These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1021 - 2011-10-11 12:33:09 UTC
Misanth wrote:
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.


I don't know that its due to a conspiracy theory-- if they wanted to reduce drone counts for performance reasons, the easiest thing to do would be to leave carriers / SCs with 5 drones each and give them a corresponding bonus to drone damage and hitpoints to make them functionally equal to ten or twenty drones with a fraction of the performance cost.
Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
#1022 - 2011-10-11 12:33:53 UTC
Karim alRashid wrote:
Aldarean wrote:

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


QFT




fixed, fighters are an anti bs drone. other wise a carrier has no defence against a bs. i guess it could rep the bs while the bs shoots it.

fighters are fine the way they are

OMG when can i get a pic here
Evil Celeste
#1023 - 2011-10-11 12:34:38 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.


If people dont care about their anti subcap capability, why are they whining so much about scs losing it?
Dirk Tungsten
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1024 - 2011-10-11 12:35:13 UTC
Dirk Tungsten wrote:
Dirk Tungsten wrote:
Ok heres the bread and the butter of things.

Thers are by all means alot of pros that will mean fleet fights could be more Ballz deep coming from the patch, but alot of crutial badly influenced cons.
The loggoff timer relooping, yes a good idea, but why introduce 20% decrease in shield/armor/structure aswell. This is giving supers/titans relatively no chance. with the aggro relooping, should keep the stats tank wise for supers/titans, but maybe balance out what currently is there. For instance Aeon should have less HP as has an isaine tank, wyvern and Nyx should tank wise be relatively unchanged. The Poor Hel should get a buff. Make it competitive.

DDs on titans should be able to hit BSs if not give them a slight tracking bonus so they are at least able to hit BSs well and have some sort of a tank lol

It seems ccp are carebearing up eve for newer players or alot of the subcap players. What they are failing to realise is that this patch will be a tradgedy for a few of those crutial points. Alot of other vets are thinking of hanging up there boots when this patch is released.

It seems heirachy has been too influenced by certain GMs CSMs that revolve around fountian region,we all know who they are. What this patch allows is certain entities that live in fountian (cough cough) to use mass blob fleets of 2000+ again and lagg out systems. There will be no counter to this after the patch. What this patch is going to allow is lagg tactics and mass 2000+ man fleets to rule eve over better organised,structured & skilled alliances. Its basically allowing a bunch of noobs with no structure in there fleet to be successful. Carebearing it down. If you want to kill a titan/super then an aggressing fleet should at least have a well thought through structure an plan to there fleet, they do not deserve and should not expect to kill any supers/titans unless that is implemented.

When alot of the narrow minded people out there eventually realise what this patch will do, the pros from this patch will be massively overlooked, as this will not balance things, its only going to be putting the weight on the other end of the scales.


Mark my words im right almost all the time =)


How is the looping aggro timer going to affect people who Disconnect from no fualt of there own, are they also suppose to lose there supers from relooping aggro timers. I mean its a good idea if there is measures in place to make sure people who disconnect are not unjustly affected.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1025 - 2011-10-11 12:35:27 UTC
Kari Kari wrote:
Why are you destroying the super capital community...


There's no such thing as "the supercapital community" just so you know.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Crucis Cassiopeiae
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1026 - 2011-10-11 12:36:24 UTC
Tippia 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.
Tbh, the problem is more that there are some pretty grave imbalances between the different fighters — most notably that the close-orbiting ones do not have the tracking to support their own orbits (which sounds familiar somehow… reminds me of a different weapon system that begins with a “b”).

If that part was adjusted, you could probably go ahead with the proposed change and not do all that much damage to standard carriers. Yes, average DPS would be down by ~30% against battleships, but that still leaves them very capable, and if need be you could always balance that out with a sig res skill bonus.



This Attention

Vote Issler Dainze for CSM7! http://community.eveonline.com/council/voting/Vote.asp?c=470 
Dr 0wnage
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1027 - 2011-10-11 12:38:12 UTC
Just Another Toon 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.



nice back track... i say it again..carriers are not supposed to be offensive ships!! you bowing to the blobby carrier pilots YET AGAIN!!!! You know what why dont you just scrap the whole fecking idea!


Problem is we need the carrier to fill 2 specific roles...

1. as a logistical platform, specifically triage, to rep the fleet and be the hero.
2. to act as anti-sub support. a group of battle carriers w/ drone links and tackle can mess up a bs fleet, especially w/ triage support.

Problem is the carrier in its current form can't really do both, nor should it, as it would be op for its price tag. It may soon be time (once the current balance is tuned a bit) to introduce T2 "battle" carriers. Consider how a carrier w/ t2 resists that does maybe 200% more damage with fighters while in "siege" would fit into our capital battlefield.
Aldarean
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1028 - 2011-10-11 12:39:03 UTC
Smoking Blunts wrote:
Karim alRashid wrote:
Aldarean wrote:

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


QFT




fixed, fighters are an anti bs drone. other wise a carrier has no defence against a bs. i guess it could rep the bs while the bs shoots it.

fighters are fine the way they are



This wasnt to say that Fighter would be useless against BS. The same as Meduim are not useless against Frigates/Destoyers, and heavies are not useless against cruisers.

But the main source of DPS on a ship should be restricted to a class of drone.
Lorna Sicling
Eire Engineers
Pandemic Horde
#1029 - 2011-10-11 12:40:13 UTC
Good news generally. I agree with the "no remote sensor boosting" comments, but generally if you can afford a ship costing tens of billions, you should have enough friends around to help you defend it against those who you attack or who choose to attack you.

The US Navy would not send a carriers out on their own, but send a significant support fleet - these "adjustments" encourage this.

I do, however, think that maybe the fighter scan resolution nerf was a bit too much but time will, of course, tell.

Thank you CCP - keep the Devblogs flowing!

Industrialist - currently renting in null sec.

Writer of the blog "A Scientist's Life in Eve" - proud member of the Eve Blog Pack
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1030 - 2011-10-11 12:40:19 UTC
Dirk Tungsten wrote:
How is the looping aggro timer going to affect people who Disconnect from no fualt of there own, are they also suppose to lose there supers from relooping aggro timers. I mean its a good idea if there is measures in place to make sure people who disconnect are not unjustly affected.


Competent FCs already have to account for crashing fleet members and take precautions, so it'll affect them in much the same way as it does now.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Evil Celeste
#1031 - 2011-10-11 12:41:25 UTC
Smoking Blunts wrote:
fixed, fighters are an anti bs drone. other wise a carrier has no defence against a bs. i guess it could rep the bs while the bs shoots it.
fighters are fine the way they are


Weird, you are saying here, that fighters are anti bs weapon here, and yet you are against their signature resolution reduction. Do you realize, that fighters now hit cruisers and bcs well?

Only way to avoid their dps in cruiser is go faster than them.
Hm, or better, sit still. Try sitting still in 20-25k ehp cruiser in the middle of the fight.
Robert Lefcourt
BigPoppaMonkeys
E.B.O.L.A.
#1032 - 2011-10-11 12:42:13 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?


Because for every Thana, you'll need a Pilot to sit in it.

hth
Dirk Tungsten
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1033 - 2011-10-11 12:42:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirk Tungsten
ccp & there close borthers goons will officially be labeled for ruining eve, it was abit of a mess before, but after this patch its going to be up s.h.i.t. creek

Thing is with the fighters, they take a long time to travel to a target, so that should be more than enough of a natural penalty, they dont need to be tampered with. Hell the whole dynamic of supercapitals will have to be changed again after this patch this winter unless ccp/goons want this to be the beginning of the end for eve. Wich none of us want, but what is happening in this up an coming patch. Pure stupidness.
Pesadel0
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1034 - 2011-10-11 12:43:47 UTC
Evil Celeste wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:
fixed, fighters are an anti bs drone. other wise a carrier has no defence against a bs. i guess it could rep the bs while the bs shoots it.
fighters are fine the way they are


Weird, you are saying here, that fighters are anti bs weapon here, and yet you are against their signature resolution reduction. Do you realize, that fighters now hit cruisers and bcs well?

Only way to avoid their dps in cruiser is go faster than them.
Hm, or better, sit still. Try sitting still in 20-25k ehp cruiser in the middle of the fight.



or , warp out?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1035 - 2011-10-11 12:44:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Krimariol wrote:
But cost should be at least partly a balancing factor.
No.
Cost should at most be the result of the balancing factors — it should never be a factor itself. At best, it's an effect, not a cause. In many cases (especially in a dynamic economy), it's not even that.
Pesadel0 wrote:
I dont think you get it.
I get that cost is not a balancing factor. That's all there is to get.
Ganthrithor wrote:
Thanks for misconstruing my argument.
You're welcome. Big smile
All I'm doing is pointing out that cost is not a factor in determining the power of a ship. Whether another ship gets more power for less money is entirely irrelevant — what matters is whether the ships in question gets the respective ranges of abilities they are meant to have.
Quote:
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?
Because people is not an infinite commodity and because marginal benefits in this game tend to come at huge surcharges. Want to save one person or reassign one slot in the fleet for something else to increase your overall capability? Well… that's going to cost you.
Quote:
I'm not sure why people are complaining so loudly about SCs needing reduced fighter capability.
Because it makes them too good against subcaps.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#1036 - 2011-10-11 12:44:08 UTC
Dirk Tungsten wrote:


How is the looping aggro timer going to affect people who Disconnect from no fualt of there own, are they also suppose to lose there supers from relooping aggro timers. I mean its a good idea if there is measures in place to make sure people who disconnect are not unjustly affected.


Anybody who has thought about game balance for more than 5 minutes should realize a disconnect can be simulated by unplugging a network cable or just shutting the power off on their router/modem/PC.

There is no difference between a logoff and a disconnect.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Dirk Tungsten
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1037 - 2011-10-11 12:47:21 UTC
War Kitten wrote:
Dirk Tungsten wrote:


How is the looping aggro timer going to affect people who Disconnect from no fualt of there own, are they also suppose to lose there supers from relooping aggro timers. I mean its a good idea if there is measures in place to make sure people who disconnect are not unjustly affected.


Anybody who has thought about game balance for more than 5 minutes should realize a disconnect can be simulated by unplugging a network cable or just shutting the power off on their router/modem/PC.

There is no difference between a logoff and a disconnect.


Lol thats the thing you can be right in a context, but what about the large majority of people who disconnect due to game lagg or other known issues, according to you they are to suffer. Not words of wisedom at all.
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1038 - 2011-10-11 12:47:26 UTC
Evil Celeste wrote:
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.


If people dont care about their anti subcap capability, why are they whining so much about scs losing it?


I don't think anyone is whining about taking away SCs ability to field infinite waves of drones. I think most people agree that it's dumb and pretty imbalanced. What they're whining about is *totally* removing their ability to fend off subcaps. There's no way that you can honestly argue that a supercarrier being able to field a couple of flights of normal drones (just like a Dominix can) is overpowered.

By that logic, it is unfair and unbalanced to allow battleships to have drones. After all, battleship-sized turrets are designed to hit targets that are BC-sized and larger-- obviously allowing them to carry Warrior IIs makes them overpowered because it lets them kill frigates, which is not their "job" in a fleet fight.

...Except that fielding a few light drones *doesn't* make battleships overpowered frigate-death spewers. It gives them a *minimal* capacity to defend themselves against smaller ships that are not their primary targets. It's not unfair in the slightest. Without the ability to carry drones, BS gangs would easily find themselves perma-tackled (if not outright killed) by frigates. I think it stands to reason that Supercarriers should also be allowed some minimal ability to fend off smaller ships, even if that isn't their primary purpose.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1039 - 2011-10-11 12:47:49 UTC
Dirk Tungsten wrote:
How is the looping aggro timer going to affect people who Disconnect from no fualt of there own, are they also suppose to lose there supers from relooping aggro timers
They're going to reconnect and keep fighting with the aggro timers they already had and either win the fight (at which point the timer no longer matters), be able to deaggress and escape (timer no longer matters), or die (timer only matters if they try to logoffski).
Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
#1040 - 2011-10-11 12:48:07 UTC
Aldarean wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:
Karim alRashid wrote:
Aldarean wrote:

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


QFT




fixed, fighters are an anti bs drone. other wise a carrier has no defence against a bs. i guess it could rep the bs while the bs shoots it.

fighters are fine the way they are



This wasnt to say that Fighter would be useless against BS. The same as Meduim are not useless against Frigates/Destoyers, and heavies are not useless against cruisers.

But the main source of DPS on a ship should be restricted to a class of drone.


your right, fighters being cruiser sized and shoudl have max dps applied on bs's up. there dps on caps is laughible at best. for caps there are fighter bombers. which is actually balanced

OMG when can i get a pic here