These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[118.6] Capital Balancing

First post First post First post
Author
Jones Beach
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#101 - 2016-06-10 14:05:57 UTC
NaK'Lin wrote:
Jones Beach wrote:
Empress Honeybadger wrote:
CyberRaver wrote:


Considering the hull and armour jump its a viable comparison, also the role is different for each one, a BLOPS is not meant to be a forward ship of the line, a HAC is
Your problem for using the ship for a purpose beyond its design

You are just mad they arent a free kill any more


Pick your targets better or git gud scrub


There is no point talking to you. Nullbear tells me what blopses are meant for. Its not like we are dropping blopses in fleet fights. A single pve ship 1 level larger. You ask us to drop carriers in your system to kill your pve ships.

Make nullbearing %100 safe and rot in your ******* empty systems and game. IDK how many times I have seen tishu hotdroppers killing goon carriers posted on reddit. Its official you are the new CFC lol.


https://zkillboard.com/kill/54468803/

Carriers being killed by blops all day long. And this is after carriers were buffed and before the current proposed changes. Not sure what the problem is. Carriers are killable if you know what you are doing.

She wants them to be killable by 2-3 Blops..... RollRollRoll


Blops are essentially paper thin at least compared to other bs. If carriers were so op with insta locking and massive alpha you would think that they could at least kill one or two of them when dropped - yet when H3, wrecking crew and the arton boys drop on carriers in provi/catch - they never lose anything - thats why they bring widows (or maybe its just provi/volt being bad). As far as I'm concerned everything is balanced - it just requires bringing the right tools to do the job.
Listrentite
Adversity.
Psychotic Tendencies.
#102 - 2016-06-10 14:06:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Listrentite
Zari Tenjin wrote:



So there will absolutely no way to counter caps without fielding your own? FAX cap is ridiculous enough that neutlegions are not a thing anymore in low class vs. C5/C6WH warfare. Now the last possibility of maybe hoping for a jam is also gone.

Congrats to HK and friends field a single FAX and you've won. Enjoy fighting among yourselves, looks like we're out of the game.

To CCP: Nice 180 from 'we want more Caps to die' to making them immune untouchable by subcaps again


I think you're looking at this the wrong way.

For a smaller group to fight a larger entity in a wormhole, triage is almost essential. A group such as HK can field more than enough guardians while you doing the same would restrict the numbers for the rest your fleet. With no ECM immunity, the larger entity simply fields jams for your triage and you've instantly lost. This allows smaller entities to take more engagements.

Also: Bhaalgorn.
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#103 - 2016-06-10 14:06:52 UTC  |  Edited by: EvilweaselFinance
I mean generally, there's no reason to restore the ECM immunity to siege or bastion mode either. That was a good change that made the game more interesting and stopped people from entirely shutting down an important aspect of combat. I don't understand why you would instantly revert that change without letting it play out, while leaving in things that are obviously unbalanced for years that PL and other ~elite~ groups aren't complaining about.

Capitals were rebalanced to be better at killing subcaps, and part of that change was they became more vulnerable to subcaps. Now, suddenly, they're losing that downside and keeping the upside. That seems like a dumb design decision, and if you want to go that direction then HAWs and light fighters should get nerfed into the ground as well.

Listrentite wrote:

For a smaller group to fight a larger entity in a wormhole, triage is almost essential. A group such as HK can field more than enough guardians while you doing the same would restrict the numbers for the rest your fleet. With no ECM immunity, the larger entity simply fields jams for your triage and you've instantly lost. This allows smaller entities to take more engagements.


Triage gave you a significant boost to ECM resistance. It wasn't like a single falcon could jam a FAX: you need a LOT of ecm to do it. If you have that much ECM, then you have sacrificed a lot of dps. If you've forced the hostile fleet to bring enough ECM you can't effectively triage then you're already significantly ahead.
NaK'Lin
7-2 Ronin
#104 - 2016-06-10 14:09:01 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
NaK'Lin wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote:
It was not about jamming carrier, but fighters. Griffin could jam all carrier fighters.
CCP simply want to people keep in cruisers.
Who would ever start to play eve to fly something more just a frigate or cruiser hull.

Griffin will die a horrible death if there's a single piloting mistake. That's of course assuming a carrier pilot who has adapted to the new meta and pilots his fighters in order to juke the griffin.
It was a fun game of piloting and reaction between the griffin and the carrier pilot manually moving his fighters around on grid.
RIP skill based gameplay.


Griffin is just example.
2mil ship requiring no skills that can disable ship you need to train over a year to properly fly it.
When you use balckbird you can jam fighters before they get close to you.


Skia Aumer wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Force Auxiliaries
  • Triage Mode now gives ECM Immunity

Dreadnoughts
  • Siege Mode now gives ECM Immunity

What is the reasoning behind this?
I mean, I dont mind it one way or another, I just dont understand what does it change?


Wrong people where dying?


Agreed on your second part of the post.
First part, i've seen blackbirds / Rooks use their jams too early in falloff, missing the cycle and get hurt hard.
But yes, the ECM cruiser is the actual answer to screwing over a carrier. 1:1 numbers, though, still not a guaranteed win.
2:1 carrier / ECM cruiser ratio it gets iffy. 2:2 ratio, still iffy on the jam coordination for many people. On paper, sure, but it requires coordination and good teamwork. and I am fine with that tradeoff. your Carrier shouldn't be entirely without subcap support.

Don't get me wrong, I fly carriers. More than the next guy. But i play them on both sides of the spectrum, and they aren't the helpless victims anymore and they weren't bloody magical i-win buttons of grid-wiping either, like so many would like you to believe.
theelusiveyoda
Death Troopers
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#105 - 2016-06-10 14:09:06 UTC
Please give the avatar more base cpu, and also you will need to add more powergrid to the naglfar :P
Cala Wrynn
Doomheim
#106 - 2016-06-10 14:10:02 UTC
I'm happy with the dread and fax ecm immunity, being jammed in your dread by a set of ec-300's is pretty devastating...

While I don't believe that carriers need nerfs, they are truely great where they are atm, the 900% down to 500% IS something I can deal with. I would just hate that you are making this change because small nano kitey **** is getting killed and complaining they have no tank. Whats really REALLLLLY worrying me here is the sidenote you leave at the end about carrier application and alpha.

LEAVE THAT ALONE. They are meant to apply beautifully to everything and yes have a shitton of alpha. It's your main anti-subcap platform that takes years to train up for properly. No your kitey nano orthrus should NOT be able to tank it. Get a properly tanked BS to tank that **** like you should.

Sidenote: I would really like bastion weapons timer removed when in WH's or reworked. It is exceptionally harder now to run sites and refit now they bastion causes weapons timer which means we cannot refit modules.
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
#107 - 2016-06-10 14:13:05 UTC
Zari Tenjin wrote:
So there will absolutely no way to counter caps without fielding your own? FAX cap is ridiculous enough that neutlegions are not a thing anymore in low class vs. C5/C6WH warfare. Now the last possibility of maybe hoping for a jam is also gone.
...

To CCP: Nice 180 from 'we want more Caps to die' to making them immune untouchable by subcaps again



Without the angryness, this is actually a problem. Capitaladvantage in wormholes was always strong if people know what they were doing. Ofc very few did. Neuts were the way to fight triage, now it was ecm for a short time.
Thanatos Marathon
Moira.
Villore Accords
#108 - 2016-06-10 14:13:07 UTC
Aebe Amraen wrote:
Can we talk about the fact that XL Arty has the same PG requirements as XL Beam lasers, while the Revelation has 70% more PG available than the Nag? This worked when the Nag only needed to fit two turrets, but it's unreasonable when we have to fit 3.

The nag either needs more PG or XL arty needs lower PG requirements.


something something PG?
NaK'Lin
7-2 Ronin
#109 - 2016-06-10 14:15:09 UTC
Cala Wrynn wrote:
I'm happy with the dread and fax ecm immunity, being jammed in your dread by a set of ec-300's is pretty devastating...


You've got a utility high, you know.... *hint hint*
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#110 - 2016-06-10 14:18:56 UTC
Shilalasar wrote:

Without the angryness, this is actually a problem. Capitaladvantage in wormholes was always strong if people know what they were doing. Ofc very few did. Neuts were the way to fight triage, now it was ecm for a short time.

yeah sorry this is our fault

we jammed pl entosis faxes which drove them absolutely batty so they've been screaming to have their caps immune to such nonsense as ecm because its unfair that subcaps could affect their capitals

frankly im surprised they didn't also add immunity to projectile weapons to triage
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#111 - 2016-06-10 14:19:31 UTC
Cala Wrynn wrote:
I'm happy with the dread and fax ecm immunity, being jammed in your dread by a set of ec-300's is pretty devastating...

And being jammed by the same EC-300 in a freaking Titan is not a big deal?
Scotsman Howard
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#112 - 2016-06-10 14:21:15 UTC
Aebe Amraen wrote:
Scotsman Howard wrote:
Now it remains to be seen what you will do about the damage bonus. I said it would be changed to compensate (something like +33%) and keep the DPS the same, but that does not look like it will happen.


3 guns with no damage bonus does exactly the same DPS as the old 2 guns with 50% damage bonus.

Please either learn to do basic arithmetic or post on an out-of-alliance alt, you're embarrassing us.


The math is the same yes, but that assumes the same fitting. With the current fitting needs to 3 guns, any fit is going to need to be rethought which could result in a decrease in DPS. That is why if you were to look at my statement as a whole instead of quoting just the last portion, you would have seen the first part I addressed was the fitting requirements.


Man, I am SOOO sorry I embarrassed you (I hardly doubt Test itself is embarrassed by a comment on the forums and if so, it is not the one you referenced). Now had you asked me to clarify my statement, I would have happily done that. No need to bash an alliance mate or anyone on the forums, but I understand why you did it. We all know that a forum post (if gone unanswered or not acknowledged in anyway) will bring about the end of any alliance.
NaK'Lin
7-2 Ronin
#113 - 2016-06-10 14:23:57 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Cala Wrynn wrote:
I'm happy with the dread and fax ecm immunity, being jammed in your dread by a set of ec-300's is pretty devastating...

And being jammed by the same EC-300 in a freaking Titan is not a big deal?

You must be new here. Rebalancing here means only to look at things people cry the most and the loudest about and then appease them by making random *balancing* choices without giving reasons.
/end sarcasm

I would like to see Dev posts in the future list the changes and the reasons for them (eg: Added ECM immunity, because .... ; Decreased scanres on NSA, because .....)
It is more easy to follow their train of thought for the player base and easier to spot fallacies.
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#114 - 2016-06-10 14:28:26 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Cala Wrynn wrote:
I'm happy with the dread and fax ecm immunity, being jammed in your dread by a set of ec-300's is pretty devastating...

And being jammed by the same EC-300 in a freaking Titan is not a big deal?

i mean it's vanishingly unlikely a single flight of ec-300s jams a dread in siege anyway, the strong ecm resistance siege/triage adds means if you want to ecm, you gotta do a lot of it
Gabriel Luis
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#115 - 2016-06-10 14:30:56 UTC
Adding extra CPU but no power grid for the 3rd gun is a mistake.

80-100k should do.

[03:18:54] Zack1023 > tishu = pl, nc.

unidenify
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#116 - 2016-06-10 15:05:35 UTC
no word about T1 siege module give smaller dps boost to Phoenix when compare to Turret dread?
Gremk
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#117 - 2016-06-10 15:14:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Gremk
CCP, please really think about some of these changes.

The biggest points I see are the obvious fitting to compensate for nags. I will 100% self destruct on the undock for insurance if something isn't done because currently it will place the nag far behind all other dreads for fitting/tank. Already with this patch you are killing a lot of the utility that it has had - not saying it wasn't needed though. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a small buff to armor for nags ie giving more raw hitpoints or something that way armor nags can compete with shield nags more competitively unless your intention is to make nags and phoenixs exclusively shield and moros and revs exclusively armor. Maybe give the moros a similar option for max dps & tracking + shield tank?

Please tread carefully on the fighter changes. Carriers have always been able to blap frigates and other light tackle with a set of lights + drone navigation computers. If you nerf fighter tracking too hard there will be no way to kill light tackle on a carrier and a single atron can perma hold a carrier. If you want to look to balance carriers dps focus on giving the missile salvos more ammo before reload, faster rof, and less volley so that it balances out and spreads the damage out while taking the same amount of time to reload.
Daksa Crendraven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#118 - 2016-06-10 15:17:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Daksa Crendraven
There must be something to complain about here,
said the community to CCP,
There's too much confusion:
I can't get no relief.
Oh dev men – they nerf my ride!
Pushing me hardly to my next gank,
None of them along the line,
Knowing what any of it is worth."

"No reason to get excited, "
CCP Larrikin – kindly spoke,
"There are many here among us
Who feel that a cap is but a joke
But you and I we've been through that
And this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now
The hour's getting late."

All along the Eve Online Forums!

Even the Goons kept their view,
While all the newbros came and went,
Care-bears servants too!
Outside in the cold empty space,
A wild cap did growl,
Two skilled campers were approaching,
And their scramz,
began to howl, HEY!

https://youtu.be/TLV4_xaYynY

Looking forward to see more about this June changelog, thanks!

>Outside in the cold empty space, A wild Cap did growl, Two skilled campers were approaching, And their scramz, began to howl, HEY! - https://youtu.be/TLV4_xaYynY

Sister Bliss
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#119 - 2016-06-10 15:33:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Sister Bliss
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Hi M8s,

With the 118.6 release, we're making some tweaks to a bunch of capital gameplay. We would love your feedback!


As a first piece of feedback, I really urge CCP as a whole to invest in a professional approach to managing change with your customers. We have for years been consistently treated with disdain when it comes to communications and the constant wave of threadnoughts is not always a sign of healthy debate but more so anger and frustration from your customers.

Can I request that any time you introduce any change which impacts us, can you:

a) articulate the change in detail
b) explain your reasoning for the change (we do not have to agree but an opportunity to voice our feedback is fine)
c) articulate how this is going to impact the player
d) explain how you will measure the impact of this change and what you see as a successful outcome

In most examples (and herein) you only address point a) which is never enough. It may sound like a lot of additional work to provide the remaining detail I am suggesting and asking for but it pays dividends. All the ranting and supposition on why these changes are being made (you're a terrible game designer, mad, in the pocket of XL alliance, etc ...) go away and ppl can only debate the point.

We accept that there will be change especially after new features, but I think a little more consideration to your customer base is warranted especially when these changes can impact us significantly.

Let's look at an example:

Quote:
]All Capital Shield Extenders now provide 10% less shield HP


^
Why are you making this change? You have not explained any rational reason for this significant change. It's not surprising people are jumping to conclusions about your reason for doing so.

What is the impact on players? I have not personally seen any evidence or suggestion that shield capitals are overly tanked (if you provide the detail and rationale we can understand).Many players, corps, alliances may have invested in shield capitals which is not only a significant amount of ISK but also significant effort. With this change there is a risk that all their effort is completely wasted and they have lost their investments if it turns out that shield caps are going to be garbage compared to armor caps (*if). There are hypothesis that this is going to be offset by implants etc but why do we have to guess and hedge our bets?

How will you measure the impact of this change? Impossible to answer this one unless you hope players will refrain from flying shield capitals because of whatever reason we are not party to.

Now apply the above to the other change statements (triage and siege immunity to preserve the whining upper classes, the desire to needlessly nerf the Naglf into the ground or inability to perform basic arithmetic) in the patch notes please and give us the level of detail we should hopefully have in the first instance.

I can guarantee your customer satisfaction will increase and the time you need to spend on managing these threads will decrease if you invested more in some change management best practice.

Off topic but can you investigate and balance:

1. Armor T3 (quite why they have been left in such a dominating position for years despite the stated design goal is a mystery to me).
2. Svipuls
3. Titan HAW
Prayxxx Khamsi
Origin.
Black Legion...
#120 - 2016-06-10 15:35:54 UTC
Daksa Crendraven wrote:
There must be something to complain about here,
said the community to CCP,
There's too much confusion:
I can't get no relief.
Oh dev men – they nerf my ride!
Pushing me hardly to my next gank,
None of them along the line,
Knowing what any of it is worth."

"No reason to get excited, "
CCP Larrikin – kindly spoke,
"There are many here among us
Who feel that a cap is but a joke
But you and I we've been through that
And this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now
The hour's getting late."

All along the Eve Online Forums!

Even the Goons kept their view,
While all the newbros came and went,
Care-bears servants too!
Outside in the cold empty space,
A wild cap did growl,
Two skilled campers were approaching,
And their scramz,
began to howl, HEY!

https://youtu.be/TLV4_xaYynY

Looking forward to see more about this June changelog, thanks!


This is great....