These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jackk Hammer
MinnieZ
#241 - 2011-10-10 18:35:16 UTC
Are goons not capable of killing a carrier putting remote tracking links on a titan?
TheButcherPete
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#242 - 2011-10-10 18:35:21 UTC
YESSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!

**** THE SUPERCAP BLOBS! Now the Carriers are useful again :D


GLORY TO CCP

...

DEATH TO AMARR!!!





Disclaimer: My viewpoints are not shared by my corporation, nor my alliance.

[b]THE KING OF EVE RADIO

If EVE is real, does that mean all of us are RMTrs?[/b]
Ilarra
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#243 - 2011-10-10 18:35:29 UTC
CCP Tallest wrote:
Regarding Titan gun tracking:

I am well aware of the issue and considered making changes to it. I decided against it for this balancing pass. We are still working on the winter release and this is not completely off the table. There will be public testing of these balancing changes on SISI and we are ready to consider further changes if needed.


Either you are ok with titans being able to hit smaller ships (see: avatar/erebus/ragnarok) or you are not (see: leviathan). There's no good reason why missiles should be so inferior in this situation. At least consider adjusting the sig radius on citadels so they can hit small POS mods (e.g., small guns) and slowboating carriers/dreads for full damage.

And how about the issues with shield tanking caps/supercaps? Why should shield tankers need a crapton of remote repping to take advantage of the leviathan bonus when none of the other ships do?
Heimdallofasgard
Ministry of Furious Retribution
Fraternity.
#244 - 2011-10-10 18:35:45 UTC
BUT YOU NERFED THE VELDNAUGHT!!!!
xxxak
Perkone
Caldari State
#245 - 2011-10-10 18:36:04 UTC
CCP Tallest wrote:
Regarding Titan gun tracking:

I am well aware of the issue and considered making changes to it. I decided against it for this balancing pass. We are still working on the winter release and this is not completely off the table. There will be public testing of these balancing changes on SISI and we are ready to consider further changes if needed.


What about the overall reality that supers now have almost ZERO ability to remove subcaps from the field, thus making them dead if their supcap fleet gets welped?

Was that an intended consequence of the overall nerfs?

[u]The nerfs to supercaps will cause more super pilots to join the largest alliances who can properly "support" their deployment, further concentrating firepower/wealth in EVE. The end result will be fewer "fun" fights, and will hurt EVE in the long run.[/u]
Bring Stabity
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#246 - 2011-10-10 18:36:05 UTC
Obsidian Hawk wrote:
CCP Tallest wrote:
Regarding Titan gun tracking:

I am well aware of the issue and considered making changes to it. I decided against it for this balancing pass. We are still working on the winter release and this is not completely off the table. There will be public testing of these balancing changes on SISI and we are ready to consider further changes if needed.



Translation for the stupid people that post on the forums.


Finally - tactics are coming back to eve online.


Not really, titans still demolish everything
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#247 - 2011-10-10 18:36:16 UTC
Jackk Hammer wrote:
Are goons not capable of killing a carrier putting remote tracking links on a titan?


why would you put the remote tracking links on a carrier

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#248 - 2011-10-10 18:36:53 UTC
Centra Spike wrote:
Now that supercarriers can't run Sanctums
…you can run them in some other ship instead.
Ciryath Al'Darion
FinFleet
Northern Coalition.
#249 - 2011-10-10 18:37:02 UTC
CCP Tallest wrote:
Regarding Titan gun tracking:

I am well aware of the issue and considered making changes to it. I decided against it for this balancing pass. We are still working on the winter release and this is not completely off the table. There will be public testing of these balancing changes on SISI and we are ready to consider further changes if needed.


Question here is; do you want to see super carriers (and titan) pilots log in to game or not?

Titan DD nerf is good, it allows using expensive ships like t3 cruisers to be used against titans.

If the opposing force does not have capital ships, you render the other sides super capital fleet to useless dead weight.

You don't want to see these end game devices used on combat?

You made the supercarrier a new dreadnaught with the exception that pilot is stuck with it and has less targets to shoot than real dreadnaught. (dreads can shoot capitals, towers and sov structures).
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#250 - 2011-10-10 18:37:06 UTC
I'll rephrase, what specifically are the roles of each class of capital ship combat wise? It kinda feels like this is a very reactionary (although necessary change) that lacks the *vision* needed to be understood by us.

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Ugleb
Jotunn Risi
#251 - 2011-10-10 18:37:13 UTC
I think this all a huge step in the right direction, but I have a few caveats.

1) Titans ability to track targets much smaller than their own class using XL turrets. A solution might be to drop the base tracking on XL turrets but reduce the siege mode tracking penalty on dreadnaughts to compensate.

2) The Hel is inferior to the other SC's, and might be even worse off with the HP cut. Interesting to see it gets a larger drone bay, but why does the nyx get the same edge?

3) The fighter changes do impact on carriers as well as super carriers. Is this desirable?

On the point of SC's not being able to carry a full flight of fighters AND fighter bombers...I'm actually not sure that would be such a bad thing.

http://uglebsjournal.wordpress.com/

The Jotunn Risi are now recruiting, Brutor ancestry required in order to best represent the Brutor interest.  Join channel JORIS to learn more!
MastahFR
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#252 - 2011-10-10 18:38:10 UTC
At least make the Hel worth flying ...
The nyx as more fire power and more tank than the Hel wtf ... ?
Also the Aeon will still have way too much HP against other Supercarrier.
Just don't be stupid by doing -20% everything, instead do it smarter ...

Hel should have more tank than the Nyx since the nyx deal more dps.
Wyvern should be at same tank lvl than the Aeon.

And both Aeon and Wyvern should only have +15-20% more HP than the Hel
Archestratidas
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#253 - 2011-10-10 18:39:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Archestratidas
Excellent changes.

Additionally, I'd propose removing the ability of supers to receive remote sebo/tracking links. The only purpose such a setup has is to squash subcap fleets which I believe is not the intended purpose of titans, non?

Also, remove the slave set effects from capitals.

The change to the logoffski mechanics is the money change though. Cheers for that, most important change that could be made.
Ugleb
Jotunn Risi
#254 - 2011-10-10 18:39:32 UTC
xxxak wrote:
CCP Tallest wrote:
Regarding Titan gun tracking:

I am well aware of the issue and considered making changes to it. I decided against it for this balancing pass. We are still working on the winter release and this is not completely off the table. There will be public testing of these balancing changes on SISI and we are ready to consider further changes if needed.


What about the overall reality that supers now have almost ZERO ability to remove subcaps from the field, thus making them dead if their supcap fleet gets welped?

Was that an intended consequence of the overall nerfs?


Yes. Cool

http://uglebsjournal.wordpress.com/

The Jotunn Risi are now recruiting, Brutor ancestry required in order to best represent the Brutor interest.  Join channel JORIS to learn more!
flipfragz
I'm Sorry Shoot What?
The Weekend Warriors
#255 - 2011-10-10 18:39:37 UTC
For the most part a lot of these changes make a lot of sense. However there is one issue I can see and that’s the shield super caps.

A 20% reduction on shields is a little extreme for the most part I haven’t done all the maths yet but hels have just been made pointless.

It already has the worse bonus compared to the others in its class.
It doesn’t have an implant set that can help boost like a slave set (same said for all shield super caps)
It relies on active tanks (for better resis) fair more than its armour counter parts (same with all shield super caps)
Fleet bonuses might as well not be there (same with all shield super caps)
It has the smallest EHP out of all the super carriers and we are not talking 1-2 mil difference after fits are added.

This 20% reduction across the board makes me think that you have only taken into account the ship hull stats and not what the average ship stats are across the board with fits and implants added. Yes I have a shield super cap alt but if you get EFTing and take costs into account with fits your see that the shield super caps are already nerf’ed by the lack on modules compared to their armour counter parts that they can use not to mention the cost difference at the top end of the high meta modules.
Strider Hiryu
Insane Shadow Boxers
#256 - 2011-10-10 18:40:23 UTC
If I was a Hel pilot, I would be sad (weak as ****)

If I flew a sheild Supercap, I would be sad (jumping in at 50% sheilds, awsome!)

If I flew in a small alliance, I would be sad (buff to the blob)

I approve the seige timer change

I approve the logoff change



I would like to see less supers.
I would like it to be harder to make supers.
I look foward to the hybrid buff especially (please fix rail guns well)
I look forward to the other changes planned.


Cheers, lets keep improving this game!
Jackk Hammer
MinnieZ
#257 - 2011-10-10 18:40:25 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Jackk Hammer wrote:
Are goons not capable of killing a carrier putting remote tracking links on a titan?


why would you put the remote tracking links on a carrier


that is what the other goonNoob was saying...I guess he didn't want to say you guys couldn't kill a logi putting tracking links on a titan
Amber Dupreez
Hazed and Confused
#258 - 2011-10-10 18:41:41 UTC
these are good changes on the whole, but perhaps leaving a small drone bay on supercaps would be balanced?

I'm talking like 500 - 1000 m3, so just large enough to have some emergency drones for those occasions you get in a wtf situation, but also small enough that choosing which drones actually fill that space represents a significant opportunity cost.
Xython
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#259 - 2011-10-10 18:41:44 UTC
Jackk Hammer wrote:
Are goons not capable of killing a carrier putting remote tracking links on a titan?


Sure we can. Hell, we do it in cruisers (Welpcanes), just cause it's hilarious.

And if anyone was ever stupid enough to show up with one (UND EXACTLY WUN) we would do so and laugh at them for a few hours.

The problem is that the current nullsec isn't nearly as spacepoor as CCP thought they would be, and EXACTLY WUN supercap never happens.
Sigras
Conglomo
#260 - 2011-10-10 18:41:47 UTC
ToXicPaIN wrote:
Remove Dronebay from the Titan and Dreadnought sucks
also that the DD dont work on Sub-Caps ... ppff ... F*** O**

with what weapon can a Titan and a Dread now fight vs. Sub-Caps ??

a Citadel Torpedo vs a Hurricane dont work.
or a Siege Autocanon vs. Hurricane also dont work.

at the moment there are only Drones to fight them.

so this realy realy sucks !

That was the point . . . . did you even read the blog? let me spell it out for you

YOURE NOT SUPPOSED TO FIGHT SUB-CAPS WITH CAPS, THATS WHY YOU NEED SUPPORT FLEETS NOW!