These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dirk Tungsten
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1081 - 2011-10-11 13:20:19 UTC
Evil Celeste wrote:
Dirk Tungsten wrote:
Evil Celeste wrote:
Dirk Tungsten wrote:
Evil Celeste wrote:
Yes, this is exactly the thing most people are against - ability to fend of subcaps. Supercaps should not be able to do it easily, you should have support fleet for that.

If you gave them just "few" drones, with remote ecm bursts, neuts and "few" drones a squad of supercaps could completely clear floor with bunch of hics that are hoping to keep at least 1 or 2 of them.

Thats why Im for completely removing fighters from scs.


lol some people just are clueless. After this patch a single dictor and bunch of frigits will be able to over a period of time able to kill a super/titan, its just insainly stupid this whole new dynamic in the winter patch.


And this is how exactly it should be!
Supercarriers must have their support fleet, if they are going solo, they deserve to die.


Pure stupidness.


If you are looking for solopwnmobile yes. If you are loking for balanced pvp enviroment with alot of variety, then its best way.


Is best way lol, your insaine, a bunch of fail in shield tanked blaster prophecys with a dictor are able to kill a super after this patch, an the super is unable to do anything about it. If you dont have a dynamic well structured fleet compisition and good plan you neither deserve to kill a super/titan or should be able to. This patch is carebearing it down, so nubs in there fail mishmash fleets can down supers/titans. Supers/titans wont be fielded solo, an they wont be fielded in a system for more time than it takes them to jump out again after this patch. Supers/titans will purely be used to counter drop a capital target or lesser number of capital targets, wich yet again defeats the purpose of this patch supposedly being able to balance out super/titan fleet fights. Will do completely the opposite.
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#1082 - 2011-10-11 13:21:26 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:


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.

-snip-


There's a lot of talk of nerfing fighters, eg, the above, which seems to state that carriers must use fighters versus BC's (read: drakes). I don't really care about people who fly drakes, cause they can DIAF for being lazy, but the argument "if you pack shield extenders on a BC expect to get smacked" is pretty lame. Carriers can use drones, and 10 ogre II's are pretty nasty to anything which moves slower than 800m/s.

I however, support carriers using fighters. Sudden Buggery lives in a wormhole, and carriers are one of the few capital ships you get to play with in w-space on a regular basis. Nerfing the sig resolution on fighters may have consequences for w-space dwellers who use them as ISK-generating machines (capital escalations or not) if you are unable to hit sleeper BS...or the T3/HAC gang which will inevitably try taking you down when you bork up your d-scan.

As for dreads in w-space, removing the drone bays will probably inconvenience the guys who own Moros' in low-end wormholes and use them for ratting. Luls, I say. Billion ISk wasted. For the guys in C5/C6's you would have support to web the BS down anyway so nerfing drones won't hurt them too much, and 5 minute siege timers will reduce the risk of being dropped significantly. So, all in all, a good move CCP.

But still, without fighters, carriers will suffer incredibly in w-space. What's the point of them, then? You need the DPS of fighters, you spent the time and ISk and took the risk (especially in low-end w-space where its a stranded asset) and having fighters removed would be a kick in the balls.

That said, I fully support the extendable 15 minute aggro timer. I've lost a couple of cap kills to chickenshiz riitards pulling a logoffski when pointed by a handful of BS/BC's. This way, you'll have to fight to the death, as it should be.
Ciar Meara
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1083 - 2011-10-11 13:25:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Ciar Meara
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 just give the Carrier an skill boost that will lower the fighter sig per level. up to 200-300. That would keep the supercarrier fighters nerfed somewhat and would give the carrier a better stat. That way you can also decide just how much of a boost you'll be willing to give the carrier fighters.

PS: I just love the name of a "super dreadnought" it has a ring to it, I'd love to CCP design one (just not a sansha turdy one)

- [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow]

Aldarean
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1084 - 2011-10-11 13:26:36 UTC
Kahrnar wrote:
Removing drones period from Supercarriers just made them a huge hunk of scrap metal...I guess the next thing to do would be to remove the ability to have ammo in your cargohold...just load guns and when ur done ur done.



No it didnt they just made them more in role with there design.

Your not talking about defensive capabilities here. You talking about Offensive capabilites.

A SC should have Defensive capabilities against Sub-cap. It shouldnt have offensive capailities.

Increasing local tanking ability could rebalance
Evil Celeste
#1085 - 2011-10-11 13:27:14 UTC
Dirk Tungsten wrote:
Evil Celeste wrote:
If you are looking for solopwnmobile yes. If you are loking for balanced pvp enviroment with alot of variety, then its best way.


Is best way lol, your insaine, a bunch of fail in shield tanked blaster prophecys with a dictor are able to kill a super after this patch, an the super is unable to do anything about it. If you dont have a dynamic well structured fleet compisition and good plan you neither deserve to kill a super/titan or should be able to. This patch is carebearing it down, so nubs in there fail mishmash fleets can down supers/titans. Supers/titans wont be fielded solo, an they wont be fielded in a system for more time than it takes them to jump out again after this patch. Supers/titans will purely be used to counter drop a capital target or lesser number of capital targets, wich yet again defeats the purpose of this patch supposedly being able to balance out super/titan fleet fights. Will do completely the opposite.


Umad? I know it hurts when you have to grind your isk for solopwmobile by your own and then after it turns to be "fleet ship", but deal with it. Its better for balance and pvp enviroment. But tbh supercaps deserved much bigger hit.
Svennig
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1086 - 2011-10-11 13:27:47 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.


Have my babies. This is a proper two-way dialog between the players and CCP. I'm.. This is brilliant. If I go to fanfest you're not paying for a drink the entire ******* time, do you hear me?
Dirk Tungsten
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1087 - 2011-10-11 13:30:51 UTC
Evil Celeste wrote:
Dirk Tungsten wrote:
Evil Celeste wrote:
If you are looking for solopwnmobile yes. If you are loking for balanced pvp enviroment with alot of variety, then its best way.


Is best way lol, your insaine, a bunch of fail in shield tanked blaster prophecys with a dictor are able to kill a super after this patch, an the super is unable to do anything about it. If you dont have a dynamic well structured fleet compisition and good plan you neither deserve to kill a super/titan or should be able to. This patch is carebearing it down, so nubs in there fail mishmash fleets can down supers/titans. Supers/titans wont be fielded solo, an they wont be fielded in a system for more time than it takes them to jump out again after this patch. Supers/titans will purely be used to counter drop a capital target or lesser number of capital targets, wich yet again defeats the purpose of this patch supposedly being able to balance out super/titan fleet fights. Will do completely the opposite.


Umad? I know it hurts when you have to grind your isk for solopwmobile by your own and then after it turns to be "fleet ship", but deal with it. Its better for balance and pvp enviroment. But tbh supercaps deserved much bigger hit.


ROFL@U your a subcap only capable character, you have no intentions of having a balanced enviroment just as long as the peice of junk you fly wich will cost you 30mill will be able to kill a super worth in excess of 20bill. This my simple minded friend is biased utter rubbish.
Furb Killer
#1088 - 2011-10-11 13:32:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Furb Killer
NCDOT tears best tears (dont worry RaidenDOT, yours are second).

Quote:
. If you dont have a dynamic well structured fleet compisition and good plan you neither deserve to kill a super/titan or should be able to. This patch is carebearing it down, so nubs in there fail mishmash fleets can down supers/titans.

Let me fix this one for you:

Quote:
. If you dont have a dynamic well structured fleet compisition and good plan you dont deserve to have a super/titan. This patch is carebearing it up, so nubs in there fail supers/titans cant down everything that moves.



Seriously it is hilarious that you complain in the same sentence that eve is carebearing it down, and that you need support for your supers. Only carebearing it down is when you get a solopwnmobile because you carebeared alot (or let a bot do it for you).


Quote:
ROFL@U your a subcap only capable character, you have no intentions of having a balanced enviroment just as long as the peice of junk you fly wich will cost you 30mill will be able to kill a super worth in excess of 20bill. This my simple minded friend is biased utter rubbish.

If you are seriously afraid your supercap will be solod by a ship costing 30M, then it says more about how high you consider your own skill (pretty low) than the balance of the environment. Really if you let that happen (so you are solod by a dictor, which has been proven before is pretty much impossible) there is only one nub here.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#1089 - 2011-10-11 13:32:50 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Anile8er wrote:
Otrovakruf wrote:
There is one rule that everybody, except a few, seems to have forgotten!
The most important rule of all!

If you can't afford to loose it, don't fly it!

and that goes for all ship classes and pilots. So stop complaining about you 80-120bil Titan or 20 something bil SC.

Your playing eve, Ships die, they are still gonna be hard to kill, but atleast we small guys have a chance to kill you now.

Good job CCP


I can afford to loose my Nyx... thats why i use it. It's more that CCP is making my Nyx useless other than killing caps, and more so useless to me because I am not in a giant blob alliance, and I cant change into another ship.

Oh no! you'll be forced to use the supercarrier to do what it was originally designed to do! the horror! the horror!


There was no "original intention", and if we're talking about the past, smaller entities with superior SP/ships (usually t2 hulls, nano-frigs and hacs spring to mind, also pirate-implanted solo bs) used to be able to fight bigger entities/blobs.

The current situation in EVE is that the blob almost always wins (lag and server issues could apply, but the general rule of thumb is numbers and/or supers: you win). These suggested changes by CCP will not change that scenario, in fact it will just reinforce it.

So if you want to argue that things should be "as intended" or they were "originally", we need to bring back a situation where SP and expensive hulls actually matters. Where MC and BoB's capital power allowed them to take most of nullsec even tho they fought larger blobs (ASCN, NC, etc). Where Burn Eden, PL, Triumviruate etc could terrorize big entities by superior tactics/skills/shiptypes.

EVE now is just a blob game with zero skill, zero return on investment, and zero incentitives to actually fight - and every incentitive to join the massive blob. It's everything this game wasn't, and the "dangerous" space, the skills/tactics element, the 'thinking out of the box' (to use shiptypes the ways they were NOT intended or assumed they would) has almost completely gone. These supercap changes, time dilation, etc, it's all just more blob incentitives.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1090 - 2011-10-11 13:33:10 UTC
Dirk Tungsten wrote:
you have no intentions of having a balanced enviroment just as long as the peice of junk you fly wich will cost you 30mill will be able to kill a super worth in excess of 20bill. This my simple minded friend is biased utter rubbish.
For one, no, that is not what he intends.
For another, even if he did, it would not negate having a balanced environment.
Dray
Hun-Select
#1091 - 2011-10-11 13:34:06 UTC
Mar Drakar wrote:
That logofski button... they took it away... :D

and then all was silent


This, a thousand times this.

What about gate jump logoffski?
Lyrrashae
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#1092 - 2011-10-11 13:34:50 UTC
Dirk Tungsten wrote:


Is best way lol, your insaine, a bunch of fail in shield tanked blaster prophecys with a dictor are able to kill a super after this patch, an the super is unable to do anything about it. If you dont have a dynamic well structured fleet compisition and good plan you neither deserve to kill a super/titan or should be able to. This patch is carebearing it down, so nubs in there fail mishmash fleets can down supers/titans. Supers/titans wont be fielded solo, an they wont be fielded in a system for more time than it takes them to jump out again after this patch. Supers/titans will purely be used to counter drop a capital target or lesser number of capital targets, wich yet again defeats the purpose of this patch supposedly being able to balance out super/titan fleet fights. Will do completely the opposite.


^^ (He mad, i'n't he?.../Me grins cheekilyTwisted)

Ni.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1093 - 2011-10-11 13:34:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Dray wrote:
Mar Drakar wrote:
That logofski button... they took it away... :D

and then all was silent
This, a thousand times this.

What about gate jump logoffski?
If you can't get some aggro in before he logs, there's no difference (and, of course, when done right, gate logoffski won't let you do that).
Liranan
H A V O C Industrial
Fraternity.
#1094 - 2011-10-11 13:35:03 UTC
Pesadel0 wrote:
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.




You missed the entire Nozh affair? You missed the threadnoughts about how CCP had destroyed an idea everyone, bar a few devs, had wanted? Why don't you go back and read up on it all, before you start pointing fingers of blame?

http://www.youtube.com/user/zeitgeistmovie?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/23/Lio3n66bwOo This shit's got to go - Jacque Fresco

Evil Celeste
#1095 - 2011-10-11 13:35:57 UTC
Dirk Tungsten wrote:
Evil Celeste wrote:
Dirk Tungsten wrote:
Evil Celeste wrote:
If you are looking for solopwnmobile yes. If you are loking for balanced pvp enviroment with alot of variety, then its best way.


Is best way lol, your insaine, a bunch of fail in shield tanked blaster prophecys with a dictor are able to kill a super after this patch, an the super is unable to do anything about it. If you dont have a dynamic well structured fleet compisition and good plan you neither deserve to kill a super/titan or should be able to. This patch is carebearing it down, so nubs in there fail mishmash fleets can down supers/titans. Supers/titans wont be fielded solo, an they wont be fielded in a system for more time than it takes them to jump out again after this patch. Supers/titans will purely be used to counter drop a capital target or lesser number of capital targets, wich yet again defeats the purpose of this patch supposedly being able to balance out super/titan fleet fights. Will do completely the opposite.


Umad? I know it hurts when you have to grind your isk for solopwmobile by your own and then after it turns to be "fleet ship", but deal with it. Its better for balance and pvp enviroment. But tbh supercaps deserved much bigger hit.


ROFL@U your a subcap only capable character, you have no intentions of having a balanced enviroment just as long as the peice of junk you fly wich will cost you 30mill will be able to kill a super worth in excess of 20bill. This my simple minded friend is biased utter rubbish.


This is actually boosting tengu/legion character and despite that i want ganglinks working only on grid. Just for balance sake. Btw its you who is simple minded. You just fly "solopwnmobile" you dont want to lose and you dont care about balance and variety in pvp at all.
Kahrnar
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1096 - 2011-10-11 13:37:42 UTC
Aldarean wrote:
Kahrnar wrote:
Removing drones period from Supercarriers just made them a huge hunk of scrap metal...I guess the next thing to do would be to remove the ability to have ammo in your cargohold...just load guns and when ur done ur done.



No it didnt they just made them more in role with there design.

Your not talking about defensive capabilities here. You talking about Offensive capabilites.

A SC should have Defensive capabilities against Sub-cap. It shouldnt have offensive capailities.

Increasing local tanking ability could rebalance



So when your fighters are gone, the fight is over....which should take a small gang about 30 seconds to do...then they can sit there and plug away til you die...its the same as running out of ammo...a ship with NO offence is useless...lol
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1097 - 2011-10-11 13:38:02 UTC
Liranan wrote:
You missed the entire Nozh affair? You missed the threadnoughts about how CCP had destroyed an idea everyone, bar a few devs, had wanted? Why don't you go back and read up on it all, before you start pointing fingers of blame?
For those who don't remember: Nozh was the guy who started messing around with reasonably acceptable numbers in every direction imaginable, and who, when it was pointed out to him that things wouldn't work the way he envisioned them, suggested using TPs on ewar-immune ships…
Evil Celeste
#1098 - 2011-10-11 13:38:20 UTC
Tippia wrote:
For one, no, that is not what he intends.

False. Its exactly what i want.

Ratnose Banker
Pink Sockers
#1099 - 2011-10-11 13:38:24 UTC
Make the siege module able to have a script fitted which makes it do less dps in siege but higher tracking. Would be great imo.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1100 - 2011-10-11 13:40:48 UTC
Evil Celeste wrote:
Tippia wrote:
For one, no, that is not what he intends.
False. Its exactly what i want.
Kill a SC in a single Drake? Because that's what he claims that you want…