These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Shadowsword
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#321 - 2011-10-10 19:12:18 UTC
I'm going on a roam now, so I'll develop later, but I am very disappointed in these changes.

1/ the biggest issue with motherships wan't their offense, but their near invulnerability when in large groups. Nothing has been done about that.

2/ The dred boost turn out not to be a boost after all. it's not those change that will make them used.

3/ To kill a supercap, a subcap fleet will have to be built around battlecruisers and battleships. Fighters will still be fairly effective against those, so a subcap escort isn't mandatory.

4/ titan tracking: nothing done about that.

This is still Supercap Online.


Need to go, I'll expand later.
iudex
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#322 - 2011-10-10 19:12:26 UTC
Can you create NPC buy orders for MS BPOs ? I'd like to sell researched ones for 80-90% of their NPC value, now that you made them completely useless.
Camar
Zappy Bois
#323 - 2011-10-10 19:12:31 UTC
David Carel wrote:
Jackk Hammer wrote:
you're just another goonNoob talking what you know nothing about...

stacking penalties combined with the fact that you end up with a higher tracking speed by using 3 x faction/officer tracking computers than having 3 x tracking link put on you means they are nowhere near as useful as you think.


I, too, fit my titans with Tracking Computers instead of Cap Rechargers.

quotin this to lol @ later
BuBuKiGeR
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#324 - 2011-10-10 19:12:44 UTC  |  Edited by: BuBuKiGeR
Super carriers only being able to carry fighters and bombers is fine. But why nurf the drone bay size and the damage of fighters subcaps? that is stupid. You not only super carriers but now carriers? So we just suppose to use carrier to move our ships around now I guess?

[☢][☣][☢][☢][☣][☢][☢][☣][☢][☢][☢][☣][☢][☣][☢][☢] 3rd Party Service [☢][☣][☢][☢][☣][☢][☢][☣][☢][☢][☣][☣]
glepp
New Caldari Bureau of Investigation
#325 - 2011-10-10 19:13:05 UTC  |  Edited by: glepp
My God, CCP actually doing stuff right?


What happened to my favorite Icelandic Indie Company?


(Btw, while you're at it with doing stuff right, the Moros needs a cap recharge boost to go with the increased rate of fire, and ewar immunity also needs to mean immunity to friendly ewar like tracking links and RSBs.)
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#326 - 2011-10-10 19:13:36 UTC
wolftin21 wrote:
AttentionWhy in the heck Is CCP not going to boost the Black ops ships frist,as the black ops ship have been needing a boost for a very long time now,I suggest dealing with the black ops ships frist, then deal with the capitals. I know about the issues with the capital but, dont yall think the blops need the winter patch frist? if yall are wanting more pvp with the blops then boost them frist or put both the blops and the capitals patch in one.So get off yalls lazy butts stop nerfing/boosting with out hearing what the players have to say after all its the players that keeping the game and CCP alive, Am I correct? I am confindent that the pvp players of eve will argee with me. So chop chop with the blops boost and make eve even better on the blops pvp side.
Thanks

Wolftin21


i too wonder why subcap buffs were not discussed in a supercap nerf blog

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Mik kyo
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#327 - 2011-10-10 19:14:04 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Jackk Hammer wrote:
David Carel wrote:
Jackk Hammer wrote:
you're just another goonNoob talking what you know nothing about...

stacking penalties combined with the fact that you end up with a higher tracking speed by using 3 x faction/officer tracking computers than having 3 x tracking link put on you means they are nowhere near as useful as you think.


I, too, fit my titans with Tracking Computers instead of Cap Rechargers.

you guys are so dumb...how do you think the PL titans that **** you are fit?


seriously i want you to go into eft and play with serpentis tracking links and figure out why all I bothered to do was quote your post so you couldn't edit it


Quoting to prevent edit.
Anile8er
Holoband Research and Development
#328 - 2011-10-10 19:14:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Anile8er
CCP really?

I understand the need to nerf super carrier drone options, however limiting super carriers to a load out of fighters OR bombers based on drone bay size doesn't make sense. Allow supers to fit a flight of 20 bombers AND 20 fighters in a drone bay.

EHP nerf is really un-called for. Supers die pretty quick as it is. Perhaps considering a change to the Aeon's slot layout is in line, like 7 lows 5 mids, but sub and cap gangs can down a super pretty quickly in today's EVE.

You really didn't do anything for dreads. What is the logic behind the timer reduction? To benefit large alliance in sov warfare? Are you going to drastically reduce POS hit points? At current in EVE if you have enough dreads to down a large tower in 5 minutes, no one is going to want to "hot drop' that gang, or at least 99.99% of the time wouldn't have the force put together in the 10 minutes the dreads are sat there for. So I ask what does the 5 minute timer do for a small group of dreads when they will have to sit on the tower for 20 to 30 minutes anyway?


The results I see from your changes: Titans will still dominate in large cap fights, super carriers will suck unless you are in a massive blob, dreads will still suck, sub caps will own super caps even more than they do at current in EVE.



Edit: Also since you are now basing drone options on ship class/size I would like to suggest that BC and BS are way to effective at dealing with smaller tackle. I believe that battlecruisers should only be able to use medium drones and battleships should only be able to use heavy drones. Troll, but hope I made my point.
Kelly O'Connor
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#329 - 2011-10-10 19:14:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Kelly O'Connor
20% less of everything on my already pretty 'lacking in tank' Rag.

Sad day indeed :(

Kelly

Fakeedit: Can we have Low Sec DDs now since we can't drive by undocking BSs? :)
Zhade Lezte
#330 - 2011-10-10 19:16:07 UTC
Dirk Tungsten wrote:
Ok heres the bread and the butter of things.

Thers are by all means alot of pros that will mean fleet fights could be more Ballz deep coming from the patch, but alot of crutial badly influenced cons.
The loggoff timer relooping, yes a good idea, but why introduce 20% decrease in shield/armor/structure aswell. This is giving supers/titans relatively no chance. with the aggro relooping, should keep the stats tank wise for supers/titans, but maybe balance out what currently is there. For instance Aeon should have less HP as has an isaine tank, wyvern and Nyx should tank wise be relatively unchanged. The Poor Hel should get a buff. Make it competitive.

DDs on titans should be able to hit BSs if not give them a slight tracking bonus so they are at least able to hit BSs well and have some sort of a tank lol

It seems ccp are carebearing up eve for newer players or alot of the subcap players. What they are failing to realise is that this patch will be a tradgedy for a few of those crutial points. Alot of other vets are thinking of hanging up there boots when this patch is released.

It seems heirachy has been too influenced by certain GMs CSMs that revolve around fountian region,we all know who they are. What this patch allows is certain entities that live in fountian (cough cough) to use mass blob fleets of 2000+ again and lagg out systems. There is no counter to this. What this patch is going to allow is lagg tactics and mass 2000+ man fleets to rule eve over better organised,structured & skilled alliances. Its basically allowing a bunch of noobs with no structure in there fleet to be successful. Carebearing it down. If you want to kill a titan/super then an aggressing fleet should at least have a well thought through structure an plan to there fleet, they do not deserve and should not expect to kill any supers/titans unless that is implemented.

When alot of the narrow minded people out there eventually realise what this patch will do, the pros from this patch will be massively overlooked, as this will not balance things, its only going to be putting the weight on the other end of the scales.


I love this post so much. "Carebearing" is apparently now extended to all pvp pilots who don't fly capital ships.

:tinfoil: Developerswarm :tinfoil:. Look up time dilation in the latest blogs, no one likes lag. With all hope there will be one less excuse for the losers of a fight soon enough. Blobbing will happen no matter what so v0v, chuckling at the thought that Goonswarm and allies are never outnumbered in, say, Euro TZ.

I wouldn't particularly mind battleships being doomsdayable, but if they put a crucial support role in the battleship class that might make things difficult. A tracking bonus to titans when they can already track subcaps with links is laughable.

And I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you that minmatar supercaps (and capital missile weapons) could use some looking at.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#331 - 2011-10-10 19:16:52 UTC
Mik kyo wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Jackk Hammer wrote:
David Carel wrote:
Jackk Hammer wrote:
you're just another goonNoob talking what you know nothing about...

stacking penalties combined with the fact that you end up with a higher tracking speed by using 3 x faction/officer tracking computers than having 3 x tracking link put on you means they are nowhere near as useful as you think.


I, too, fit my titans with Tracking Computers instead of Cap Rechargers.

you guys are so dumb...how do you think the PL titans that **** you are fit?


seriously i want you to go into eft and play with serpentis tracking links and figure out why all I bothered to do was quote your post so you couldn't edit it


Quoting to prevent edit.


oh i'm not agreeing with the cap recharger guy either

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
steave435
Perkone
Caldari State
#332 - 2011-10-10 19:17:05 UTC
Nagapito wrote:
demonfurbie wrote:

the sc should be able to have 20 fighters and 20 bombers in its drone bay, seeing thats all it can use now anyway
the fighter change is a little too drastic, a triple extended shield rigged rokh thats being painted cant be hit if the changes go3
it also hurts the less used carrier.

CCP Tallest wrote:

Increase signature resolution to 400

Why you say that you need to paint a ship that already as a sig radius higher then 400? BS's have a sig radius higher then 400, so I dont understand this problem with the fighters. In my opinion, FB should have a higher sig resolution, like 1000! They are not meant to shoot sub-caps!!!

demonfurbie wrote:

less ability for the bigger ships to kill the smaller means more people in smaller ships


I like the way you realize the objective but still in denial!

You don't understand how tracking works, sig is just a multiplier to tracking. This change cuts the fighters tracking down to one third of what it used to be.
Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#333 - 2011-10-10 19:17:07 UTC
Sakaali wrote:
Also, has anyone looked at the math of giving the moros a rate of fire bonus? It seems like with the way hybrids currently function its going to be brutal on its cap usage.


I'd really appreciate some comment on this. My cap usage in a Moros is borderline unstable without the reps running as it is now and I have almost perfect skills. Stick a rate of fire bonus on and you risk being unable to fire constantly for a whole siege cycle, especially if you're sieging straight from a jump.
David Carel
SWAT Team Sales Consultants
#334 - 2011-10-10 19:17:15 UTC  |  Edited by: David Carel
Jackk Hammer wrote:
That reply to my previous post. I misquoted and cannot be arsed to find that abomination of his.


https://www.pandemic-legion.com/killboard/view_kill.php?id=342709
Like that perhaps?
Needa3
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#335 - 2011-10-10 19:18:25 UTC
thank you CCP for just making me not really want to care about your game anymore

I like how certain groups in Eve got their "things" implemented

was a fun 6 years but if this is what needs to bring your players back .... keep trying... someday you might get it right
Metis Laxon
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#336 - 2011-10-10 19:18:47 UTC
Dirk Tungsten wrote:
Ok heres the bread and the butter of things.

I knew not you could deliver such things upon us lesser folk! Guide us oh prophet.

Dirk Tungsten wrote:

Thers are by all means alot of pros that will mean fleet fights could be more Ballz deep coming from the patch, but alot of crutial badly influenced cons.
The loggoff timer relooping, yes a good idea, but why introduce 20% decrease in shield/armor/structure aswell. This is giving supers/titans relatively no chance.

No chance? In that context no chance = no chance to run off using a broken game mechanic. There shouldn't have been a chance in the first place.

I know what you are trying to say, but in that regard it is faulty logic as well. The super is still super, it still has more EHP than a dozen subcaps combined. These changes will allow for the subcapitals to matter in a much greater capacity than before, your supers now need support to take out the smaller ships. Rather than wiping all the meaningful subcap primaries whenever they please. There is now some more strategy to consider, some more angles to fight from instead of barreling through with the same ****.

What does this add? More teamwork, less separation between the cap squads and subcap squads. Plus the ability for the subcaps to matter when your side has less caps but more of them.

Dirk Tungsten wrote:

It seems ccp are carebearing up eve for newer players or alot of the subcap players. What they are failing to realise is that this patch will be a tradgedy for a few of those crutial points. Alot of other vets are thinking of hanging up there boots when this patch is released.

Oh I am sorry do you mean to say that you actually have to participate and get involved in the majority of your alliance membership? That you actually need to be listening in the same TS channel? Oh the tragedy of having to rely on your 'lesser' corp mates to save your back once in a while. The ******* horror!

Dirk Tungsten wrote:

It seems heirachy has been too influenced by certain GMs CSMs that revolve around fountian region,we all know who they are.

More great insights into our collective minds!
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#337 - 2011-10-10 19:19:01 UTC
David Carel wrote:
Jackk Hammer wrote:
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


https://www.pandemic-legion.com/killboard/view_kill.php?id=342709
Like that perhaps?


that was a bad fit fyi

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Ogogov
Arpy Corporation
#338 - 2011-10-10 19:20:04 UTC
So now the Moros will suck even more?
Nemesis Factor
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#339 - 2011-10-10 19:20:23 UTC
Kelly O'Connor wrote:
20% less of everything on my already pretty 'lacking in tank' Rag.

Sad day indeed :(

Kelly

Fakeedit: Can we have Low Sec DDs now since we can't drive by undocking BSs? :)


Go get it blown up for a change. When was the last time you got out of that ship anyway? I'll bet your pod smells like New Jersey.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#340 - 2011-10-10 19:20:26 UTC
Ogogov wrote:
So now the Moros will suck even more?


Looks that way atm.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.