These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
ScheenK
StatiC Ex.
#421 - 2011-10-10 20:08:52 UTC
removing the focused dd would change alot, no longer will caps get insta'd in the beginning of the fight, and dreads will play the role they are intended for

bring back AOE dd, with shorter range, remain on field for 10mins and have an hourly cycle

ehp removal was not needed, you buffed the ehp on captials because it was needed now your taking it away when its needed most

Renan Ruivo
Forcas armadas
Brave Collective
#422 - 2011-10-10 20:11:10 UTC
ScheenK wrote:
removing the focused dd would change alot, no longer will caps get insta'd in the beginning of the fight, and dreads will play the role they are intended for

bring back AOE dd, with shorter range, remain on field for 10mins and have an hourly cycle

ehp removal was not needed, you buffed the ehp on captials because it was needed now your taking it away when its needed most




So how will 18 titans on field, all using AoE DD one after the other affect the battle?

The world is a community of idiots doing a series of things until it explodes and we all die.

Karim alRashid
Starboard.
#423 - 2011-10-10 20:11:37 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Callic Veratar wrote:
I'm a bit unfamiliar with scan res: Could a painted+webbed battleship be hit by a fighter with the new resolution?
Webbed will either not make any difference, or quite possible make it worse. since the fighter will then start to orbit and thus increase the tracking it needs to deal with.

A single TP should increase the damage done from ~3.5% of its DPS to ~9%.
Karim alRashid wrote:
Add to all ordinary carriers the following bonus:
+10% fighter signature radius reduction per carrier level
Again: they're not changing sig radius — they're changing sig resolution.

That said, not a completely insane idea. At lvl V, it increases the aforementioned 3.5% DPS to 27%.


Sorry, I meant signature resolution, of course, correcting.

Pain is weakness leaving the body http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos

Baki Yuku
Doomheim
#424 - 2011-10-10 20:11:55 UTC
CCP Tallest I'd like to ask a serious question here if you realy take 20% armor/hull/shield away from the Hel what will be left will be a very expansiv ship with about as much tank as a Dread.. I think you should take a serious look at the Hel and her tank/slot layout because it is ********.

Also does 20% reduction in armor/shield etc mean that the required Capital Armor Plates and Shield Emitter to build one will be reduced by 20%? Because that only seems fair..

best regards,
Chris
Akara Ito
Phalanx Solutions
#425 - 2011-10-10 20:14:11 UTC
Callic Veratar wrote:
I'm a bit unfamiliar with scan res: Could a painted+webbed battleship be hit by a fighter with the new resolution?


As far as I know, Signature Resolution of guns is used to calculate a tracking modifier.

Target signature divided through gun signature resolution = tracking modifier

BS shooting frigs would be 40/400 = 0.1 aka tracking penalty of 90 %

Fighter shooting BS would be 400/400 = 1 nothing happens, even without a TP (Webs are a different story).
Daedalus II
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#426 - 2011-10-10 20:14:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Daedalus II
If we look at fighters from the perspective of fighters instead of carriers, we could ask ourselves; what use will they have now?

* For ships that can use FBs (i.e. SCs) they are worse in every way (can't hit smaller ships, does less damage than FBs against larger ships), so they aren't going to be used there.
* For ships that can't use FBs (i.e. carriers) they are also useless because they can't hit the smaller targets that the carrier itself might survive, and they don't make a dent in larger targets, which the carrier will die against anyway.

So what are they supposed to be used for? Ratting carriers with dual TPs?
David Carel
SWAT Team Sales Consultants
I too am gay
#427 - 2011-10-10 20:16:10 UTC
Camar wrote:
David Carel wrote:
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.

lol faction TC


Your alliance's pilots use them all the time, at least the guys with dead titans did.
Taedrin
Virtues Corporation
#428 - 2011-10-10 20:17:01 UTC
xxxak wrote:
Update:

This nerf = Win Subcap battle, Kill all supers on the field.

So with this nerf, supers can no longer defend themselves from subcaps, and supers are committed for 23 hours once they cyno in.

That means that if you have a 15 man super fleet (mid size alliance), plus 120 sub caps (mid size alliance), and if lose the subcap battle, you also just lost all your supers.

Kthxbai. No way a sane super pilot will commit now unless they are 150% sure that they have a winning fleet. EVE is dead.


Other thoughts:

1) Nerfing fighters makes carriers even more crap. This was unnecessary.
2) Supercarriers should at least be able to carry 20 FB + 20 fighters
3) The removal of the drone bay is a nerf to small alliances who are more likely to use a small number of "ninja" supercarrier tactics. Now those supercarriers can get tackled and killed much more easily by even a small/medium gang of subcaps.
4) Huge alliances that can field huge fleets (super cap gang+proper sub cap fleet) will be even more powerful.
5) Supercarriers are no longer good for anything but shooting POS mods and Sov mods. LOL.

The nerf should have been as follows:
1) Fix logoffski timer
2) DD can only hit caps
3) Small EHP reduction for supercarriers

Those three fixes alone would have been enough to start.

Can some Dev explain the decision to not even let SC carry 20 fighters??

Actually, looking more at the fighter nerf.... what can they hit now? POS mods? LOL. Huge stealth carrier nerf. Care to explain this one as well?


Exactly how it should be.

5 years ago, flying a capital without proper support made you a laughing stock. Why shouldn't flying supers without proper support ALSO make you a laughing stock? If you want to protect your supers, then bring the proper amount of support.

Therefore we have a sort of rock-paper-scissors formula for balance:
sub-caps beat supers
supers beat caps
caps beat sub-caps (could probably use some more work).
Callic Veratar
#429 - 2011-10-10 20:17:11 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Callic Veratar wrote:
I'm a bit unfamiliar with scan res: Could a painted+webbed battleship be hit by a fighter with the new resolution?
Webbed will either not make any difference, or quite possible make it worse. since the fighter will then start to orbit and thus increase the tracking it needs to deal with.

A single TP should increase the damage done from ~3.5% of its DPS to ~9%.
Karim alRashid wrote:
Add to all ordinary carriers the following bonus:
+10% fighter signature radius reduction per carrier level
Again: they're not changing sig radius — they're changing sig resolution.

That said, not a completely insane idea. At lvl V, it increases the aforementioned 3.5% DPS to 27%.


A base of 27% vs battleships sounds about right to me. Have a Hyena or Rapier fly with you and and it should be back up near full damage.
ToXicPaIN
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#430 - 2011-10-10 20:17:34 UTC
ScheenK wrote:

ehp removal was not needed, you buffed the ehp on captials because it was needed now your taking it away when its needed most




it is only 10month ago were CCP give the Moms the EHP boost .. and now you take it away ??
why ??

! CCP answer !
David Carel
SWAT Team Sales Consultants
I too am gay
#431 - 2011-10-10 20:18:06 UTC
Akara Ito wrote:

If only Jumpf Freighters could jump as far as Supercaps and carry a lot of FBs in their cargohold to restock them between engagements.

Evelopedia wrote:
Jump Freighters have a base jump range of 5 Light Years.
Motherships have a base jump range of 4 Light Years.
Titans have a base jump range of 3.5 Light Years.
Spartan dax
0utbreak
#432 - 2011-10-10 20:18:34 UTC
Not reading through 22 pages but unless it's been said already;

Poses will need a buff if you're going through with 5 minute siege timers on dreads.
Nova Soldier
EVE-RO
Goonswarm Federation
#433 - 2011-10-10 20:19:02 UTC
I don't think the dreads have been boosted to a point where they are usefull again.

The damage increase is nothing considering they removed the drones.
The targheted ships is still at 2.
Sensor resolution is 1/2 in siege than a Supercarrier with a Cloaking devince.

Hoping to see some impruvments to dreads.
Infinimo
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#434 - 2011-10-10 20:19:47 UTC
CCP: **** you PL!
Twisted

Theta Squad best squad. Monocle crew represent~

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#435 - 2011-10-10 20:19:54 UTC
Needa3 wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Needa3 wrote:
i like how everything is blamed on supercaps where the real issues is the subcap fleets.

blob alliances blob by nature, if you want to win the fight you need something that can kill their RR abilities
small groups cant do anything either cause they need to fight up your face where they can be easily tackled and countered

their is no more tactics involved, just the biggest number = win

the game is so far from being a sandbox .... and CCP fails at seeing it and the CSM gladly keeps CCP blind as their supporters benefit the most out of this ******** nerf. Guess being part of a certain group really helps in this game


I just mixed your tears with some fine cognac.

Superb!


i'm glad some groups never disappoint. glad to see you are just one of those dicks hiding behind the safety of their internet connection but lacking the balls to actually stand up


Yes indeed, I give thanks every day that I don't have to face the incredible rage of ~Internet Hardman~ Needa3 with his amazing power of warping zealots solo into hostile fleets while his alliance mates laugh at his noobitude in local.

Tell me sir, does your girlfriend kickbox by any chance?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#436 - 2011-10-10 20:21:30 UTC
God damn the shrieking and crying from the Elite Pee Vee Peers is just as good as I'd hoped it would be.

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

ToXicPaIN
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#437 - 2011-10-10 20:21:31 UTC  |  Edited by: ToXicPaIN
xxxak wrote:
Update:

This nerf = Win Subcap battle, Kill all supers on the field.

So with this nerf, supers can no longer defend themselves from subcaps, and supers are committed for 23 hours once they cyno in.

That means that if you have a 15 man super fleet (mid size alliance), plus 120 sub caps (mid size alliance), and if lose the subcap battle, you also just lost all your supers.

Kthxbai. No way a sane super pilot will commit now unless they are 150% sure that they have a winning fleet. EVE is dead.


Other thoughts:

1) Nerfing fighters makes carriers even more crap. This was unnecessary.
2) Supercarriers should at least be able to carry 20 FB + 20 fighters
3) The removal of the drone bay is a nerf to small alliances who are more likely to use a small number of "ninja" supercarrier tactics. Now those supercarriers can get tackled and killed much more easily by even a small/medium gang of subcaps.
4) Huge alliances that can field huge fleets (super cap gang+proper sub cap fleet) will be even more powerful.
5) Supercarriers are no longer good for anything but shooting POS mods and Sov mods. LOL.

The nerf should have been as follows:
1) Fix logoffski timer
2) DD can only hit caps
3) Small EHP reduction for supercarriers

Those three fixes alone would have been enough to start.

Can some Dev explain the decision to not even let SC carry 20 fighters??

Actually, looking more at the fighter nerf.... what can they hit now? POS mods? LOL. Huge stealth carrier nerf. Care to explain this one as well?


SIGNED !!!
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#438 - 2011-10-10 20:22:24 UTC
Needa3 wrote:
i'm glad some groups never disappoint. glad to see you are just one of those dicks hiding behind the safety of their internet connection but lacking the balls to actually stand up


I'm standing up at my keyboard just to make this post just fyi

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

DeadDuck
No.Mercy
Triumvirate.
#439 - 2011-10-10 20:22:50 UTC
ToXicPaIN wrote:
ScheenK wrote:

ehp removal was not needed, you buffed the ehp on captials because it was needed now your taking it away when its needed most




it is only 10month ago were CCP give the Moms the EHP boost .. and now you take it away ??
why ??

! CCP answer !


Cause they did it wrong... Roll. Or you think the ship is actually balanced ? 100MShockedShockedShockedShockedShockedShockedShockedShocked EHP

Anile8er
Holoband Research and Development
#440 - 2011-10-10 20:23:36 UTC
Daedalus II wrote:
If we look at fighters from the perspective of fighters instead of carriers, we could ask ourselves; what use will they have now?

* For ships that can use FBs they are worse in every way (can't hit smaller ships, makes less damage than FBs against larger ships), so they aren't going to be used there.
* For ships that can't use FBs (i.e. carriers) they are also useless because they can't hit the smaller targets that the carrier itself might survive, and they don't make a dent in larger targets, which the carrier will die against anyway.

So what are they supposed to be used for? Ratting carriers with dual TPs?


This wouldn't be the first time a Dev from CCP, who clearly doesnt play EVE, has supported the use of target painters as a main stay fit on capital ships.