These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
fenistil
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1541 - 2011-10-11 23:13:26 UTC
WHAT ABOUT HYBRID REBALANCE?Evil

What good does Moros do with 25% extra ROF if it can only hit capitals and structures in 20km Radius? What is the radius of large towers? 30km?
So a Moros will already operate in Falloff at 0 on the shields and might not even reach the guns on the other side say 60-70km from it?

HYBRID SUCKS ATM, PLEASE GIVE IT SOME LOVE!!

And yes I am getting very very annoyed by this, give us a hint on hybrid rebalance and nothing seems to be happening with it!
EVE is of 3 races right now not 4!

.
Mad Moxie
Kill'em all. Let Bob sort'em out.
Ushra'Khan
#1542 - 2011-10-11 23:16:51 UTC
InnerDrive wrote:
The tracking on dreads seriously needs to be looked at , currently a dread has huge issues hitting a titan of supercarrier moving at full speed , especialy if those have a MWD fitted.



Are you a complete ****** ? why would you ever fit a mwd to a titan/sc ??? and another thing is the sig rad bonus of using the mwd would make it easyer to hit
Tore Vest
#1543 - 2011-10-11 23:21:28 UTC
fenistil wrote:
WHAT ABOUT HYBRID REBALANCE?Evil

What good does Moros do with 25% extra ROF if it can only hit capitals and structures in 20km Radius? What is the radius of large towers? 30km?
So a Moros will already operate in Falloff at 0 on the shields and might not even reach the guns on the other side say 60-70km from it?

HYBRID SUCKS ATM, PLEASE GIVE IT SOME LOVE!!

And yes I am getting very very annoyed by this, give us a hint on hybrid rebalance and nothing seems to be happening with it!
EVE is of 3 races right now not 4!


CCP/goons doesnt care about hybrid.
This is all about killing off supers

No troll.
Aurora Egnald
Doomheim
#1544 - 2011-10-11 23:30:15 UTC
[quote=Demon AzrakelIf it is a security issue and you are afraid of a SC pilot getting searched for by locators, you must not appear on any killmails (otherwise your name is already out there). If you do not appear on any killmails, then you do not actually know what you are saying, and are talking out of your ass.[/quote]



Again I said earlier buff the dreads leave the supercarriers alone. Too bad you dont like me posting through an alt.. I still stand by what I posted earlier. This whole sc "balancing" benefits the lower skilled players at the expense of the people who have invested in sc's, both the builders and pilots of them.
InnerDrive
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1545 - 2011-10-11 23:31:45 UTC
Mad Moxie wrote:
InnerDrive wrote:
The tracking on dreads seriously needs to be looked at , currently a dread has huge issues hitting a titan of supercarrier moving at full speed , especialy if those have a MWD fitted.



Are you a complete ****** ? why would you ever fit a mwd to a titan/sc ??? and another thing is the sig rad bonus of using the mwd would make it easyer to hit


Someone needs to play the game some more and than come back and post here. 2 reasons why titans/supercarriers fit mwds. 1. to get out of range of a hostile capital fleet faster.
2. to move faster than dreads can track.

A nyx for example moves at 137ms with a mwd and at 88ms without one. (notice you cant web supercarriers or titans either)
Anile8er
Holoband Research and Development
#1546 - 2011-10-11 23:36:51 UTC
Unforgiven Storm wrote:


So, we have this super carrier problem in 0.0 and this nerf is going to address this issue. In general I agree with it and most of the changes are good and I think they will put an end to the current problem


So what exactly is the problem? That Goonswarm and TEST can't send legions of low SP battlecruiser pilots accross 0.0 and disrupt all sov and take what they want?
Sinc
NOVOS
#1547 - 2011-10-11 23:38:04 UTC
So basically all the guys who rmt the isk away they earned in the "north" now got ccp to nerf everyone else who actually used the isk on better ships...

It yet again show eve is more meta-gaming then ingame ... just get the devs to change the game, so you dont have to work for it ingame.

.:Sinc:.
Officer Nyota Uhura
#1548 - 2011-10-11 23:43:15 UTC
Elisha Starkiller wrote:
having been part of a small gang that has had supers dropped on it... no fun and with no consequence to them as if we called in intel they would just log off.. NOT ANY MORE!!! hahahaahhahahahaahha

now super pilots will need to really think before diving into a fight and thats what it needed, everyone knows that this will not be final, never is with ccp but it is a good start...


This, honestly.
Mr Sado
Edge Of Infinity
True Reign
#1549 - 2011-10-11 23:46:15 UTC
I thought the fighter nerf was the right direction, cuz supers have important role in sov taking and fighting other large ships.... let the standard carriers and subcaps keep their important roles as pvp ships.

[b][u]Mr Sado[/u]

CEO of MAKE MY DAY True Reign[/b]
Sigras
Conglomo
#1550 - 2011-10-11 23:50:52 UTC
Korvin wrote:

I'm sorry to ask, but what is the system of these changes?
What is the goal?
Can you define the role of capital ships?

That is the problem here, what are the ships supposed to do?

Dreads - Cheap (relatively) damage, at close range, and un-mitigatable damage at long range
Carriers - Heavy remote repair support - light anti subcap support.
Supercarriers - Heavy Anti Capital ship
Titan - Break up RR blobs and provide additional damage and support for the fleet.

The question is, should these be their roles, and do they currently perform these roles well?
Mr Sado
Edge Of Infinity
True Reign
#1551 - 2011-10-11 23:58:22 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.



A change to fighter bombers for sure though right?

[b][u]Mr Sado[/u]

CEO of MAKE MY DAY True Reign[/b]
Anile8er
Holoband Research and Development
#1552 - 2011-10-11 23:58:40 UTC
Officer Nyota Uhura wrote:
Elisha Starkiller wrote:
having been part of a small gang that has had supers dropped on it... no fun and with no consequence to them as if we called in intel they would just log off.. NOT ANY MORE!!! hahahaahhahahahaahha

now super pilots will need to really think before diving into a fight and thats what it needed, everyone knows that this will not be final, never is with ccp but it is a good start...


This, honestly.



Why "This honestly"?

Okay so let me get the quote straight, you were part of a small gang that got hot dropped by bigger ships and it wasn't fun. Okay so assuming you have been part of other small gangs, lets say 10 or less people, you have probably camped some gates, baited someone into aggression, set up drag bubbles. Okay so with this small gang of lets just say 8 ships you have probably killed the "lone battleship" traveling, the hauler that jumped in, the hulk in a belt, the guy looking for a solo fight on a station who you baited into aggression and then jumped 8 ships on top of. Was it fun for those players who got "ganked" by your small gang? Should your small gang ships be nerfed cause they overpowered a weaker force?

So you fly around and happily "gank" people in you small gang but when it comes time for someone to **** in your Cheerios you want to cry that stuff needs nerfed. How many people have you and your small gang killed in which the fight was clearly not fair? Like your 5 BS two logi and a falcon just completely wipe someone, with no chance. That's just fine with you, but when you get wiped you want to cry "overpowered" and "nerf it" and "that wasn't fair, this is bullshit". Welcome to what should be the sandbox in EVE.
Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1553 - 2011-10-11 23:59:57 UTC
Aurora Egnald wrote:
wow so taking a little security with my sc flying main diminishes what ive said huh? Seems it hasnt and your attempts to call me out have failed. Its called security.But since you admittedly dont fly one you dont unserstand the security required of an sc pilot identity as well.


It doesn't change the fact that any opinion you can't stand behind with your main is an opinion that has no real support behind it. Just because you don't support a supercap nerf doesn't neccessarily mean you're a supercap pilot. Are you seriously egotistical enough to think that of the thousands of people who've posted in this thread, they're going to scrape every name and run a locator agent just to see if they're in space in a nullsec system? No-one in this thread even knew your main was a supercarrier pilot until you told us.

Nice job on that. Callout successfully made.

Aurora Egnald wrote:
Again i stand by my point earlier this whole nerf is aobut the lower skilled/poor/unwilling/envious pilots who would rather not try and reach the status of sc pilot either because it takes too long or is too expensive but they darn sure want to kill one alot easier.


I'm a high-skilled player who thinks being a supercap pilot would be boring, and I think supercaps are imbalanced in their current state. Sucks for you that however much you whine, this nerf will be made and there's not much you can do about it.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
Mr Sado
Edge Of Infinity
True Reign
#1554 - 2011-10-12 00:01:57 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Korvin wrote:

I'm sorry to ask, but what is the system of these changes?
What is the goal?
Can you define the role of capital ships?

That is the problem here, what are the ships supposed to do?

Dreads - Cheap (relatively) damage, at close range, and un-mitigatable damage at long range
Carriers - Heavy remote repair support - light anti subcap support.
Supercarriers - Heavy Anti Capital ship
Titan - Break up RR blobs and provide additional damage and support for the fleet.

The question is, should these be their roles, and do they currently perform these roles well?




I think thats a great summary.... but yea add Sov Flipping to Supercarrier role.... cuz thats what it should be...

Our bomber fleet got welped by a supercapital fleet (that had no sub cap support), Fighters should not be able to scratch frigates.... and I hope that is a change that can still happen. Also... getting instantly locked by a supercarrier....

Wouldn't it make sense that if a ship is immune to e-war, that it not be able to use e-war or remote sensor boosting?
Just seems like common sense to fix that.

[b][u]Mr Sado[/u]

CEO of MAKE MY DAY True Reign[/b]
Avon
#1555 - 2011-10-12 00:07:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Avon
Tippia wrote:
Avon wrote:
I have read you post this many times in this thread, but I don't understand the basis of your argument.

Are you saying that ships should not be better just because they are more expensive?
Yes.

But more importantly, I'm saying that there is a one-way relationship, and it's not in the direction people tend to want to use it. And this a rather important point to make: I'm not saying that cost and performance are completely unrelated, I'm just saying that you cannot balance performance with cost.

Instead, cost should (probably) be a result of performance. Better-performing ship → Higher cost. The beauty of this relationship is that a working market will make it happen automatically. Better performance will lead to higher popularity, which leads to higher demand, which drives prices up. So you don't even have to pick the base price all that well for the whole thing to work. Yes, in designing the ship, it is a good idea to ensure that if it outperforms some other ship, it also requires more expensive and/or exclusive parts, but that is only the beginning, and again: it is the performance that should determine the price, not the other way around, not even a little bit.

The problem is that this often leads to the fallacy (viz. affirming the consequent) that Higher cost → Better Performance. That is not the case. Higher cost does not lead to, explain, promise, justify or in any way promote better performance. It is not a factor in deciding the performance. At most, you can look at low cost and conclude that the performance isn't stellar, but that is still not a causal relationship — the low cost does not cause low performance. Rather, the low cost is caused by a (relatively) worse ship. It is still not a factor — it's just an indicator.

More importantly, cost is never an excuse for overpoweredness — in fact, it rather proves that there is a balance issue that needs to be addressed, because the price wouldn't go as high if it weren't.


That's a long but terrible argument.

If a ship actually costs more to produce then it *should* have some advantage, otherwise why bother?

We aren't talking about a game where everything has the same base cost and the only factor dictating price is demand.
The cost of a ship (rather than the price) really does need to be considered as an element of balance.
Sigras
Conglomo
#1556 - 2011-10-12 00:10:16 UTC
Anile8er wrote:
Officer Nyota Uhura wrote:
Elisha Starkiller wrote:
having been part of a small gang that has had supers dropped on it... no fun and with no consequence to them as if we called in intel they would just log off.. NOT ANY MORE!!! hahahaahhahahahaahha

now super pilots will need to really think before diving into a fight and thats what it needed, everyone knows that this will not be final, never is with ccp but it is a good start...


This, honestly.



Why "This honestly"?

Okay so let me get the quote straight, you were part of a small gang that got hot dropped by bigger ships and it wasn't fun. Okay so assuming you have been part of other small gangs, lets say 10 or less people, you have probably camped some gates, baited someone into aggression, set up drag bubbles. Okay so with this small gang of lets just say 8 ships you have probably killed the "lone battleship" traveling, the hauler that jumped in, the hulk in a belt, the guy looking for a solo fight on a station who you baited into aggression and then jumped 8 ships on top of. Was it fun for those players who got "ganked" by your small gang? Should your small gang ships be nerfed cause they overpowered a weaker force?

So you fly around and happily "gank" people in you small gang but when it comes time for someone to **** in your Cheerios you want to cry that stuff needs nerfed. How many people have you and your small gang killed in which the fight was clearly not fair? Like your 5 BS two logi and a falcon just completely wipe someone, with no chance. That's just fine with you, but when you get wiped you want to cry "overpowered" and "nerf it" and "that wasn't fair, this is bullshit". Welcome to what should be the sandbox in EVE.

The problem is that to a supercarrier, a 30 man fleet is still a "weaker force" in fact, the Aeon can drop in on a fleet, blow stuff up and log off with no danger because you need to be able to do > 55,000 DPS to kill it before it mystically disappears, that means that even if we counter your supercarrier with 6 of our own WE STILL DONT KILL YOU

If you want to deploy your "tier 6 gear" with no consequences and no fear of losing anything WOW is
=======================> This way
Demon Azrakel
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1557 - 2011-10-12 00:13:06 UTC
fenistil wrote:
WHAT ABOUT HYBRID REBALANCE?Evil

What good does Moros do with 25% extra ROF if it can only hit capitals and structures in 20km Radius? What is the radius of large towers? 30km?
So a Moros will already operate in Falloff at 0 on the shields and might not even reach the guns on the other side say 60-70km from it?

HYBRID SUCKS ATM, PLEASE GIVE IT SOME LOVE!!

And yes I am getting very very annoyed by this, give us a hint on hybrid rebalance and nothing seems to be happening with it!
EVE is of 3 races right now not 4!


I am all for a hybrid buff, but if you think the blaster Moros can only hit at 20km, you are an idiot (Source: Moros Pilot who has hit targets at 120km + with blasters).

I have shot a lot of pos, and I still tend to do highest damage to large towers in a blaster moros (Blasters are rather useful in w-space, just sayin).

FYI, blaster moros can use uranium at 30 km or so without any optimal scripts, try using plutonium and 2x optimal scripts for lolawesome dps on poses.

There are two sizes of hybrids that work properly: small and XL. The XL work because when turrets were nerfed in Dominion, the blasters were not and the optimal was actually increased to make them more effective at shooting poses.

Honestly, I am jizzing in my pod thinking about what these changes will do to my Moros.

But, sure, argue that they will not be OP, I could use even more than the 1.47x multiplier these notes say I get.

On a different note, my Triage pilot is rather worried by this turn of events...
Dunn Idaho
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#1558 - 2011-10-12 00:13:06 UTC
Anile8er wrote:
Officer Nyota Uhura wrote:
Elisha Starkiller wrote:
having been part of a small gang that has had supers dropped on it... no fun and with no consequence to them as if we called in intel they would just log off.. NOT ANY MORE!!! hahahaahhahahahaahha

now super pilots will need to really think before diving into a fight and thats what it needed, everyone knows that this will not be final, never is with ccp but it is a good start...


This, honestly.



Why "This honestly"?

Okay so let me get the quote straight, you were part of a small gang that got hot dropped by bigger ships and it wasn't fun. Okay so assuming you have been part of other small gangs, lets say 10 or less people, you have probably camped some gates, baited someone into aggression, set up drag bubbles. Okay so with this small gang of lets just say 8 ships you have probably killed the "lone battleship" traveling, the hauler that jumped in, the hulk in a belt, the guy looking for a solo fight on a station who you baited into aggression and then jumped 8 ships on top of. Was it fun for those players who got "ganked" by your small gang? Should your small gang ships be nerfed cause they overpowered a weaker force?

So you fly around and happily "gank" people in you small gang but when it comes time for someone to **** in your Cheerios you want to cry that stuff needs nerfed. How many people have you and your small gang killed in which the fight was clearly not fair? Like your 5 BS two logi and a falcon just completely wipe someone, with no chance. That's just fine with you, but when you get wiped you want to cry "overpowered" and "nerf it" and "that wasn't fair, this is bullshit". Welcome to what should be the sandbox in EVE.


Reminds me of Derelik ;)
Sigras
Conglomo
#1559 - 2011-10-12 00:14:09 UTC
Avon wrote:
If a ship actually costs more to produce then it *should* have some advantage, otherwise why bother?

We aren't talking about a game where everything has the same base cost and the only factor dictating price is demand.
The cost of a ship (rather than the price) really does need to be considered as an element of balance.


Thats not right . . . in fact nobody would make a game like that or everyone would only just rush to the biggest and baddest ship which is what is happening now.

In StarCraft, marines (a tier 1 unit) are still viable against Voidrays (a tier 4 unit) in fact, marines are what you want to use against voidrays.

This isnt WoW where everyone rushes to level 85 because 85 is arbitrarily better than 84

In this game More expensive != More Powerful
Aurora Egnald
Doomheim
#1560 - 2011-10-12 00:16:11 UTC
Andreus Ixiris wrote:
Aurora Egnald wrote:
wow so taking a little security with my sc flying main diminishes what ive said huh? Seems it hasnt and your attempts to call me out have failed. Its called security.But since you admittedly dont fly one you dont unserstand the security required of an sc pilot identity as well.


It doesn't change the fact that any opinion you can't stand behind with your main is an opinion that has no real support behind it. Just because you don't support a supercap nerf doesn't neccessarily mean you're a supercap pilot. Are you seriously egotistical enough to think that of the thousands of people who've posted in this thread, they're going to scrape every name and run a locator agent just to see if they're in space in a nullsec system? No-one in this thread even knew your main was a supercarrier pilot until you told us.

Nice job on that. Callout successfully made.

Aurora Egnald wrote:
Again i stand by my point earlier this whole nerf is aobut the lower skilled/poor/unwilling/envious pilots who would rather not try and reach the status of sc pilot either because it takes too long or is too expensive but they darn sure want to kill one alot easier.


I'm a high-skilled player who thinks being a supercap pilot would be boring, and I think supercaps are imbalanced in their current state. Sucks for you that however much you whine, this nerf will be made and there's not much you can do about it.



well touche on that one I thought it was obvious by the way I was defending sc's. Still already parts of the nerf have been scaled back(Fighter tracking) according to the devs and hopefully they will listen to reason on removing drones from sc's as well .Limiting an sc's ability to deploy regular drones is akin to making a domi only able to fly heavy drones. One poster said it quite well about the 900 mil carrier being able to defend itself form smaller ships while the 18 bil mothership cant. me thinks the devs went overboard with the full intention of scaling it back just to say see we didnt totally screw the sc pilots.Wink Wink