These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#941 - 2011-10-11 11:05:47 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
Lyrrashae wrote:


Also ITT:

Whinging nullbear SC pilots who are basing their complaints around the assumptions that all of EVE revolves around them, and sov-warfare, and seriously believing that the rest of us give two fucks.

Keep the tears coming, you poor, deluded, blinkered little princesses:

They keep my HM/Nano-Drake's windscreen looking like new!


[Over-inflated sense of own importance ****-poster predictability]




Thank you for just proving every point I've tried to make.

No, you don't matter to the other 85+ per cent of the paying customer-base, arse-bag.

Go choke on your own **** and die, you self-important toddler, I'm not even going to start with this utterly disgusting ******* garbage you're spewing. "Untermensch?" Oh, ******* champion, you complete and utter imbecile. Tell me, what's it like being a bad joke?

Ni.

Just Another Toon
Doomheim
#942 - 2011-10-11 11:06:21 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.



You are stupid, best changes CCP have done and now your back tracking cos of a little forum pressure.. Carriers are logistics ships not offensive ships. Want to defend a carrier bring your sub cap fleet!

Now im angry
Nocturrne Primitive
Evil Young Flesh
#943 - 2011-10-11 11:07:08 UTC

Most of the changes look like a step in the right direction, but this indirectly nerfs carriers and leaves dreads broken. Removing some dps from one place and adding it back to another, leaves dreads just as useless as they are now. Normal capitals are within the reach of the average player and a nice goal for many people, if they were useful. It's the supers and titans that need to be nerfed.

Regards
Usurpine
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#944 - 2011-10-11 11:07:21 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.

Uh, i cant believe, but ccp is reading this.
I need to change my mind about ccp. This looks good. Well done. Please go on ! Big smile
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#945 - 2011-10-11 11:08:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Misanth
Renan Ruivo wrote:
People who buy obvioulsy unbalanced stuff because of the unbalanced **** in the stuff should stay quiet. You ought to know that it is going to be balanced sooner or later.


While I somewhat agree with you: Some of us flew them before they were buffed, you know..

And I like how CCP wants to nerf the raw HP on supers. Quite short-sighted, maybe they have forgotten what happened before they got their HP buff in the first place? When new DD and FB hit SiSi, we had motherships dying to 3-4 DD's and/or a few moms. My own Aeon on SiSi, still oldschool fit tho with triple CCC and dual rep, died to a few doomsdays and a single Nyx on SiSi in very very short time. That was before the big titan/mothership spam we saw after that.

Given how some entities easily field 50+ supers, you'll probably see them volley 5-10 supers on their initial jump-in.

I'm one of those who flew supers before they were boosted, during the boost, and I've piloted multiple different supers both in small-, medium- and big scale combat. I'm one that agrees they needed a nerf. But nerfing the hitpoints and sub-fighter bay is ********, the only nerf titans and motherships needed was to Doomsdays and FB's. The damage output is the only real issue. That'd be another nice little boost to Dreads as well.

Edit; Oh and don't forget we'll now be able to tackle them infinately, so the HP nerf makes even less sense. It's only gonna make them easier to volley for the other superblob.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.

ANGAL 2000
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#946 - 2011-10-11 11:08:30 UTC
this is a act to kill super carrier you have 3000 toons in super carriers if not more and their useless let them dock.

they will get used after the patch and the ppl using them can use them for more then sitting in a pos waiting to die

LET SUPER CARRIER DOCK
Xue Slick
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#947 - 2011-10-11 11:08:36 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.



You are stupid, best changes CCP have done and now your back tracking cos of a little forum pressure.. Carriers are logistics ships not offensive ships. Want to defend a carrier bring your sub cap fleet!

Now im angry


And clearly a little touched... Carriers are perfect where they are. Cost to ability is about the best in the game.
Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
Goonswarm Federation
#948 - 2011-10-11 11:09:26 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.



You are stupid, best changes CCP have done and now your back tracking cos of a little forum pressure.. Carriers are logistics ships not offensive ships. Want to defend a carrier bring your sub cap fleet!

Now im angry



carriers are balanced, this change unbalances them and its good that it was reverted before it hit tq.

why dont you get that? you havnt flown a carrier have you?

OMG when can i get a pic here

Furb Killer
#949 - 2011-10-11 11:16:53 UTC
Quote:
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.

Cap? Fit cap rechargers? CCC rigs if you want even.

And it would be nice if this myth that dreads cant hit orbiting supers would finally die. I would do the math again, but i cant be bothered. Serious just pick a dread from EFT and a supercarrier, do them in a damage graph. Sure if it orbits you at 500m you cant hit it, but if we talk about realistic fleet fights then both the dreads and the SCs will be spread, there is no way to orbit all dreads at clsoe range. And if you orbit at 10km distance the dreads do like 90% of their dps.

If we talk about ganking a super, with only a couple of dreads present, then you can also make sure the SC isnt orbiting your dreads at close range by bumping him.



The only result of boosting dread tracking is that they will start to dominate webbed/painted battleships at normal ranges.
Evil Celeste
#950 - 2011-10-11 11:17:09 UTC
Stupid question :
It is really that hard to adjust orbit ranges for fighters, so they can hit battleships "just fine" - lets say for 100% of dps with 2 target painters - but make them unable to seriously hurt sub bs ships?

Another question :
Wouldnt be the easiest way to lower the performance gap between armor and shield caps simply making slave sets to not affect capitals, making bonus shield ehp from leadership or titan to take effect immediately and slightly lowering the cpu needs for cap shield transfers?

3rd question :
Why are supercarriers capable of using ALL of their special bonuses in lowsec? Titans cant be build in lowsec - they cant fire dd in lowsec. No supercaps ca be build in wh space - they cant even enter. Supercarriers cant be build in lowsec - they can use ALL of their special abilities there...
It would make perfect sense if they lost their point immunity in lowsec, especially if you take into account, how much harder is to keep mom tackled by focused point compared to bubble and how useless are hics in lowsec for anything else but pointing moms.
Othran
Route One
#951 - 2011-10-11 11:17:12 UTC
As you're removing logoffski can you go a little further and remove the ability to initiate self-destruct while aggressed please?

You need to do this otherwise the :goodfights: you anticipate will not happen. The target will simply self-destruct if he can't logoff. It happens far too often now, but it'll be happening a lot more with your changes.

Simple change - you cannot self-destruct while aggressed.
Shade Millith
xHELLonEARTHx
Simple Farmers
#952 - 2011-10-11 11:18:56 UTC
Just Another Toon wrote:
You are stupid, best changes CCP have done and now your back tracking cos of a little forum pressure.. Carriers are logistics ships not offensive ships. Want to defend a carrier bring your sub cap fleet!

Now im angry


Carriers do not need a nerf. He is backing down from an accidental nerfing of a ship type that didn't need it.
Angel Lust
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#953 - 2011-10-11 11:19:27 UTC
CCP
Why are you doing this ?
Do you want so many to ragequit that lag isnt a problem anymore maby ?
Well....
You got me..
Pesadel0
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#954 - 2011-10-11 11:19:51 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.



You are my hero if you fix minmatar caps ;D
ThaWolf
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#955 - 2011-10-11 11:21:31 UTC
Maybe instead of nerving we should rather redo the Super-carrier as a whole, after reading this thread, i think they are not fitting in the game as they are, overpowered on one hand, mainly in larger groups, and close to useless if they get nerved that way, while the character is stuck in it.

So i came up with that:

New role, high end toy for all ppl who like to fly Caps, can do much but nothing Overpowered.

- Fighter Bombers will be pure Anti-Structure Weapons, bombing range 35km, anti Pos too, dmg should be like 2 Dreads

- Fighters stay like they are pre-nerv, the SCs should do Damage like 2 Carriers

- Drone bay gets nerved to 1 Bomber set 1 Fighter set and ~500m3 (yeah still normal Drones)

- SC cant use Remote repair mods, they should be only for Standard Carriers.

- ECM immunity stays

- remote ECM stays

- All SCs should be balanced to the defense Capabilities of a NYX (which i think is the most balanced EHP for SCs)

- balance production price of all SCs to the same amount

- SCs should be able to dock as a Compensation, and to make it possible that more ppl rely want to own them, so more can be killed
Lyrrashae
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#956 - 2011-10-11 11:22:16 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.



Tallest dev = best devCool

Ni.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#957 - 2011-10-11 11:22:49 UTC
Evil Celeste wrote:
Stupid question :
It is really that hard to adjust orbit ranges for fighters, so they can hit battleships "just fine" - lets say for 100% of dps with 2 target painters - but make them unable to seriously hurt sub bs ships?
It's tricky because it's the same variables on a continuous sliding scale — making it possible to hit BS for 100% damage will pretty much automatically mean that you can hit sub-BS for roughly 20-30% damage. Whether that qualifies as "seriously hurt" is up for debate (yes, it's lower damage, but on the other hand, they have less HP).

It's not really a mechanic that lets you completely cut off the damage application when the differences in ship sizes are as small as they are. BS to frigate works, because by then, we're talking about a factor of 10 — BS to cruiser (or, worse, BS to BC) is only a factor of 1½–3, and that's not enough to make a sizeable difference.
Bluemelon
ElitistOps
Snuffed Out
#958 - 2011-10-11 11:23:24 UTC
As good as the response is: Still not solved the issue of making titans nothing but logistics ships now. 70bn in a logistics ship isnt worth it. They are the most powerful ship in game, and need massive support behind them for a reason.

stop making them useless

For all your 3rd party needs join my ingame channel Blue's 3rd Party!

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=365230&find=unread

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#959 - 2011-10-11 11:27:14 UTC
Just Another Toon wrote:
You are stupid, best changes CCP have done and now your back tracking cos of a little forum pressure.. Carriers are logistics ships not offensive ships. Want to defend a carrier bring your sub cap fleet!


If Carriers are intended to be logistics ships, why are they called "carriers"? They have fighters, not just drones. Please reassess your assumptions.

I'd like to see fighters have their signature resolution bumped a little, so that fighters will be ineffective against cruisers. Rather than bumping them from 125m to 400m, a bump up to 200m should be enough: remember that fighters are also moving, which impacts on their chance to hit in the first place as opposed to Sentry drones for example, which have a resolution of 400m but are stationary.

The next step up from cruisers is battlecruisers, with sig radiuses between 240-280m (not including sig bloom from shield extender modules, shield extender rigs, T2 ammo etc). If you pack shield extenders onto a battlecruiser, expect to get smacked about by fighters. That's a consequence of a decision that you made.

If you're flying a carrier and want to get rid of those pesky HICs and EWAR cruisers, bring a support fleet.

Which reminds me: CCP should be removing EWAR immunity and replacing it with existing game mechanics, not adding EWAR immunity to more ships. Capital and super capital ships should get their "immunity" to EWAR through base stats of the hull and support from other ships in their fleet, not through specific game mechanics that only apply to those ships.
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#960 - 2011-10-11 11:28:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
Lyrrashae wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:
Lyrrashae wrote:


Also ITT:

Whinging nullbear SC pilots who are basing their complaints around the assumptions that all of EVE revolves around them, and sov-warfare, and seriously believing that the rest of us give two fucks.

Keep the tears coming, you poor, deluded, blinkered little princesses:

They keep my HM/Nano-Drake's windscreen looking like new!


[Over-inflated sense of own importance ****-poster predictability]




Thank you for just proving every point I've tried to make.

No, you don't matter to the other 85+ per cent of the paying customer-base, arse-bag.

Go choke on your own **** and die, you self-important toddler, I'm not even going to start with this utterly disgusting ******* garbage you're spewing. "Untermensch?" Oh, ******* champion, you complete and utter imbecile. Tell me, what's it like being a bad joke?


umad bro?

So you get to call me a whinging, nullbear, poor, deluded, blinkered little princess, but if I call you an irrelevant and ill-informed nobody, you get pissy? How is that fair?

Don't shoot the messenger Twisted