These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Daedalus II
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#341 - 2011-10-10 19:20:49 UTC
steave435 wrote:

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.

That's pretty stupid and unintuitive by the way. While CCP is on it, they should do something about that as well Blink
Vyktor Abyss
Abyss Research
#342 - 2011-10-10 19:21:07 UTC
Just some observations from my perspective...

While I agree supercaps are currently overpowered; I feel you're only addressing the concerns of the 0.0 power blocks here with these changes to capital ships. Don't forget the smaller groups using capital ships and smaller scale capship fights (that will hopefully now happen again more frequently).

My concerns regarding capitals (and the proposed changes) are that:

1. (a) Titan Bridging is ruining a lot of low sec (sub-capital) fleet fights. The ability for an entire subcap fleet to appear on the field with perhaps 1 second of warning is...yes I'm going to say it....unfair.
1. (b) While I'm at it I think the whole jump mechanics need changing to give a little more warning after a cyno goes up to pilots on the field.
- My suggestion is that there is some delay mechanic for jumping through a portal. This could be achieved by either 30 second spool up of the cyno field, the cyno changing colour for 30s when it gets locked onto by the jump portal or some such. Perhaps even staggering the arrival of the jumping ships on grid by mass, i dunno.

2. Removing all point defense from dreadnaughts in the form of their dronebays is unnecessary. It has been a long time now since I saw a station gank Moros - I think you're unnecessarily making these ships even more vulnerable. I agree with it to a degree on supercapitals, but why dreadnaughts too?
- Dreads should at least have 25m3 of light drones to stop getting killed after 3 hours from being pointed by a solo dramiel that happened to see you undock from a kickout station. I don't agree that to even undock a dread means you should need to have have some massive support fleet.

Other than that I support the changes to Titans, Supercarriers (for the most part) and the dread seige timer. One last thing, please differentiate the new Block ops cyno effect from the ordinary cyno effect and we are getting there.

Cheers.
David Carel
SWAT Team Sales Consultants
#343 - 2011-10-10 19:21:39 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
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


The only PL Avatar I could find with a fit on it. Their Erebuses all have Tracking Computers but then again they don't use lasers.
Darius III
Interstellar eXodus
The Initiative.
#344 - 2011-10-10 19:22:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Darius III
The CSM has spent a lot of time working with CCP on this issue.For myself, I stayed on the logoffski issue more than anything else-as this too, will help reduce the sheer number of SC hulls. While I do not think that this nerf package is 'the perfect solution' it is great steps in the right direction. As Two-Step pointed out, if you have something to add, this thread would be a good place.

This shows that CCP is taking to heart player concerns and moving forward in a timely manner. Hats off to them for taking initiative and getting this done sooner than later. It is my honest belief after having seen Hillmars blog-that CCP will be delivering us many more good fixes in the near future.


"We are changing the logoff mechanics in such a way that as long as your enemies are actively engaged in fighting you, logging off is not going to save your ship."Shocked

Hmmm
gfldex
#345 - 2011-10-10 19:25:24 UTC
"CCP Tallest" wrote:
Increase signature resolution to 400


Have a look here.

If you don't want to bring a rapier you can have the same effect with a gallente commandship/T3 giving bonus to paintes on any ship that got a few spare med slots. Drone tracking links help too, ofc. That's a huge nerf for shield tanked carrier/SC.

The main problem of dreads was not the length of the siege timer. If you require to be in siege for 5 minutes and 1 second, you are sill in siege for 10 minutes because you can't break a running siege cycle. So not only wont it solve any problems, it's not even doing the intended thing.

Real problems of dreads:

You can't have RR in siege on you. Given the lack of HP compared to SC this is a huge back draw. If you have lots of HP you can get quite a few remote repper cycles on you before you pop. Armor dreads start with less HP and can't reach the same resistance because they have to fit damage mods. Lowering base HP for SC wont change anything.

Jump in mechanics. Some dreads need capa to run their guns. Big disadvantage to SC. In a big fight you will most likely be bumped right after jump in/warp in. If you siege right away you will hit jack all and be low on capa. Another problem not addressed. (Why was that *beep* added to the game anyway?) SC _like_ being bumped because it makes them harder to hit. Big disadvantage for dreads.

Painters work much better for fighters/fighter bombers then for guns because of bigger base values. As shown above SC will still do just fine if they bring painters. At the other hand dreads can not receive tracking links while in siege.

Lock time and esp. maximum locked targets. In a lag free fight or with time dilation targets pop so quickly compared to lock time of dreads that SC/Titans have a huge advantage. You can actually get a lock on targets. You can remove SeBo supers, you can't with dreads in siege.

If your enemy is to stupid to bomb your fighters/f-bombers SC will be much much better all the time. In the situations where you use f-bombers bombs are tricky to use. There are plenty of ships that can kill a bomber before it's bomb goes off.

About the logoff mechanics: Do you intend to add the micro smart bomb back into the game too?

If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.
Florestan Bronstein
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#346 - 2011-10-10 19:25:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Florestan Bronstein
Pilk wrote:
We often enjoy comparing EVE SCs to the real-life ones. In this scenario, you're telling me that my USS Enterprise cannot do anything to stop some dude standing on the deck of a tugboat, vigorously slapping her across the bow with a piece of fresh mozzarella, from sinking her.

hmm... you think the USS Enterprise was engineered to provoke fun & interesting fights? Shocked
Kim Wilde
Covenant
#347 - 2011-10-10 19:27:29 UTC
my only annoyance here is that titans are now completly dependant on sub caps to remove tackle for em allow the doomsday to atleast shoot on hic's/dic's so they remain with a slim chance to get out of any cluster fucks that the node create from lag etc
Bratwurst0r
DARK ORCHESTRA
#348 - 2011-10-10 19:27:46 UTC
Finally. I have been waiting so long for this, its LONG overdue.

Now, as mentioned already, a few kinks to work out:

- fighters.....well, doing it like this = making carriers suffer alot. Also, making fighters obsolete as they don't even hit BS anymore for full dmg? Its unnecessary. With the dronebay nerf and the possibility to kill the damn things you don't need to nerf them into uselessnes.

- EW immunity: it should be simple, EW immunity should also negate friendly ew, = tracking links etc. Why this wasn't like that from the beginning i don't know.

- ehp nerf. well, ok, if you need to. but there is no reason really. loggofski is fixed, more time in battle is a GOOD thing. they don't have to die faster. If you do it, look at the HEL and rebalance that ship.

- Titans: good so far, just in conjunction with remote-friendly-ew there is still a problem. you can fix this on the ship, or genereally.

- Carriers: now here it gets hairy. thy can't kill caps as it is (intended), now they have a hard time with subcaps too (fighters?). Give them fighter boni, but better yet, don't nerf fighters
DeDe hungry
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#349 - 2011-10-10 19:28:27 UTC
Quote:

1 Titan = 90,000,000,000 ISK


Wait... WHAT?

Quote:

These changes are good, I guess, except they won't fix the problem of "blobbing = winning".


Sub-cap Blob? You have tools to counter them (but that requires brain, and skill ), or supercap blobing? Eh with this future modifications, without a good support fleet, You will counter them too.

So for super pilot you can, right clic and self dstruct like a B****.

Also, i love this devblog, But the Moros, with new Bonus that not really good idea (Or with the re-balancing of Hybrid weapons! mmmh! Want to see that).

Cap Usage on Hybrid... rate of fire Bonus Ugh
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#350 - 2011-10-10 19:29:15 UTC
Shocked

...my faith is being restored...

I'm getting the itch (almost!) to return to null sec...

These are great changes!

I think the other problems addressed in this thread are being looked at... btw

I'm for one looking forward to how CCP tackles the logistics "teleporting across the galaxy" problem and logistics in general... (my personal deal maker) but I will say that this is the right way to go and the way we should have been going all along!

Nice work! Bring supercappocalypse fights!

I have ships to buy...

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Zhade Lezte
#351 - 2011-10-10 19:29:38 UTC
Anile8er wrote:
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.


Not going to frankly even bother to go over where I strongly disagree with you ("sub caps will own super caps even more than they do at current in EVE."...uhhh) but some comments.

Giving supers (and maybe carriers just cause) a larger drone bay to be able to have a full flight of bombers and fighters compensated with an EHP nerf on those fighters/bombers would be something to consider. As a drone using pilot I like having drone versatility as well, but the idea is to make taking out a supercarrier's drones a viable strategy. Make their build costs lower as well if replacing more lost drones is a significant complaint.

The timer reduction is so that if your scouts see someone forming up to hotdrop and gank your dreads you actually have some hope to get the heck out, since currently a dreads tank is like paper to supercaps. This means that a smaller alliance can actually hope to use dreads to siege a tower or whatever without making them incredibly vulnerable to a larger alliance with a large supercapital fleet like the DRF, PL, or say...Goonswarm Federation. Note the reduction in fuel for the cycle as well, nothing is being changed to the rate dreads can siege a tower.
David Carel
SWAT Team Sales Consultants
#352 - 2011-10-10 19:30:42 UTC
0.008 with 4x Serpentis Tracking Link, 0.009 with 2x Serpentis TC, both with Tracking Speed.

But you can't always cynoout (cap <70%), and you have reduced neut resistance. Hell yeah.
Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
#353 - 2011-10-10 19:30:58 UTC
while i agree with most of teh changes, why are you screwing the moros again? no drones. your joking right?

OMG when can i get a pic here
Metis Laxon
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#354 - 2011-10-10 19:31:38 UTC
Florestan Bronstein wrote:
Pilk wrote:
We often enjoy comparing EVE SCs to the real-life ones. In this scenario, you're telling me that my USS Enterprise cannot do anything to stop some dude standing on the deck of a tugboat, vigorously slapping her across the bow with a piece of fresh mozzarella, from sinking her.

hmm... you think the USS Enterprise was engineered to provoke fun & interesting fights? Shocked


^ That

This is a game, a lot of complexity in it sure, and in the end it has to be fun. These changes, and the clear iterations upon them, will bring about the said fun in far greater bundles than ever before. Lol
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#355 - 2011-10-10 19:31:59 UTC
Pilk wrote:
We often enjoy comparing EVE SCs to the real-life ones. In this scenario, you're telling me that my USS Enterprise cannot do anything to stop some dude standing on the deck of a tugboat, vigorously slapping her across the bow with a piece of fresh mozzarella, from sinking her.
Suggested reading: USS Cole and Millennium Challenge 2002.
Spectre80
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#356 - 2011-10-10 19:32:08 UTC
Ale Tricio wrote:
Again CCP just hoping to hold onto their new pubbie players by screwing those that have spent years earning their supercaps

-3 accounts


good riddance to you and your supers.
SXYGeeK
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#357 - 2011-10-10 19:32:44 UTC
CCP Tallest wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
xxxak wrote:
After further thought, I am more and more disturbed that a super carrier cannot carry a full flight of fighters and FB.

Can a Dev explain why this was considered necessary?


preventing SCs from having overly large reserves of fighters/fighterbombers means they can be defanged by shooting their fighters, providing more interesting types of combat


Bingo. That is exactly why.


fighter and fighter bombers are large in volume.
Having a bay that can not contain even 1 full flight of each option will force the supercarrier pilot to decide if it's fighter or bombers before leaving their control tower.
and make logistics of moving the spare fighters around a real pain.

I think it would be acceptable to give the pilot the choice of having all of one type in order to replace some as they are lost, or the versatility of one flight of each.
Metis Laxon
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#358 - 2011-10-10 19:33:42 UTC
Smoking Blunts wrote:
while i agree with most of teh changes, why are you screwing the moros again? no drones. your joking right?


Keep in mind: Hybrids are being overhauled. in this same patch.

Wait and see the latter dev blogs on them before complaining that they have broken your Gallente submarine.
Zhade Lezte
#359 - 2011-10-10 19:34:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Zhade Lezte
Ale Tricio wrote:
Again CCP just hoping to hold onto their new pubbie players by screwing those that have spent years earning their supercaps

-3 accounts


<- 3 accounts that won't be leaving this game due to ridiculous supercaps right here.
Daedalus II
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#360 - 2011-10-10 19:37:30 UTC
Bratwurst0r wrote:

- Carriers: now here it gets hairy. thy can't kill caps as it is (intended), now they have a hard time with subcaps too (fighters?). Give them fighter boni, but better yet, don't nerf fighters

I agree with this. What exactly are the carriers supposed to do? They are too weak to fight other caps and too blunt to fight subcaps. Are they reduced to pure logistics ships or what?