albert  Einstein  "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means,"

Kari Kari
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#940 - 2011-10-11 11:05:33 UTC
Velin Dhal wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Stealthiest wrote:
How about a rename and some resizing. A super carrier that is not a carrier, but is the same size as a carrier?

As a 2 titan, 1 mS owner I say bout f**king time for most of this, But no dd on Sub-caps at all? No drones on a Super carrier?

I mean really!!!!!



Yes, really. DDing frigates and cruisers is bullshit and you know it.


How is it bullshit ? Sorry that my 30+ billion isk ship that I had to wait like half a year to build and took me 4 years of training to get in can instantly destroy your 10 cent frigate. I mean seriously, what am I thinking its so unfair of me. Why would I ever assume that time and money could buy power in a game running on a capitalist economy ? To make me even more of a bad guy, why would I assume that my hard earned money and dedicated skill training would give me the right to fly ships untouchable by someone with less skills and dedication than me ?

I'm so ashamed of myself



I must say this is pure right on the dot for all super capital players. CCP you need to look at this post and understand frustrations by our community the super capital community. Bowing down to guys who fly battlecruisers and frigates and swarms and did not have the patience or the time and dedication to train for those super capitals in game. Thank you for wasting players time to train these ships and destroy as a whole a community that was over a years worth of training. CCP you fail!