These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Drop Dead Sexy
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#961 - 2011-10-11 11:28:37 UTC
as a sub cap pilot, lo sec roamer i second this nerf, thank you dev's,
any chance on forbidding titans in low sec??? titan alfa kills are very annoying and must be looked at.
super cap hot drops on a single ship becoming more and more popular taking away all chances of survival for solo warrior.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#962 - 2011-10-11 11:29:39 UTC
Lorren Canada wrote:
Misanth wrote:
Pattern Clarc wrote:
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.


It's exactly what it is. Nerfing hp after buffing hp when it was needed. Not nerfing damage when the damage boost was causing the issue. Removing drones when they did nothing to make the ship overpowered or not.

TL;DR CCP have no clue what to do with supers, they just blantantly take populistic decisions. If CCP really looked at the issue with supers (titans as well as moms doing high damage), and thought through if they needed a damage role or not, they'd start nerfing those aspects. I.e. FB's, tracking links/guns and DD on titan. But no, they went with random populistic changes that makes no sense, and still not having a role for the ships.


What do you know about supers? Go back to mining ice with your buddies so we can gank them again.


More than you ever will know, I guess. I farmed you guys, with my main then in Cry Havoc, in Placid lowsec when your alliance entered the game. I flew several supers across multiple chars for years, way before they were boosted in the first place for one. As for this alliance I'm currently in, I have zero kills or losses and only been on one combat op. And I never mined ice or been on an ice mining op.. You'll have to ask my CEO why we're flying with them. Twisted

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.

Shadowsword
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#963 - 2011-10-11 11:30:23 UTC
CCP Tallest wrote:
In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.



If you undo the fighter change, what are you going to do about supercarriers using fighters to kill battleships and battlecruisers?

How about you restrict supercarriers to bombers only? That would give normal carriers a specific offensive role, while keeping the apparent intent of those changes to make supercarriers an anti-cap, anti-structure platform.
Hentes Zsemle
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#964 - 2011-10-11 11:31:11 UTC
I like most of the proposed changes, +1 to keep the fighters the way they are, if you want to nerf them on supers, add a "bonus" for supercarriers instead.

The removal of dronebays on other caps is understandable, even though its a bit drastic. You ppl have to understand that capitals ships are highly specialized equipment, and they are for destroying stationary structures and other caps mostly.

To the ones whining that their 30 bil ship is useless now:
Your ship and 4 years of training shouldn't give you a BETTER ship, it should give you a DIFFERENT one.

The dread buff is a good start, but a little bit more love is needed.
Di Mulle
#965 - 2011-10-11 11:33:15 UTC
iwasatoad wrote:
Ok this is the final straw i will be renouncing my eve charters and quit playing because ccp is now giving into even the smallest Winer's

Reason in point

Super carrirers Since day 1 my hole gole was to get into a mom get into 0.0 use the mom to make isk with as well has go out and defend space with.......

Now isk mkaing in 0.0 will be worthless if you cannot use a carrirer


Your hole gole was 100% wrong from the very beginning. Noo need to continue even.

<<Insert some waste of screen space here>>
Kern Walzky
Smurf Command Centers
The Bastion
#966 - 2011-10-11 11:33:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Kern Walzky
ANGAL 2000 wrote:
this is a act to kill super carrier you have 3000 toons in super carriers if not more and their useless let them dock.

they will get used after the patch and the ppl using them can use them for more then sitting in a pos waiting to die

LET SUPER CARRIER DOCK


i agree... let them dock

I think nerfing expensive ships that cannot dock is a problem...ccp making changes that affect the use of a ship to a state that we have seen once before for supercarriers(once called motherships). total loss of all your isk. please consider this ccp.

i can agree with removal of normal drones, but then increase the fighterbay atleast...its a problem that you cannot have a set of fighters and fighterbombers with room for a few spares. its an expensive ship and expensive figthers....dont ruin it totally...

Or make it dock so you could exchange fighters/bombers depending on use...

25 fighters/bombers is just not enough if you cannot dock... SC costs 16bill isk...
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#967 - 2011-10-11 11:35:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Grath Telkin
Crowd: NEFF SUPERS NOW

CCP: Ok

*removes ability of supers main weapons to hit subcaps*

Crowd: WAIT NOW I CAN'T RUN SANCTUMS IN MAH CARRIER. SUPERS AREN'T SO BAD PUT IT BACK THE OTHER WAY

CCP: Retards

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.

Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
Goonswarm Federation
#968 - 2011-10-11 11:36:20 UTC
Shadowsword wrote:
CCP Tallest wrote:
In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.



If you undo the fighter change, what are you going to do about supercarriers using fighters to kill battleships and battlecruisers?

How about you restrict supercarriers to bombers only? That would give normal carriers a specific offensive role, while keeping the apparent intent of those changes to make supercarriers an anti-cap, anti-structure platform.


fighters do crap damage against full passive bc's with massive sigs, so meh thats balanced. yeh they hurt bs's, there ment too.
fighter bombers effectly can only shoot ihubs stations and sbu's as it is, so why would you wnat to compleatly screw a whole ship class?

mom balance is ok as this now stands

OMG when can i get a pic here

Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#969 - 2011-10-11 11:38:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Pattern Clarc
CCP Tallest wrote:
In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.

The poor performance of Minmatar capital ships is being looked at and was already being looked at before the blog was posted.

Pointing out flaws and issues with the balancing plan is very much appreciated. I will look into the issues and make changes where they are needed.

Once this hits SISI, I will start a thread in the test server feedback forums. Your concerns will be listened to and acted upon if necessary.

11/10

I still have a reservation, I think my fundamental question is there any positive reason one would you fly a dread over a Titan if cost wasn't an issue? It relates to roles, and the performance of these ships when roles are considered. If the answer is, you wouldn't fly a dread over a titan if they cost the same, do you think that's an issue or not?

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction

Forlorn Wongraven
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#970 - 2011-10-11 11:39:15 UTC
Hentes Zsemle wrote:
I like most of the proposed changes, +1 to keep the fighters the way they are, if you want to nerf them on supers, add a "bonus" for supercarriers instead.


A negative bonus is called malus.

Winner ATXI , 3rd place ATXII, winner ATXIII, 2nd ATXIV - follow me on twitter: @ForlornW

Jada Maroo
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#971 - 2011-10-11 11:40:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Jada Maroo
Mara Rinn wrote:
Just Another Toon wrote:
You are stupid, best changes CCP have done and now your back tracking cos of a little forum pressure.. Carriers are logistics ships not offensive ships. Want to defend a carrier bring your sub cap fleet!


If Carriers are intended to be logistics ships, why are they called "carriers"? They have fighters, not just drones



Thank you. I get so tired of reading this carrier = logistics ship garbage. Carriers are carriers. Carriers are meant to launch fighters that pew pew things. I don't think Triage should even be a function of carriers. It's an unnecessary, tacked-on feature that doesn't fit the role of the ship.

And +1 to restricting supercarriers to fighterbombers only as stated above. Easiest way to fix the problem.
Baneken
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
#972 - 2011-10-11 11:41:15 UTC
Over all changes are good, though I would prefer to allow moms to still have their drones but limit the number to usual five along with a separate drone bay that can hold a 10 maybe more heavy drones.
DCU's would wok with this limit ofc. but who is going put 5 DCUs in their mom ?

As for Dreads they should be able to still field drones, especially since it makes Moros a unique in it's class with drone bonuses and we all like unique ships.
Besides AFAIK drones cannot be used while in siege anyway so drone dps is a rather moot when it comes to siege but they are very important part of a dread being able to do anything against sub capitals.

And Carriers really should have drone bonuses since they are meant to be support ships as well as drone ships.
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#973 - 2011-10-11 11:42:54 UTC
Jada Maroo wrote:
Thank you. I get so tired of reading this carrier = logistics ship garbage. Carriers are carriers. Carriers are meant to launch fighters that pew pew things. I don't think Triage should even be a function of carriers. It's an unnecessary, tacked-on feature that doesn't fit the role of the ship.


Carrier carries my ships around when I move from one region to another. Other than that, it's fighters barely do more DPS than a gank fit BS.
Evil Celeste
#974 - 2011-10-11 11:43:07 UTC
Tippia wrote:
It's tricky because it's the same variables on a continuous sliding scale — making it possible to hit BS for 100% damage will pretty much automatically mean that you can hit sub-BS for roughly 20-30% damage. Whether that qualifies as "seriously hurt" is up for debate (yes, it's lower damage, but on the other hand, they have less HP).

It's not really a mechanic that lets you completely cut off the damage application when the differences in ship sizes are as small as they are. BS to frigate works, because by then, we're talking about a factor of 10 — BS to cruiser (or, worse, BS to BC) is only a factor of 1½–3, and that's not enough to make a sizeable difference.


Today, if you are in cruiser doing 300m/s with mwd turned off - they will just slowboat after you and hit you with most of their dps. If you stop, they will outtrack some of their dps - but try sitting still in the middle of the fight with cruiser... Hell, they will hit even your stealth bomber if you are slowboating with mwd off.

Othran wrote:
Simple change - you cannot self-destruct while aggressed.

I´m ok with self destructing while aggressed, but i personally would increase time needed to sd supercarrier to 30+ minutes. Funny it takes same time to self destruct 50m big punisher and 12k big mom.
Fiberton
StarFleet Enterprises
#975 - 2011-10-11 11:43:25 UTC
Another is walking in stations. Anyone remember 2006 ?

Ciryath Al'Darion wrote:
Jada Maroo wrote:
I don't fly caps nor do I really want to anytime soon, but one thing that irks me about the changes is the general lack of creativity.


You have to remember you are talking about company that used atleast 1 year of active development for a feature and after having it basically ready, realized that there is no content to for a game.

Lack of creativity indeed.

“Out of clutter, find simplicity. From discord, find harmony. In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity.” --  Albert  Einstein  "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means,"

Mashie Saldana
I'm Sorry Shoot What?
WE FORM V0LTA
#976 - 2011-10-11 11:43:49 UTC
Very good changes CCP, now don't bloody backtrack just because I decided to resub.
Lyrrashae
Albertica Bludgers' Union
#977 - 2011-10-11 11:43:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Lyrrashae
Ganthrithor wrote:
Lyrrashae wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:
Lyrrashae wrote:


Also ITT:

Whinging nullbear SC pilots who are basing their complaints around the assumptions that all of EVE revolves around them, and sov-warfare, and seriously believing that the rest of us give two fucks.

Keep the tears coming, you poor, deluded, blinkered little princesses:

They keep my HM/Nano-Drake's windscreen looking like new!


[Over-inflated sense of own importance ****-poster predictability]




Thank you for just proving every point I've tried to make.

No, you don't matter to the other 85+ per cent of the paying customer-base, arse-bag.

Go choke on your own **** and die, you self-important toddler, I'm not even going to start with this utterly disgusting ******* garbage you're spewing. "Untermensch?" Oh, ******* champion, you complete and utter imbecile. Tell me, what's it like being a bad joke?


umad bro?

So you get to call me a whinging, nullbear, poor, deluded, blinkered little princess, but if I call you an irrelevant and ill-informed nobody, you get pissy? How is that fair?

Don't shoot the messenger Twisted


Way to miss the point, trailer-trash.

You lost any credibility you may have had (theoretical, anyway--you actually had/have none, regardless) with the use of "Untermensch," too by the way.

Get a clue, you mong.

0/10, keep practising.

Oh, and if being "somebody" in this game really is limited to being anything like you, then I will happily remain amongst the Untermenschen.

Ni.

M1AU
Zappenduster Inc.
#978 - 2011-10-11 11:45:41 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Just Another Toon wrote:
You are stupid, best changes CCP have done and now your back tracking cos of a little forum pressure.. Carriers are logistics ships not offensive ships. Want to defend a carrier bring your sub cap fleet!


If Carriers are intended to be logistics ships, why are they called "carriers"? They have fighters, not just drones. Please reassess your assumptions.

I'd like to see fighters have their signature resolution bumped a little, so that fighters will be ineffective against cruisers. Rather than bumping them from 125m to 400m, a bump up to 200m should be enough: remember that fighters are also moving, which impacts on their chance to hit in the first place as opposed to Sentry drones for example, which have a resolution of 400m but are stationary.

The next step up from cruisers is battlecruisers, with sig radiuses between 240-280m (not including sig bloom from shield extender modules, shield extender rigs, T2 ammo etc). If you pack shield extenders onto a battlecruiser, expect to get smacked about by fighters. That's a consequence of a decision that you made.

If you're flying a carrier and want to get rid of those pesky HICs and EWAR cruisers, bring a support fleet.

Which reminds me: CCP should be removing EWAR immunity and replacing it with existing game mechanics, not adding EWAR immunity to more ships. Capital and super capital ships should get their "immunity" to EWAR through base stats of the hull and support from other ships in their fleet, not through specific game mechanics that only apply to those ships.


To the proposals in the initial blog post, I would fully support these proposals.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#979 - 2011-10-11 11:46:03 UTC
Akara Ito wrote:
Misanth wrote:
Pattern Clarc wrote:
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.


It's exactly what it is. Nerfing hp after buffing hp when it was needed. Not nerfing damage when the damage boost was causing the issue. Removing drones when they did nothing to make the ship overpowered or not.


You cant nerf the FB damage because the role of a supercarrier is to deal a lot of damage.
They are anti sov dps plattforms and now they finally become this and not more.
The hp nerf is actually pretty small but its going to have his effect with the log off changes.

Oh and just for the records: If you lose a Supercap to "a single hic" or a very, very small gang that means:
you werent able to get some friends to come along for whatever you're doing and
you werent able to figure out why this funny fitting you got from this wiki has neutralizer on it and
you are unable to use a decent fit and
you dont know a single person who could help you organise some backup and
you were stupid enough to get your SC in a combat situation under this circumstances; then holy ******* **** you deserve whats comming to you.

Every ship in EVE has a role, every fleettype has a counter, the only ships that didnt fit into this were supercaps.
Welcome back to (space)earth.


There's usually no reason to reply to you trolls (as is it's nature), but I'll make an exception since you are cute:

* The motherships never had a "damage role", they were given one in the changes a few years ago. Half their lifetime they been a logistic platform. And the damage role was unbalanced, the other was too weak, so you try find the issue here..
* Yup, they key is they "have become", but they were not initially, nor did they ever have such an outspoken role.
* The hp nerf is enough to have a few titans + moms volley a super. Fielding 50+ supers (like most bigger entities can), they can easily dispatch of 5-10 supers in a few seconds.

Oh and for the record, if you lose a supercap to a single hic or a very very small gang, I agree with you that you as pilot did errors and deserve to die, I never argued against this (and this is not the reason they should keep their sub-fighter bay). The reason they should keep the sub-fighter bay is because a) FB's are ridicilously overpowered and should be removed b) Fighters are really weak, I personally solo-killed six of a Nyx Fighters while kiting them around in my Nighthawk, until he gave up, pulled the rest and warped off, they're underwhelming at best c) sentry drones serve a purpose when shooting POS. I'd agree point c is quite minor, but the first two is primary reasons, so your assumption about my reasons for arguing for a dronebay is quite wrong. If Fighters worked against POS and wasn't so easily kited, all motherships would need was Fighters. Drop FB and regular drones altogether. But that'd require a boost to mothership-Fighters (not affecting carriers).

So to get back to topic, before your assumptions pull this off the line again:
Motherships had a logistic role. They were given a damage role but obviously went too powerful. I think anyone with half a brain would realise that in anything from those big fleet fights, to the smaller hotdrops and skirmishes, the mothers' would never been considered "too powerful" if they had Fighters alone, right? And FB's were never needed, they were given as an incentitive to put them on the combat field, not to actually have a combat role.

With the log-off changes, a EHP nerf is not needed at all. And frankly speaking, if you ever flew a super and have been tackled/shot at (especially by other supers), you know how they are virtually made of paper. Subcaps can and will kill supers already today. That EHP nerf is just gonna make the FB/DD/Titan guns even more powerful and unbalanced, and is not even addressing a) the ships role or b) the real issue that makes them overpowered. Which is the damage, not their health. And the health, once again as I just posted, has already had a major hit by the log-off timer (a good addition).

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.

Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
Goonswarm Federation
#980 - 2011-10-11 11:48:09 UTC
Lyrrashae wrote:


Get a clue, you mong.




lmao, my little boy just started saying this. i know i shouldnt laugh when he says it, but i cant help myself

OMG when can i get a pic here