These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
CCP Phantom
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1701 - 2011-10-12 12:43:27 UTC
This has been a very good discussion so far, with many interesting points.

Off-topic posts removed.

Please continue to stay civil and on-topic, thank you!

CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer

Phunnestyle
Doomheim
#1702 - 2011-10-12 12:43:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Phunnestyle
Ciar Meara wrote:
[quote=CCP Tallest]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.


This gives me some hope that CCP will save the game we love an save them selves from some* of the hurrendious patch notes they released.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1703 - 2011-10-12 12:49:52 UTC
Phunnestyle wrote:
LOL fail troll an to be frank fail comment.
I take that as a “yes”.

What has been suggested so far somewhat takes care of the issue with subcaps (aside from reneging on the fighter change, when it would be perfectly fine if they balanced the fighters themselves a bit better), but not the issue of super blobs. Granted, that's a hard nut to crack, but doing so would probably allow the same methodology to be applied to subcaps and solve some of the blobbing issues there as well.

At any rate, that last part is still missing, so more is indeed needed.
Lady PimpStar
Storm Chasers.
Pandemic Horde
#1704 - 2011-10-12 12:53:47 UTC
The changes to fighters make every wormhole carrier useless for PVE.

Are the fighter changes only effective to Super Caps or effect all capital ships?

As of now we can just barely rep our fighters in time lossing maybe 2 to 5 a site.
Rakshasa Taisab
Sane Industries Inc.
#1705 - 2011-10-12 12:57:11 UTC
Phunnestyle wrote:
This gives me some hope that CCP will save the game we love an save them selves from some* of the hurrendious patch notes they released.

Only way they can save themselves is by putting all the items in the devblog on TQ.

Tears of those who feel themselves privileged is the only thing driving EVE at this moment.

Nyan

CCP Spitfire
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1706 - 2011-10-12 12:57:27 UTC
Lady PimpStar wrote:
The changes to fighters make every wormhole carrier useless for PVE.

Are the fighter changes only effective to Super Caps or effect all capital ships?

As of now we can just barely rep our fighters in time lossing maybe 2 to 5 a site.


If you mean the changes to the fighters' signature resolution, it has been decided not to go ahead with them. Please have a look at this post for more information.

CCP Spitfire | Marketing & Sales Team @ccp_spitfire

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1707 - 2011-10-12 13:01:31 UTC
CCP Spitfire wrote:
If you mean the changes to the fighters' signature resolution, it has been decided not to go ahead with them. Please have a look at this post for more information.
…and I'll reiterate that it's a pity that you're doing that. The suggestion works if you address the problems with some of the fighters, most notably the effects of having too tight orbits.
Renan Ruivo
Forcas armadas
Brave Collective
#1708 - 2011-10-12 13:02:42 UTC
Sig radius != Sig resolution

However, spitfire, i think you guys got it all wrong again. Don't scrap the change, just don't use 400m as the value. 170m would be a good value.

The world is a community of idiots doing a series of things until it explodes and we all die.

pearcy15504
Raz's Holding
#1709 - 2011-10-12 13:04:25 UTC
will CCP remove the Capital Drone Bay from the list of required parts for Titans and Dreads if the remove them from game. it will also help to lower the prices a little.
Endeavour Starfleet
#1710 - 2011-10-12 13:05:42 UTC
CCP Spitfire wrote:
Lady PimpStar wrote:
The changes to fighters make every wormhole carrier useless for PVE.

Are the fighter changes only effective to Super Caps or effect all capital ships?

As of now we can just barely rep our fighters in time lossing maybe 2 to 5 a site.


If you mean the changes to the fighters' signature resolution, it has been decided not to go ahead with them. Please have a look at this post for more information.



I just want to thank you and the other members of the dev team for taking the time to hear our concerns and ideas about these proposed changes and actually acting on them. If we as the community can take the time to think and discuss REAL ways of fixing these issues instead of trolling or causing problems. I am sure we can all find viable solutions that will be the most benefit to all the players.

I hope you will continue to hear our ideas on other issues as well. I and others for instance have proposed fixes for things such as AFK cloaking that I hope will be considered instead of a massive nerf bat.

When we take the time to discuss and provide ideas that work there will be less time having to reverse damage done by massive swings of the nerf bat to fix issues. We can ALL make EVE better!
Lady PimpStar
Storm Chasers.
Pandemic Horde
#1711 - 2011-10-12 13:05:57 UTC
CCP Spitfire wrote:
Lady PimpStar wrote:
The changes to fighters make every wormhole carrier useless for PVE.

Are the fighter changes only effective to Super Caps or effect all capital ships?

As of now we can just barely rep our fighters in time lossing maybe 2 to 5 a site.


If you mean the changes to the fighters' signature resolution, it has been decided not to go ahead with them. Please have a look at this post for more information.



Thank you,

Will it be possible to test a few carrier configurations in wormhole PVE after changes are on Sisi?

I bet there is no chance you could seed sleepers in 0.0 with a station.
Endeavour Starfleet
#1712 - 2011-10-12 13:07:31 UTC
Renan Ruivo wrote:
Sig radius != Sig resolution

However, spitfire, i think you guys got it all wrong again. Don't scrap the change, just don't use 400m as the value. 170m would be a good value.


Considering all the other big changes needed. Any change to the fighters might just do more harm than good right now.

Perhaps fighter changes can happen sometime in 2012 where there is more time to fix issues individually.
zero2espect
Space-Brewery-Association
#1713 - 2011-10-12 13:08:22 UTC
So i think that this is page 86 of a forum thread. I know i am wasting my time because a. it's page 86 of a forum thread and b. i've been playing eve since beta and CCP have never, once, listed to any advice or comment from its fan base (ok, maybe once when zealots only had 4 guns). But at least leaving a comment will make me feel better.

It’s obvious to me that the number of players are dropping. the fury of recent blogs are designed to re-energise people into staying. Unfortunately, the changes that are listed as CCPs solutions are just ill thought through, knee jerk reactions by people so far removed from the playing of the game it makes me furious.

My preface is that the very people who have been paying subs for the last 5 years, the people who are growing tired of the game because it is broken, are being placed even more offside by these stupid changes. People who have invested millions of SP and billions of isk into capitals are being killed through stupid misconceptions about how they are used.

For me, the 15min logoffski timer would fix 40% of the issue anyway. Just by itself.

Stop capitals in missions. Just stop them.

Another point is that there needs to be a mechanic separating 0.0 and low-sec. in 0.0 let the big boys duke it out for the billions of moon goo and the like – jump the titans, supers and dreads around all you want. Have different rules for them – they’re fighting for sov, let them bring out the bling – max bonuses. In low sec there needs to be protection for the 3643 (or whatever) corps of 50 people or less who want to pvp without the threat of their 5 baddons, 2 megas and scorp being dropped on by 15 SCs just because it’s fun on a Friday night. Limit the amount of ships that can jump through a cyno into low sec. Prevent fleets with more than 5 caps cynoing into a system. Implement a cyno cool-down onto fleets. Halve the bonuses due to security scanning protocols in low sec. Do something. You dont need to screw supers to fix the prob.

Dreads. Halving the siege time. Perfect. Removal of drones. Stupid. It’s ~1.8b of ships before mods and now has zero defence, in or out of siege. Put the drones back and don’t try to fix lag through cheating us.

Supers. Where do I start. Forget your stupid idea with the drones. Listen, just give the super enough drone bay for 10 bombers and 5-10 fighters and halve the amount of drones able to be deployed at once. Balance this with an additional % of damage per level. Make the pilot choose between putting in bombers, fighters (cap vs bs shooting) and/or any mix of standard drones they wish – a super with 10 sentries/heavies/jamming drones isn’t going to win the next fight in delve but makes a difference to a guy bumped off a pos tackled by a hic and being bumped by 2 machs. Remove the bonuses that allow SC only fleets to remote rep each – force commanders to mix up fleets for reps. Change the ecm burst so that it uses stront so that there is a finite amount of bursting that can be accomplished. The EHP drop is there purely for SC haters – but again it’s stupid. If people are flying supercaps they’ve earned the right to have some ehp buffer. The logoffski rules provide a means that committed smaller fleets have a chance at a kill if they deserve it. I’d be happy to see that the hanger bay and corp hangers on supers be taken away so that they are pure combat ships and must rely on other jump capable ships for logistical support, amp up the fuel bay if you do this.

Titans. Remove the ability to bridge fleets or make it prohibitively expensive/limited – e.g. costs much much more or limits the number of ships similar to a wormhole (more smaller ships, few bigger ships). Fleet fight suppression is more based on the fear of massive-hostile-fleets bridging in rather than OMG 35 titans have jumped in. make the distinction between titan and super not guns but the DD and (rebalanced) jump portal. I can tell you for free that having an erebus gate camping in low sec instapowning anything with guns does not make for a fun eve (and unable to do anything because within range there are 12 supers waiting to jump in and take down anybody dumb enough to counter).

When will CCP learn that nothing good comes from BIG changes to anything. In a complex environment like EVE is, you can never understand what will happen when you make even little changes, and big changes are completely random in how they play out. Let’s be honest, CCPs record of deploying quality changes and balancing and game features is not stellar – this smells like more of the same. This whole situation came about because of a BIG change to motherships to become supers. This is like a roundabout now.

For the love of god, instead of making all these changes do 1 or 2 like I suggest, see what happens. if it’s not enough in a month do another one, then another one. Half of why we hate you CCP is that you hype up all these big changes and they never deliver what was promised. Promise less, do more small things and keep your current players happy. You may be trying to grow the game but at this rate you wont grow faster than people will leave if you keep doing crazy wholesale changes that effect people with BILLIONS invested into your universe.

I don’t have a super but I’m not on the bandwagon of NERF THE SUPERS! just because I don’t have one. I want to aspire to one day have one on this toon and the way things are going there is nothing beneficial in “wanting more” out of this game. I might as well stop producing items, buying plexes and adding value to the game and just fly ceptors and cruisers because at least when you **** them up I won’t be throwing billions down the toilet.

You’d get just as much love out of non-capital pilots if you just fixed low sec and militia and bring in some new sub-capital ships into the game.
Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1714 - 2011-10-12 13:14:01 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.


CCP Tallest, although you are shorter than me, I respect you as a man of principle and integrity. This new concern for customer feedback CCP is showing is a good sign.

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.

Shadowsword
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1715 - 2011-10-12 13:17:18 UTC
Sarahs Sister wrote:
Okay I agree with you if you allow SC to dock so that they can refit for the situation, becasue I am guessing you have no idea the hassle in swapping firghters to FBs.


I wouldn't mind making SC able to dock because I don't like the concept of prison ships, and can't be arsed to skill an alt to park one. That's the main reason why I never tried to get one. I also wouldn't mind the possibility of repreocessing a SC to get components and reprocess them, or use them to build carriers.

However, the idea of something like a supercarrier playing docking games makes me angry, and allowing SC to dock would make campagin logistics significantly easier. It would be like making X carrier trips in a single travel. I think force projection should be harder, on the contrary.
Pesadel0
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1716 - 2011-10-12 13:25:10 UTC
I hope ccp implements 2 diferent in drone bays in supers carriers 1 for 25 figthers 1 for 25 bombers that would make sense.
Emmerik
NED-Clan
Goonswarm Federation
#1717 - 2011-10-12 13:25:27 UTC
Shield Capitals in General need some love.
as in Cap dependance, Recharge after bonus, Implants

Else; all the other Nerfs sound very good... Keep up the good work
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1718 - 2011-10-12 13:28:04 UTC
Pesadel0 wrote:
I hope ccp implements 2 diferent in drone bays in supers carriers 1 for 25 figthers 1 for 25 bombers that would make sense.


Heaven forbid you might have to actually make a decision about what to carry in your dronebay.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#1719 - 2011-10-12 13:28:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Hirana Yoshida
CCP Spitfire wrote:
If you mean the changes to the fighters' signature resolution...

So the core concept of the balancing which is presumably making the SC's less of Jack'O'All is being scrapped entirely again? .. you seriously need to find out just what the hell you want.

Do what you were planning with fighters and add a drone tracking bonus (5%/lvl or so) to Carriers.

Solves the SC issue, solves the Carrier issue for the two carriers in Eve that are still using fighters that is) and makes Carriers more than giant batteries for supers and RR monkeys for plate Baddons (sentries w. tracking bonus .. yum!)
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1720 - 2011-10-12 13:30:52 UTC
pearcy15504 wrote:
will CCP remove the Capital Drone Bay from the list of required parts for Titans and Dreads if the remove them from game. it will also help to lower the prices a little.


That's only reasonable.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016