These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Krimariol
Nordgoetter
#1001 - 2011-10-11 12:08:48 UTC
Some suggestions in addition to the Devblog:

1. Give all Carrier a new buff: "Reduce Fighter Signature by 10% per Lvl"
-- So that Carrier could use the fighter still against BS and with less damage against BCs
-- With Carrier V this would still be a 60% decrease in the Signature Resolution of fighters

2. Increase the tracking of Dreads in Siege so, that they hit slow BS and "fast" Caps
3. Change the changed Bonus of the Moroes into +1-2% Damage per level
-- This would resolve the cap problems mentioned AND the moroes won't make 20+% more damage than all other dreads

4. Change the Fighter Bomber so, that there is a possibility to attack a forcefield with some drawback like -50% Damage

5. Change the DD nerv into: "DD fuel cost is indirect proportional to the signature of the enemy ship"
-- Something like 40k for 2000+ sig and 400k for 200- sig so a Titan has something against small ships but it comes at a price

6. Change the HP nerv into: "Slavesets only work on subcaps"
-- Main Problem seems the enourmous Armortank of the SCs and Titans, the shieldtanks have a lot of HP less
7. Change the behavior of buffs
-- Armor works instant, shield takes a long time or logistics to work (after each system change)
-- This is beside the slave sets the main point, why armor is in fleetbattles leading
8. If the Changes come, think about the prices of Titans and SCs and the production needs, change them according to the nervs.

To some of the Poster

Yes a SC may have HP equal to 150 BS, this should be nerved a little bit, BUT it costs as much as 100+ BS and if you buy some expensive Supermilitaryvehicle it should be at least in the near of a breakeven in COmbat rating.
Lets make a calculation: (without implants)
Fail-fitted Dominix 130k EHP, 700 DPS, 100 MISK
Deadspace-fitted Nyx 22810k EHP, 10000 DPS, 20 BISK
so for the same Price
200 Domi 26M EHP, 140k DPS
1 Nyx 23M EHP, 10k DPS
A short Battle (about 160 s) later: 13 Dominix were shot, 1 Nyx was scrapped ... 1.3 B vs. 20 B
... So it seems the Domis need more NERV ?


I am a "new" player without capitals. I just made some logical thoughts and played something with EFT.

Just my e Cents or something like that
Aldarean
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1002 - 2011-10-11 12:09:08 UTC
Svennig wrote:
Raid'En wrote:
ovenproofjet wrote:
You kinda just nerfed the standard carrier there with the change to the fighter sensor res, carriers are gonna have trouble doing what you say here: "If you want to deal with sub-capitals, you should bring your own sub-capitals or a carrier"

Perhaps add the sensor res reduction as a penalty to supercarriers so as to avoid a knock on effect on the ordinarty carrier

Other wise good changes, especially to the Dreads, siege timer change is long overdue

this.
don't nerf the normal carriers with supercarriers



Not empty quoting.


I dont think the standard carrier has got nerf. Under the provision it can still field normal drones.

I dont think CCP when designing Carriers, SC and Titans thought they would be used on high level plex.

As far as bomber/fighter setup go, they should be intened purposes.
Bomber = SC and TItan
Fighters = Carriers/Dreads
Heavy/Sentry = Battleships/BC
Meduim = BC/Cruiser
Light = Frigates/Destroyers

There always going to be a looser here. They would either nerf to much or not enough.

Currently it means that a good Battleship fleet, could destroy, or atleast survive a SC fleet.

Adapt or die......

I don't believe that this will sort the blobs out. 20% EHP reduction just means more ship will be field.

So yes it will hinder smaller alliances a little, If CCP can sort out a spool up time for Cyno that is balance then that would go a good way to helping the smaller alliance's
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1003 - 2011-10-11 12:09:16 UTC
Tippia wrote:
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.


2 Thanatoi: 2b isk

1 Nyx: 20b isk

Dps output from fighters: Identical

Supercarriers are the ones that need a fighter nerf?

...and if your first thought is "but SCs have so much more EHP" then you're thinking about it in the wrong way-- kill the fighters, not the carrier.
Tappits
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#1004 - 2011-10-11 12:11:24 UTC
I don't like how they have backtracked on on the fighters change, yes ok 400 sig was too much but a change to 200 or something so there not as good as they are now but not a total wipeout is ok. Carriers are not really the main DPS in any fleet anyway, and SC's will just use FB's.

What i don't get is the change to Capital ships cannot kill sub-caps at all.
This does not make sense. and if you need sub-caps to kill other sub-caps than you should also be forced to use only caps to kill other caps unless you have like 10/1 number advantage.
If caps cannot do anything at all VS sub-caps then a BS's guns should be like throwing a water balloon at a car.
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1005 - 2011-10-11 12:12:00 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
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?


Take the pants off your head. SEPARATE DRONE BAYS. One for fighters / bombers, one for drones.

God you people are a dense bunch.
Krimariol
Nordgoetter
#1006 - 2011-10-11 12:15:32 UTC
Oh my

5.2 Change the way Jumpportals work
-- let the Titan enter a "siege" mode for 5 to 10 min
-- AND Portals may not opened in forcefields

got lost.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#1007 - 2011-10-11 12:15:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Misanth
Ganthrithor wrote:
Not every supercap pilot uses their ship in a blob context. If you're dead-set on stripping SCs of the little defensive capabilities they currently have (being able to field light drones) rather than simply reducing their drone bay sizes to 250-350m3 (which is the solution I think offers the best balance between the current "infinite drones" situation and SCs being utterly defenseless against any potential tacklers), then can you at least add in some logistical support perks to compensate?

I currently use my Nyx as a combination operations hub and ratting cap / dumb JF killing platform. If you're going to take combat usage in a small-gang context from "extremely risky" (currently, even with "infinite drones" it's extremely hard to fight off a competent hostile tackle-- all they need is a light dictor or two who know how to pilot their ships and you're gonna be stuck on the field for as long as they have warp disrupt probes left to deploy) to "near suicidal" (supers will be completely unable to fend off any hostile tackle at all, even baddies), then can you add some logistical capabilities to compensate?

Ideas I've been toying with for new / augmented logistical capacity are:

- Increased SMA / CHA space (can keep more people supplied with ships and gear)
- "Repair bays" which could be used to repair items (for example, to rep fully heat-damaged modules)
- Assembly lines that could produce the kinds of goods frequently consumed in small gang warfare-- nanite paste, bubbles, drones, possibly subcap-sized modules, etc.
- Perhaps a limited variant of the jump portal generator-- perhaps only capable of bridging cruiser-sized hulls and smaller. This would leave fleet-level bridging to titans, but provide SCs an ability to augment small gang type warfare, similar to the way blops BS can at the moment.

Personally I think the idea of using supercarriers as logistics platforms is pretty cool. It would give SCs a continued use outside blob warfare for people like me who don't like unopposed structure bashing, and would help compensate for the fact that they'll be much less useful for combat in small gang contexts.


Good god, a really awsome post from a goon, I think the end is coming.. P

Since I liked your post and I'm feeling generous, I'll even throw in my pet peeve wet-dream, which I was gonna leave out of these troll-scattered discussions but.. here goes:
It'd be awsome if active tanking came back into the game as a whole. Blobs and alpha has completely taken over, imagine if supers could actually active tank again? Capital reps is extremely underwhelming (repping barely anything while sucking massive amounts of cap). Say, make the e-war immunity on supers mean they cannot recieve friendly RR at all, but instead give them alot of hp and quite decent self-rep capability.

It's just a wet dream, and no maths done, so I'll slowly back off now and let people throw rotten fruit and laugh at me for even suggesting it.. but hey, a girl can dream..

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#1008 - 2011-10-11 12:17:31 UTC
Camar wrote:
Obsidian Hawk wrote:
The true bitter vets of eve are the ones who manipulate the market, alliance politics, and resources out of the sight of peering eyes. Not the super cap pilots.

The proper vets know not to put their investments all into 1 ship that can go boom and cant get a good pay off of insurance

true bitter vets dont play eve anymore


We play the forum, but we don't log in since aeons (see what I did there)..

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.
Evil Celeste
#1009 - 2011-10-11 12:18:28 UTC
It would make much more sense if scs couldnt use anything else but fighter bombers - not even fighters. But with bigger "fbomber bay" so they could replace lost fbombers. For example 1 flight + 50-100% of 2nd flight.

The more utility you give them to fight subcaps /fighters, drones/, the lower will be need for support fleet - and thats bad thing.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1010 - 2011-10-11 12:19:34 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
2 Thanatoi: 2b isk

1 Nyx: 20b isk
The realisation that cost is not a balancing factor: priceless.
Karim alRashid
Starboard.
#1011 - 2011-10-11 12:21:01 UTC
Aldarean wrote:

As far as bomber/fighter setup go, they should be intened purposes.
Bomber = SC and TItan
Fighters = Carriers/Dreads
Heavy/Sentry = Battleships/BC
Meduim = BC/Cruiser
Light = Frigates/Destroyers


QFT

Pain is weakness leaving the body http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos
Pesadel0
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1012 - 2011-10-11 12:22:30 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:
2 Thanatoi: 2b isk

1 Nyx: 20b isk
The realisation that cost is not a balancing factor: priceless.



I dont think you get it.
Krimariol
Nordgoetter
#1013 - 2011-10-11 12:25:45 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:
2 Thanatoi: 2b isk

1 Nyx: 20b isk
The realisation that cost is not a balancing factor: priceless.


But cost should be at least partly a balancing factor.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#1014 - 2011-10-11 12:27:33 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
Obsidian Hawk wrote:

If you want to committ to a fight and survive, you will have to rely on your FC's, you will have to rely on your alliance, you will have to rely on your friend s for victory and safety. All they are doing is putting an end to solo super cap play.



...Except that solo supercaps were *never* the problem in the first place. This is the point of my argument-- they're talking about breaking one, nonproblematic form of gameplay in order to fix problems with another form of gameplay (supercap blobbing). I'm just saying SCs should be left with enough drones to perhaps make a difference in solo play, but without such a mass of drones that they remain problematic in big fights.

Being able to field a total of ~60 normal drones is not going to make the tiniest difference in a fleet fight, but it might just make or break a solo engagement. That said, it's not like being able to field drones is a get-out-of-jail-free card for SCs. Even now, with an essentially infinite supply of small drones, its not like a solo SC is going to be able to fight its way out of a properly set trap. For actual, real-world examples of this, see the incidents where Dabigredboat dropped his Nyx on a gatecamp in Cobalt Edge (IRC brought a couple of dictors, tackled him on a gate, and killed his Nyx with a titan, a supercarrier, 1-2 dreads and a kitchen sink gang of subcaps), or Zungen losing a Nyx in Delve to Brick Squad (they brought a couple of dictors, he was held on the field and killed by a subcap gang). If a solo supercap can't escape a small hostile gang now, with infinite drones, I find it hard to believe that keeping a couple of flights of drones in the future will somehow render SCs broken solo pwnmobiles.

What reducing SC drone bays to a reasonable size *will* do is prevent piles of SCs in a fleet fight fielding hundreds of Ogre IIs, wave after wave, and using them to obliterate all subcaps on the field. I think this current behavior is dumb, and that supercaps shouldn't be able to prevail over subcap fleets without their own subcap support in fleet fights. Taking all their drones is totally unnecessary though.


Exactly this. The only reason CCP is removing the drone bays is same reasons titans/dreads are losing theirs: CCP hates drones and been trying to remove the drones from capitals since 2007. Each time players have been "quite upset" (to say the least). This time tho, CCP can disguise their drone-removal under the flag of 'capital revamp'.

The drone removals has nothing to do with actual gameplay, CCP just want less drones around. Probably for performance issues, but instead of being honest about it, they repeatedly keep trying to keep their reasons hidden and just blatantly try remove drones at every chance possible.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.
Evil Celeste
#1015 - 2011-10-11 12:28:31 UTC
Krimariol wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:
2 Thanatoi: 2b isk

1 Nyx: 20b isk
The realisation that cost is not a balancing factor: priceless.


But cost should be at least partly a balancing factor.


The last balancing factor.
Tbh, atm you are getting for that 20b much more, than you should be.
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1016 - 2011-10-11 12:28:57 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:
2 Thanatoi: 2b isk

1 Nyx: 20b isk
The realisation that cost is not a balancing factor: priceless.


Thanks for misconstruing my argument.

What I'm saying is, there's no reason to ever promote the purchasing of supercarriers if what you're after is the ability to do DPS with fighters. Why would an alliance spend 20b on a Nyx when it could buy 8-10 Thanatoi instead and come out with 4-5x the offensive capability?

People are throwing down huge sums of money for supercaps because of their fighter-bomber capabilities, as well as their ewar immunity and large tanks, not because they're excellent at killing subcaps (thats what titans are for ATM, lolololol). The EHP nerf will take away a good chunk of their tank, and FB are already useless against subcaps, so I'm not sure why people are complaining so loudly about SCs needing reduced fighter capability.
Kari Kari
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1017 - 2011-10-11 12:30:39 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 are you destroying the super capital community... are you going to allow for skillpoints that have no meaning in those ships to be placed else where? are you going to allow those ships to be put in stations and be reprocessed? I mean you totally destroyed the use of them... not only that but CCP needs to allow skillpoints to be moved and the ships to be reprocessed if they cannot be used with reg drones anymore. That's why people trained for those ships. pretty sad if you do not allow this.
Kari Kari
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1018 - 2011-10-11 12:31:50 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:
2 Thanatoi: 2b isk

1 Nyx: 20b isk
The realisation that cost is not a balancing factor: priceless.


Thanks for misconstruing my argument.

What I'm saying is, there's no reason to ever promote the purchasing of supercarriers if what you're after is the ability to do DPS with fighters. Why would an alliance spend 20b on a Nyx when it could buy 8-10 Thanatoi instead and come out with 4-5x the offensive capability?

People are throwing down huge sums of money for supercaps because of their fighter-bomber capabilities, as well as their ewar immunity and large tanks, not because they're excellent at killing subcaps (thats what titans are for ATM, lolololol). The EHP nerf will take away a good chunk of their tank, and FB are already useless against subcaps, so I'm not sure why people are complaining so loudly about SCs needing reduced fighter capability.



i cannot believe I am saying this but this Goon has valid points on this matter.
Dirk Tungsten
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1019 - 2011-10-11 12:32:01 UTC
Tokino Kaalakiota wrote:
1. I have briefly owned/flew a nyx on the character Lord's Servant. I owned and flew extensively 2 wyverns on separate occasion on the character Servant's Lord.

2. While Welpfleet -IS- an existing tactic, it is not the tactic I am referring to...I believe I specifically stated that it was in fact a tactic. I'm not sure where I said it wasn't a tactic.....

3. I count 36 BS on the wyvern km, not "60-70"...but simple math is too difficult for you I suppose. There are a total of 41 battleships on the ENTIRE battle report.

18 Capitals/Supers appear on the WIdawt side in that fight. I am fairly certain there were more actually there, but seeing as they killed very little, and logoffski'd not many showed up on the BR. 18, however stands as the only number able to be proved as there, so I stand corrected.

Irregardless, if 36 BS + mixed support can engage 6 supers with 12 capitals as backup and win without a significant loss (hictors/support don't really count....but 15 losses totalling about 700m for almost 30b isk killed) how can goons not lrn2eve and win with similar odds?

The tactics I refer to are dedicated neuting and smartbombing BS. RnK did a similar thing later with 3 triage carriers(2 for most of the fight) utilizing an understanding of game mechanics to force 4 SC + mixed support to logoff/die. Oh yeah..they also had around 11BS + a handful of support in this fight. BR can be found here http://failheap-challenge.com/showthread.php?229-Low-Sec-Empire/page4 9 posts down, or the first post by Lord Maldoror on that page with all the pictures.

That is only a simple 2:1 numbers advantage. On certain, *alternative* forums, a number I see getting tossed around is 500 v 100. If goons can bring a 5:1 advantage to the table, outside of the broken logoffski mechanic, why aren't you utterly dominating eve?

4. The whelpfleet is designed around cheap, high dps, easy to train for ships. You would be flying Tempests if you wanted any sort of actual neuting power/more dps(oh hey PL has done this), however, those cost quite a bit more and are less noobie-friendly. Hurricanes do all that you say, but the main point is their price/ease of training.

Everything I say is backed up by facts. As to goonswarm's ability to field supers, I have not seen nor heard of goonswarm fielding more than a dozen or at any one time. Even assuming you CAN field "dozens of supers at the drop of a hat" those supers are most likely inexperienced and lack confidence, unlike individuals who have used them on a regular basis.

Alas, I am not a current super owner, but I'm fairly certain that my understanding of game mechanics in relation to supers is quite a bit above your own.

-Tokino/Lords

PS-That BBCcode thing is driving me nuts too..as always the victor is :CCP: lol ;)


Goonswarm field 40+ supers/titans under a cyno jammer an still lose supers. Goons are fail and dont have ballz to use supers/titans thats why they have influenced the change in patch so they can lagg out systems again an have no contest in doing so. Pro tactics I think not.
Narrow minded people including ccp evidently say ohh who ever has the most supers/titans often claims the field. And how may I ask is this patch going to change that. It will be alot worse after the patch,the only thing this patch will change in that context is that supers/titans will only be counter dropped onto capital targets from the winter patch on, so who ever has the most supers/titans will still win in that scenario, they will rarely if ever be fielded equally especially after this patch.
CCP please wake up, stop listening to goons fail before you make eve a tradgedy. Tell you what make goons there own server where they can lagg out systems on there own with no opposition, they will be having fun, an allow all the deserving people of eve to have a functioning enviroment.
Zomg Panties
MOOLOAF INDUSTRIES
#1020 - 2011-10-11 12:32:57 UTC
Good job CCP on making a 15 billion dollar ship worth 500 mill, because a 10 man gang can now shut down a mothership in less than 2 minutes, as easy as it is to kill fighter bombers and fighters, mom's will never be able to defend themselves again, they arent even worth bringing to a supercap fight because all people have to do is tell their subcaps to start shooting enemy fighters, 10-15 minutes later the alliance with the biggest subcap fleet wins.

what this really does...

1) makes the carrier even more worthless than it already is as subcap blobs can alpha volley a carrier with 1 salvo it takes only 40 battleships to do this lol we cant even rat anymore trolololol

2) moms can no longer defend themselves/get away - once tackled 15bill down the hole - a 15 billion dollar ship shouldnt be able to be killed by 10 stealthbombers

3) moms have become glorified dreadnaughts (you remember when the only time we use to use them was when we sieged a pos?) oh wait moms cant do that anymore, we can attack stations yay!

4) shield supers are even more worthless than they already are particularly the hell

5) 5-6 months from now the new blobs will be 400 man titan fleets + outrageous numbers of subcaps

6) anyone who actually owns or just finished training for a supercap wasted 3 years of their eve life on something that is now more worthless than a dreadnaught

7) incomming faction battleship blobs (i predict mechariel and nightmare blobs in the hundreds) 40 nightmares can kill a carrier in less than 1 minute add 300 more and watch a nyx pop in under 15 seconds

8) greater lag than drones cause because of more missile and laser boats

9) cheering from 5 mill sp characters because they dont own and never will own a capital ship and don't understand how easy it already is to kill a mom i mean really lol, 20 man fleets can kill a nyx in 4 minutes i've seen it done in lowsec on more than 20 occasions...

---

you say it's too hard to kill a mom, I say its too easy especially on blob warefare

a ship that costs that much should never be killed by less than 30-40 ships it isnt fair to the time invested let alone the money invested by individuals and ALLIANCES!!!

making it this way is both unfair to the pilot who fronts the cost of the ship and the alliance that spends a whole month making it

you wanna make these nerfs fine then go ahead, be prepare to lose money a lot more people will quit eve because you are fixing **** that aint broke

you wanna make these changes than cut the cost in minerals to build the ships if my 15 billion dollar ship can be killed by a 10 man fleet than it should only be worth a 1bill imo, cause all it is now is a ship that can use only 25 fighters or bombers and has a high number of hitpoints...

---

i also suggest this to you herp derp derpity derp lets fix drone lag derp herp lets nerf sc

oh wait!!! how bout you fix the physic and graphics engine so that the server can support more than 400 people in a system?

hell World of Warcraft can have 1000 people in one location and their servers laugh at the pay load, I bet you it has nothing to do with the amount of money they paid on the hardware either *winky face*

fix your outdated stuff and maybe you would never of had these problems in the first place?

oh wait giving in to what 20 thousand noobs in highsec want is easier duhhhh i forgot haha silly me we arent trying to fix the actual cause of the problem we are making a short term fix that will make it worse later, i forgot how ccp fixes things silly me ill just shut up now