These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Velin Dhal
Zeonic CG
#1801 - 2011-10-12 17:53:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Velin Dhal
Andy Landen wrote:
Great changes overall, BUT the drone changes are all wrong.

Supers will still be able to burn through structures and caps like there is no tomorrow. Fighter bombers (FB) will see no change to their a) numbers deployed at a time, b) dps, and c) EHP. The super will still dominate sov wars, cap battles, and even battles against BS with large numbers of fighters on BS, while the carrier remains vastly inferior toward supers. Large FB EHP makes attacking them very difficult .. recall, deploy, recall, etc..

Plus, carriers are hit equally hard as the supers with the fighter nerf.

We need fighters to remain as is, and the super bonus per carrier skill to fighters to be reduced instead. I propose the bonus be 2 additional drones per level, and the fighters remain as is. I also suggest the same 20% reduction in FB EHP as for the titans, supers, etc. I like all the other changes, as they seem to make quite a bit of sense.


If Capitals can no longer hit anything below a BS, then people aren't going to bring BS. They are going to bring T2 Cruiser/BC/Command fleets with loads of Logi for support. They're going to bring fleets of the things that are effectively immune to the most powerful ships on the field. Not something they can shoot.

After this happens a few time, It will end up that no Capitals cyno into a battlefield because its just too dangerous and expensive to risk them, as they don't have the versatility to ever defend themselves.
K0ttDiledundee
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#1802 - 2011-10-12 17:59:17 UTC
so im assuming with the reduction to the drone bay the material requirement for these ships will be less. and therefore more affordable? sooooo those of us who have fronted the massive bill to pay for these now less useful ships will be reimbursed for the robbery of some of the materials we have already paid for?
Cornette
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1803 - 2011-10-12 18:05:01 UTC
Aurora Egnald wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Aurora Egnald wrote:
What we have going on here is
…balancing. It's a good thing for everyone involved.





So why we are it why dont we just empty everyones isk and then evenly divide it between the players.. Since your such a great fan of balancing!!!!!!



I agree with this... Big smile



Because I'm poor atm Blink
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1804 - 2011-10-12 18:08:35 UTC
John McCreedy 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.


Doesn't that simply undermine the whole concept of not allowing Super Carriers to wipe the floor with Sub Cap fleets? Would it not be better to give Carriers a compensatory bonus that offsets the penalty Fighters? That would allow you to have your cake and eat it, so to speak.


Not really. Fighters aren't a huge problem tbh.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Mr Management
Anger Management
#1805 - 2011-10-12 18:20:52 UTC
Quote:
Now:
Fighters from Carriers: 125
Fighters from Supercarriers: 125

Will become:
Fighters from Carriers: 344/288/232/176/120
Fighters from Supercarriers: 400



Why allow a carrier to defend itself against sub capital ships and not a dread or a Super ?????

Just proves that CCP really haven't got a clue tbh
Temmu Guerra
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1806 - 2011-10-12 18:24:34 UTC
zero2espect wrote:
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.


Hope CCP is watching the number of people that keep posting this tidbit.
Koraeth
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1807 - 2011-10-12 18:25:32 UTC
K0ttDiledundee wrote:
so im assuming with the reduction to the drone bay the material requirement for these ships will be less. and therefore more affordable? sooooo those of us who have fronted the massive bill to pay for these now less useful ships will be reimbursed for the robbery of some of the materials we have already paid for?


Makes sense to me, as long as it's never been used.

See, if you used those resources then you weren't robbed.
Indeterminacy
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1808 - 2011-10-12 18:28:05 UTC
Just needed to make sure I got in on this threadnaught.
ry ry
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1809 - 2011-10-12 18:32:26 UTC
Koraeth wrote:
K0ttDiledundee wrote:
so im assuming with the reduction to the drone bay the material requirement for these ships will be less. and therefore more affordable? sooooo those of us who have fronted the massive bill to pay for these now less useful ships will be reimbursed for the robbery of some of the materials we have already paid for?


Makes sense to me, as long as it's never been used.

See, if you used those resources then you weren't robbed.

It really doesn't matter if he was robbed or not. He's already commit suicide irl over it.
Sigras
Conglomo
#1810 - 2011-10-12 18:55:46 UTC
Le Cardinal wrote:
A 20B endgame ship shouldnt be able to hold at least a few drones to fend off a dictor? lol. How somone could say thats a sane thing to do is beyond comprehension.


please let me reiterate, this is not WoW, end game does not mean end all and be all. In WoW level 85 is just arbitrarily better than level 84. Just because a ship is bigger doesnt mean that it is better

Le Cardinal wrote:
There are ships designated for most roles in the game, so if you wanna pull the role-card then make it happen to all classes.
I would like to see the reactions then from the people in this thread who support the current nerf.


What you fail to realize is that ships can have multiple roles and engage multiple ship types but the biggest ships cant because you cant escalate up from them. There is nothing bigger to bring to counter them, so they have to have a weakness to something smaller than them otherwise everyone would just bring those ships because they are uncounterable which btw is what happened.


Le Cardinal wrote:
No matter how you twist and turn it, you do in fact sometimes end up in situations where you are alone and without support, either from logging at a safespot or pos or whatever. Its inevitable.

and it would be YOUR fault for letting that happen in hostile space.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#1811 - 2011-10-12 18:56:45 UTC
Velin Dhal wrote:
War Kitten wrote:


Eve does have a vast skill tree. Pruning one branch back a bit doesn't kill the "end game" of Eve, if there is such a thing. It merely brings the tree back into balance and harmony rather than letting one get too big and actually become the end of the tree itself.

In less metaphorical terms, Cap ships are a tool for a purpose. They are not intended to be the ultimate swiss-army knife solution suitable to all purposes that every linear-thinking player should desire. They are one of many options. Other options include black ops, hacs, recons, command ships, T3 ships and more. All of them have similar if not heavier subcap requirements than do capital ships.

Don't focus on the biggest ship just because it's there and then insist it should be the best ship. It should be the best ship for it's purpose, but it won't be the only best ship there is.

If one ship was better than all the rest in all cases, why would anyone fly the others?


Link me one ship that has more requirements than getting into a Super Capital in both actual skills that have to be trained and training time required. Black ops would be the closest because of the high navigation skills and BS 5 but I don't even think that beat out the training time to fly a Super. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.


I didn't say super capitals, I said caps. I also didn't say training in general, I said subcap requirements.

Either way, you're nitpicking and missing the point entirely. Capital ships are a goal, not THE goal, and aiming for that particular goal misses quite a large amount of the variety available in the sub-cap ship realm.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.

Trainwreck McGee
Doomheim
#1812 - 2011-10-12 18:58:03 UTC
TBH i am just happy about log off timer changes. Good job CCP

CCP Trainwreck - Weekend Custodial Engineer / CCP Necrogoats foot stool

Arcin Hamir
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1813 - 2011-10-12 19:10:07 UTC
While containing many good points I do suspect that this proposed change goes a bit too far. Perhaps some residual drone capacity for dreads, titans and supers could be retained rather than a complete lose of this capability.
Gesina Kouvo
Doomheim
#1814 - 2011-10-12 19:10:53 UTC
Mr Management wrote:
Why allow a carrier to defend itself against sub capital ships and not a dread or a Super ?????

Just proves that CCP really haven't got a clue tbh


Yea, why not allow a freighter, or a jump freighter, or a hauler to defend itself from any type of aggressor – capitals and sub-capitals alike. Totally agree with you on this one.

Let's see: a supper-carrier is the ultimate weapon in sov warfare, pve, can counter caps, can counter supers, has no counter in large numbers - except of course - a larger number, it has EW immunity, it can haul almost like a freighter (ship maintainance, corporate hangar), it can even mine … why not giving it the ability to deploy interdictor bubbles too so it can fill the role of pretty much every ship in-game.

My 2p
Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
#1815 - 2011-10-12 19:15:57 UTC
Gesina Kouvo wrote:
Mr Management wrote:
Why allow a carrier to defend itself against sub capital ships and not a dread or a Super ?????

Just proves that CCP really haven't got a clue tbh


Yea, why not allow a freighter, or a jump freighter, or a hauler to defend itself from any type of aggressor – capitals and sub-capitals alike. Totally agree with you on this one.

Let's see: a supper-carrier is the ultimate weapon in sov warfare, pve, can counter caps, can counter supers, has no counter in large numbers - except of course - a larger number, it has EW immunity, it can haul almost like a freighter (ship maintainance, corporate hangar), it can even mine … why not giving it the ability to deploy interdictor bubbles too so it can fill the role of pretty much every ship in-game.

My 2p



oh can i get a drone bay and some low slots on my nomad. that would be sexy

OMG when can i get a pic here

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#1816 - 2011-10-12 19:20:43 UTC
Arcin Hamir wrote:
While containing many good points I do suspect that this proposed change goes a bit too far. Perhaps some residual drone capacity for dreads, titans and supers could be retained rather than a complete lose of this capability.

Far??

This is a mere beginning. Otherwise it makes no sense.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1817 - 2011-10-12 19:21:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Mr Management wrote:
Quote:
Now:
Fighters from Carriers: 125
Fighters from Supercarriers: 125

Will become:
Fighters from Carriers: 344/288/232/176/120
Fighters from Supercarriers: 400



Why allow a carrier to defend itself against sub capital ships and not a dread or a Super ?????

Just proves that CCP really haven't got a clue tbh


Because Cap/Supercap fleet defense vs sub caps is considered to be part of a carriers role, alongside logistics duties. Titans can be effective in this role as well if tracking boosted, but hopefully that capability will be removed.

Dreads and Supers have an anti capship/anti structure role (Titans also have a fleet deployment role).

I don't think CCP are the ones lacking a clue in this instance.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Draconus Lofwyr
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1818 - 2011-10-12 19:24:49 UTC
As a long time capital pilot and near future super pilot, i propose a alternative change to the supercarrier class.


* 99% reduction in CPU need for Warfare Link modules
No change, (but a bonus to gang links might add command and control role back to supers )


* Can fit Projected Electronic Counter Measures
no change ( other than proposed super immunity fix )

* Can deploy 3 additional Fighters, Fighter Bombers or Drones per level
Change this to "Can deploy 3 additional Fighters, Fighter Bombers Only" (standard drones are limited to pilot skill.
do not reduce drone bay, but split it into a fighter bay and a drone bay, as well as changing aggression rules for each drone type.
Fighterbombers can only aggress supers and structures
Fighters can only aggress Battleships and above.
all other drones are not limited on engagement

This will allow a lone tackled super to have a potential chance to free himself, but no more than any sub capital would have, after it has spent an eternity locking said target.

* Immune to all forms of Electronic Warfare
Documentation change only, change this to "Immune to most forms of Electronic Warfare" after all, a bubble is a form of e-warfare, so is an infinite point script (this can also fit on the Titan)

if Fighter bay is reduced to just above one flight of fighters/FB, then allow docking, the only remaining argument so far has been docking games being an issue, there's a counter to that, don't let them get near a station to dock. don't like docking games, don't fight near a station till you have eliminated the repairing ability of said station.


I also have one other request that is technically a minor nerf, but well requested. Can we make the ship model for supercarriers reflect the SUPER? make the supercarriers appear in space in size half way between a carrier and a titan? its pathetic that a Machariel is represented as larger than a Nyx, but it can dock with no problem!!!!
Rodent Jr
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#1819 - 2011-10-12 19:26:35 UTC
CynoNet Two wrote:
Some random thoughts...

A blanket EHP nerf across the board is a little silly. The raw HP levels are already out of balance between supercaps of different races. Reducing everyone by the same amount means we miss out on an opportunity to correct that.

Solution? Adjust HP levels as follows:
Aeon -20%
Nyx -10%
Wyvern -15%
Hel - No change

Avatar, Erebus, Leviathan - No change
Ragnarok +10%

Supercarriers fighter bays are a little anemic. These ships are tricky and time-consuming to refit, so carrying a single flight of their only damage tool seems like a recipe for disaster.
Solution? Let them carry ~30 fighters/bombers.
Alternatively, remove the in-built drone deployment bonus in Supercarriers but increase the number that can be deployed using Drone Control Units. This introduces a trade-off between raw damage and remote-rep ability, as well as an increased risk of losing all your bombers in one flight or deploying less but having spares available.

There isn't enough difference between Capitals and Super-Capitals. Carriers have a role as support and anti-subcap ships, as escorts for Supercarriers that are now unable to defend themselves with their own drones. After these changes Dreadnoughts will still be limited in use as they're still just as vulnerable to being one-shotted as before. If you have enough titans, there will be little reason to use Dreads.
Titans also remain overpowered versus subcaps. With tracking links, remote sensor boosters and enough supercarriers behind them, beating a titan blob simply comes down to having more titans. Beyond a certain threshold subcap numbers still do not matter.

Solution? Three actually:

1) Doomsdays balanced on sig radius - A blanket 'no DD on subcaps' rule seems a little anti-sandbox for me. If I want to burn half my isotopes picking off Rifters, why can't I?
Let's change Doomsday damage to scale on target sig radius. For example:

Supercap = full damage
Dreadnought = ~1mil damage (with DD Op V)
Battleship = ~50k damage
Cruiser = 5k damage
Frigate = 1k damage

It will no longer destroy ships outright (unless they're nearly dead or terribly fitted) and makes Dreads more cost-efficient at taking on Titan fleets, increasing their role. This is also great to help smaller groups fight larger ones using their insured dreads.

2) Jump 'Calibration' - Supercaps should have a delay in order to lock onto a player-activated cyno beacon. This time is based on the distance they are travelling, so while a 2ly jump might take five seconds, a jump to the full range could require 30 seconds to lock on. This has several effects. Firstly it means that supercaps planning a hotdrop need to be nearer the target, increasing the odds of them being spotted. It also increases the odds of the cyno and/or tackler being destroyed or jammed before support can arrive. Finally it gives regular capitals an increased role as 'rapid-response' capitals, able to move around faster than their larget counterparts.

3) Electronic Attack Frigates. Yup you read that right.
This diminuitive vessel rarely seen outside of alliance tournaments and hilarious lossmails could use a bit more of a purpose in life. In the same way that HICs bypass the supercap immunity to tackling, EAFs should bypass their immunity to ewar.
The best part about this change is that it balances itself:
EAFs are already made of paper, which means that any supercap fleet with a supporting fleet of any description will be able to swat them down with ease. It provides a counter to the exponential remote-repping and tracking links of hundred-strong supercap fleets, especially when faced under a cynojammer. Plus of course it opens up an avenue for the Eve Newbie. Remember that guy? Well now he can be taking on the big boys in a few short weeks of training, helping to make a difference to that fight.


Bumping dis post from page 64
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1820 - 2011-10-12 19:31:21 UTC
K0ttDiledundee wrote:
so im assuming with the reduction to the drone bay the material requirement for these ships will be less. and therefore more affordable? sooooo those of us who have fronted the massive bill to pay for these now less useful ships will be reimbursed for the robbery of some of the materials we have already paid for?


The value of your investment may go down as well as up.

Shoulda read the small print.

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