These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Liranan
H A V O C Industrial
Fraternity.
#981 - 2011-10-11 11:48:45 UTC
Furb Killer wrote:
Quote:
Do tell us how a dread uses all this new DPS when it has no cap or when the ship they're supposed to be hitting is moving.

Cap? Fit cap rechargers? CCC rigs if you want even.

And it would be nice if this myth that dreads cant hit orbiting supers would finally die. I would do the math again, but i cant be bothered. Serious just pick a dread from EFT and a supercarrier, do them in a damage graph. Sure if it orbits you at 500m you cant hit it, but if we talk about realistic fleet fights then both the dreads and the SCs will be spread, there is no way to orbit all dreads at clsoe range. And if you orbit at 10km distance the dreads do like 90% of their dps.

If we talk about ganking a super, with only a couple of dreads present, then you can also make sure the SC isnt orbiting your dreads at close range by bumping him.



The only result of boosting dread tracking is that they will start to dominate webbed/painted battleships at normal ranges.


This is the problem with the game, people who've never flown a ship whine so much that devs listen to them.

Now, why don't you fly a dread a few times and watch those lovely guns miss a pos and then tell us your maths. You ever seen a Sieged Moros barely hit an iHub? No? Those guns barely track targets the size of a star, let alone a moving target

But maths don't lie! Cry

http://www.youtube.com/user/zeitgeistmovie?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/23/Lio3n66bwOo This shit's got to go - Jacque Fresco
Mona X
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#982 - 2011-10-11 11:48:45 UTC
Tippia wrote:
[quote=CCP Tallest] (which sounds familiar somehow… reminds me of a different weapon system that begins with a “b”).


I too think, that Auroras should have their tracking penalty removed. :)

I need new signature.
Liranan
H A V O C Industrial
Fraternity.
#983 - 2011-10-11 11:52:03 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.

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.


Thank you, it's good to see you guys listening to your players, shame it takes thousands of people leaving the game for CCP to take notice.

I do think you guys shoot once again look at Selene's original MS/SC proposals. That was far more balanced than what we have today.

http://www.youtube.com/user/zeitgeistmovie?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/23/Lio3n66bwOo This shit's got to go - Jacque Fresco
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#984 - 2011-10-11 11:54:06 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.

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.

Why not go through with this nerf and give carriers a boost to fighters pr fighter level, meaning they would still be viable for use, while still reducing what supers could kill with them?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Johnny3Tears
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#985 - 2011-10-11 11:56:24 UTC
Psymn wrote:
Guys, your super caps are no longer solo pwn-wagons. If my baddon gets tackled by a dram theres nothing i can do about it either. Thats why i bring people who can.

I empathise with the folks complaining here that they will have to change their strategy. But any change that encourages inclusion of a wider range of ships in an engagement has to be a good change, right?


You could always pop drones ie, Web drones and pop him.
Acwron
Meet The Fockers
#986 - 2011-10-11 11:56:37 UTC
I recommend to all drake pilots to read this locked thread.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53327#post53327

This post is a pamphlet and should be treated as such.


Nerfing supers and titans is the worst thing you can do...boost others, don't nerf the BIGGEST SHIPS in the GAME !
I didn't spend gazillions of years training for them and now see them good for taking pictures with.
Lyrrashae
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#987 - 2011-10-11 11:56:45 UTC
Smoking Blunts wrote:
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


(/me chuckles) Hey, why not? It's a great little word Blink

Ni.
Karim alRashid
Starboard.
#988 - 2011-10-11 11:57:04 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.


Are you sure you're not bringing the game back to 2007-2008, replacing the super carrier blob with the equally boring carrier blob?

Logically a carrier can field:
light drones against frigates
medium drones against cruisers/battlecruisers
heavy/sentry drones against battleships

fighters against ... what ?

Pain is weakness leaving the body http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#989 - 2011-10-11 11:58:18 UTC
Lord Zim 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.

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.

Why not go through with this nerf and give carriers a boost to fighters pr fighter level, meaning they would still be viable for use, while still reducing what supers could kill with them?


Why even penalize SCs use of fighters? You realize that a SC's fighter dps output is only equal to 2 carriers' worth, right? It's not exactly game-breaking, outlandish dps capabilities you're talking about.
Frabba
Perkone
Caldari State
#990 - 2011-10-11 11:59:11 UTC
Karim alRashid 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.


Are you sure you're not bringing the game back to 2007-2008, replacing the super carrier blob with the equally boring carrier blob?

Logically a carrier can field:
light drones against frigates
medium drones against cruisers/battlecruisers
heavy/sentry drones against battleships

fighters against ... what ?



Equally boring, nowhere near as hard to kill.

its me im the best poster.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#991 - 2011-10-11 12:00:17 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
Why even penalize SCs use of fighters? You realize that a SC's fighter dps output is only equal to 2 carriers' worth, right? It's not exactly game-breaking, outlandish dps capabilities you're talking about.
Because it still makes them too good against subcaps.
Tappits
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#992 - 2011-10-11 12:01:40 UTC
Othran wrote:
As you're removing logoffski can you go a little further and remove the ability to initiate self-destruct while aggressed please?

You need to do this otherwise the :goodfights: you anticipate will not happen. The target will simply self-destruct if he can't logoff. It happens far too often now, but it'll be happening a lot more with your changes.

Simple change - you cannot self-destruct while aggressed.


That's the whole point of having the Self-destruct
You seem very mad that you don't get a killmail.
malet
Quam Singulari Industry
Roid Suckers
#993 - 2011-10-11 12:02:21 UTC
iulixxi wrote:
malet wrote:
Psymn wrote:
Guys, your super caps are no longer solo pwn-wagons. If my baddon gets tackled by a dram theres nothing i can do about it either. Thats why i bring people who can.

I empathise with the folks complaining here that they will have to change their strategy. But any change that encourages inclusion of a wider range of ships in an engagement has to be a good change, right?


And does your abbadon cost 85billion isk? you are tackled by a ship of the same value, then thats fair game. If your in a titan your net dies and some random dictors finds you before you disaapear you are then stuck there being held by a ship that cost 30 million isk..

its hardly the same is it?


“And does your abbadon cost 85billion isk?”
An officer fitted one yes, does it have a change against your 85b titan? Same price, right?

“If your in a titan your net dies and some random dictors finds you before you disaapear you are then stuck there being held by a ship that cost 30 million isk..”
Get better net or don’t fly alone. CCP is not an ISP or an electricity provider, we are talking about balancing a ship class not preventing a natural disaster that cold (or cold not) disconnect you during an engagement.

Don’t fly anything you can’t afford to lose… Once you jumped into a fight you have to be aware that there is a chance of losing your ship, unlike now … you jump 200 supers -> launch fighters -> go watch a movie -> come back -> jump out. Win

E


Im not talking about an ISP, EVE is renowned in large fleet fights for random DC`s followed by staring at entering space for hours while the servers decide whether to log you in or not. As for flying what I cant afford to lose then think again.

Fact is that eve is notoriuos for crashing in large fleet fights so whats your answer to that? Are we supposed to just swallow the usual CCP BS " our logs show nothing out of the ordinary followed by the standard copy paste petition response because no body actually bothers to look into a petition , more likely they just like to put it to the side and hope it goes away!

if you are going to fly a officer fit abaddon worth 85bill then please please for the love of god come visit so I can dd you before the nerf!
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#994 - 2011-10-11 12:02:33 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
I'm not sure how suggesting their drone capacity be reduced from ~1750 to 60 counts as "suggesting they be left as they are," but by all means feel free to explain your logic to us.


Fighters are 5000m3. If super carriers are allowed to carry drones too, you only have to drop 1 fighter in order to have a stock of 1000 light drones or 200 sentries.

Thus in order to prevent super carriers having something approaching an "infinite" supply of drones with which to smash cruisers, they need to lose their ability to field drones.

Is that logic simple enough to follow?

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Kern Walzky
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#995 - 2011-10-11 12:02:38 UTC
why dont you give dreads in siege a range bonus? and half the trackingpenalty OR fix the bumping by fixing the warpin mechanics on capital ships... its really anoying to bumb... you dont even need more then 2 caps to bump... really...must be a problem you can fix..

Give supercarriers bigger fighter/bomber bays space for 1 set of each plus a few spares.
remove normal drones is fine.
Leave fighters alone...carriers will suffer aswell.

Leave Titan EHP alone...its a ship costing 60-80bill...

Create Shield slave implants...to balance shield ships.
create armor crystal implants...to balance armor/shield sub-capital ships.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#996 - 2011-10-11 12:03:27 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
Why even penalize SCs use of fighters? You realize that a SC's fighter dps output is only equal to 2 carriers' worth, right? It's not exactly game-breaking, outlandish dps capabilities you're talking about.

vOv

At the very least we're talking about fighters which can be taken off the field by shooting them, thus defanging the supercarrier, so I'm not exactly what you'd call hell-bent on penalizing fighters on supercarriers. I was just throwing another idea out into the ether in case it was something tallest hadn't thought of.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Madner Kami
Durendal Ascending
#997 - 2011-10-11 12:04:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Madner Kami
Johnny3Tears wrote:
You could always pop drones ie, Web drones and pop him.


Web drones. Against the single fastest thing in game. Right.

(This statement and/or opinion may be subjected to change, once the EWAR Drone DevBlog happens.)
Pesadel0
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#998 - 2011-10-11 12:05:33 UTC
Liranan 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.

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.


Thank you, it's good to see you guys listening to your players, shame it takes thousands of people leaving the game for CCP to take notice.

I do think you guys shoot once again look at Selene's original MS/SC proposals. That was far more balanced than what we have today.



It was selene(DEV) and the players that made sc the pawnmobiles they are today.

I really think that nerfing the drone bay off supers is a good nerf, the figther nerf was uncalled for because it wouldn't affect scars only it would destroy carriers as a class.Whay i would like to see is to remove the ability of bombers to attack sov styructures making the dreads be the main bulk of the fleet sov in 0.0.

And to people that are saying they get massacred by Scars and figthers guess what , warp out, kill figthers or just dont be dumb enougth to get caugth by a super fleet and die due to your stupidity.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#999 - 2011-10-11 12:06:30 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
I love the idiots going on about "bowing down to goons", as if they were the only ones who wanted a supercap nerf. Roll


Everyone wanted a supercap nerf. Most of us hoped CCP would be reasonable about it tho, you know, like having proper balancing (between ships, i.e. Hel vs Nyx vs shield supers etc), like addressing the real issue (their damage output), and making less blob boosts and more blob deterrents.

Obviously we were hoping for too much, like usual.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.
Le Cardinal
ECP Rogues
#1000 - 2011-10-11 12:07:19 UTC
So CCP Tallest, Is this the place to point out that shield supers still get a penalty to shield when jumping in? Large parts of the nerf is fine, but with reduced HPs the shieldtankers gets an extra slap in the face compared to its fellow armortankers.

And +1 for actually considering community feedback.