These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Alex Stampede
ImperiaI Federation
Goonswarm Federation
#1161 - 2011-10-11 14:35:55 UTC
Rico Minali wrote:
.... Can we have killmails for self destructed ships too please? ......
<-- this

and can we have a killmails of self destructed ships inside a camped pos ?

*lol*

:)

ty
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1162 - 2011-10-11 14:36:11 UTC
Velin Dhal wrote:
You know what I didn't do ? Cry and complain because someone has a better ship than me. I realized from day 1 that there are always going to be people in this game with more than I have.
Too bad. What you should have realised is that there is no “better ship” because of paper-scissors-rock balancing, and that the moment one ship is universally “better” it is by very definition broken.

You learned the wrong lesson, and now you're having issues with the exam…
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1163 - 2011-10-11 14:36:12 UTC
Ztrain wrote:

Don't know don't care. After reading the cap ship nurf blog I have reacquired 8.7 gig of HD space for more useful purposes.


I guess you could say that Ztrain has left Zstation

HEYOOOOOOOO

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Casey CIA
Brute Force Solutions.
#1164 - 2011-10-11 14:36:16 UTC
Bloody Wench wrote:


From someone with less than 2 days left on fighters 5 I thank you! A LOT


Hah, I am in the same boat.... I was like, damnit well that was pointless
iulixxi
EVE-RO
Goonswarm Federation
#1165 - 2011-10-11 14:37:54 UTC  |  Edited by: iulixxi
Misanth wrote:
Already posted here twice, how I killed six Fighters for a Nyx while I was alone in a Nighthawk. Somehow I wish I had frapsed it, would've been awsome to post that as a counter-argument in this thread. It might be because I'm a super-pilot myself, but when you know how Fighters function you can easily kite them around and thus completely neglegt their damage output.

Since people are being stubborn and-/or stupid, I'll give a hint: they're slow and not very agile. If you have enough speed/maneuverability, especially combined with multiple on-grid bookmarks or objects to warp to, it's not even hard to "tank" 20 Fighters in a semi-decent BC. I reccon a BS would have alot more issues tho, unless a Machariel, you'd be too slow and not agile enough. But there's the rock/scissor/paper, and the TL;DR is that my solo BC-hull was tanking a Nyx' Fighters perfectly fine. Obviously I stayed out of neut/pointrange, I could not point him anyway so even less reason to do.



I agree with you on this on but you are missing a very important factor. Your example is 1 vs 1 scenario … I wild love to see how you are dogging 5 fighters with another 4.000 FB (200 SC) on grid … Have you tried it?

What happens to a lone super after the nerf? – Same thing that is happening now to a lone super: it dies. This changes dramatically when you scale the scenario …

My 2 cents ...
E
Karim alRashid
Starboard.
#1166 - 2011-10-11 14:38:34 UTC
Smoking Blunts wrote:

a carrier with t2 ogre and maxed skills does 630 dps. not enough to kill a bs
wardens is 450 dps, im tickling a bs
fighters is 1250 dps im killing it at last


First, are you sure you calcs are alright, e.g. I get 950dps for 15 Ogre IIs, not 630 like you.

Second, how do you define "enough to kill a BS". I have surely killed BS with a ship doing less than 200dps before resists, so a statement "630 dps, not enough to kill a bs" is puzzling at best.

Third, do you think also that carriers are unable to defend themselves, for example, against frigates,
because, "241 dps is not enough to kill a frigate"? (that, btw, is 15 Warrior IIs).

Pain is weakness leaving the body http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#1167 - 2011-10-11 14:38:38 UTC
Kari Kari wrote:
Velin Dhal wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Stealthiest wrote:
How about a rename and some resizing. A super carrier that is not a carrier, but is the same size as a carrier?

As a 2 titan, 1 mS owner I say bout f**king time for most of this, But no dd on Sub-caps at all? No drones on a Super carrier?

I mean really!!!!!



Yes, really. DDing frigates and cruisers is bullshit and you know it.


How is it bullshit ? Sorry that my 30+ billion isk ship that I had to wait like half a year to build and took me 4 years of training to get in can instantly destroy your 10 cent frigate. I mean seriously, what am I thinking its so unfair of me. Why would I ever assume that time and money could buy power in a game running on a capitalist economy ? To make me even more of a bad guy, why would I assume that my hard earned money and dedicated skill training would give me the right to fly ships untouchable by someone with less skills and dedication than me ?

I'm so ashamed of myself



I must say this is pure right on the dot for all super capital players. CCP you need to look at this post and understand frustrations by our community the super capital community. Bowing down to guys who fly battlecruisers and frigates and swarms and did not have the patience or the time and dedication to train for those super capitals in game. Thank you for wasting players time to train these ships and destroy as a whole a community that was over a years worth of training. CCP you fail!


The problem you're facing is that you both argue the wrong way. Arguing that money > all is not a way to balance a game. The proper way to address CCP/this issue would be to highlight how it's incredibly narrow-minded the way this game is developing now: it's all favouring blobs, and all game balance changes are reflecting on blobs. Nullsec and sov warfare has been the outspoken endgame since.. well as long as I remember actually, so it's not surprising CCP want to balance the game around that, and promote that gameplay. What is odd tho, is how they are making it increasingly less appealing to go to null, and how it will only be for blobs.

I.e., balancing ships around what fleetmates you are supposed to have = pigeonholing playerbase into a game/role they might not want to play. There's alot of people (me included) who live in null and don't care about sov warfare. I don't shoot structures, I don't want massive fleets, and I don't mind facing blobs - I took the deliberate choice to fight guerilla "man vs machine". That's fine. But when CCP is changing my ships to force me to join the blobs, they have suddenly changed the essence of EVE (the sandbox) into a game that tell us how to play. That's against the very nature of the core mechanics, the history, and the description of this game. That's what you should highlight, not the isk argument.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.
Evil Celeste
#1168 - 2011-10-11 14:38:49 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Ztrain wrote:

Don't know don't care. After reading the cap ship nurf blog I have reacquired 8.7 gig of HD space for more useful purposes.


I guess you could say that Ztrain has left Zstation

HEYOOOOOOOO


Lol
Velin Dhal
Zeonic CG
#1169 - 2011-10-11 14:41:59 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Velin Dhal wrote:
You know what I didn't do ? Cry and complain because someone has a better ship than me. I realized from day 1 that there are always going to be people in this game with more than I have.
Too bad. What you should have realised is that there is no “better ship” because of paper-scissors-rock balancing, and that the moment one ship is universally “better” it is by very definition broken.

You learned the wrong lesson, and now you're having issues with the exam…


They aren't universally better. There are many ships in the game that can kill them. Fleet comp is the all important here. I've watched 6 Supers have to bail on a fight because a 60-70 T2 cruiser gang would have ended up winning the fight. So anyone here crying about Caps being OP obviously has never used them in combat.

They aren't invincible and if you aren't bringing enough to kill them or aren't bringing the right fleet comp(and I don't mean more supers than the other guy) then that is your problem. Not the problem of someone sitting in a Cap ship.
Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
#1170 - 2011-10-11 14:43:03 UTC
Karim alRashid wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:

a carrier with t2 ogre and maxed skills does 630 dps. not enough to kill a bs
wardens is 450 dps, im tickling a bs
fighters is 1250 dps im killing it at last


First, are you sure you calcs are alright, e.g. I get 950dps for 15 Ogre IIs, not 630 like you.

Second, how do you define "enough to kill a BS". I have surely killed BS with a ship doing less than 200dps before resists, so a statement "630 dps, not enough to kill a bs" is puzzling at best.

Third, do you think also that carriers are unable to defend themselves, for example, against frigates,
because, "241 dps is not enough to kill a frigate"? (that, btw, is 15 Warrior IIs).


i was just using skills no dcu, its rare yourll see carriers with them unless there ratting ofc

OMG when can i get a pic here
Vile rat
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1171 - 2011-10-11 14:43:32 UTC
Supercarriers were originally ships that were a modest increase over regular carriers and grotesquely priced as to be an end game ego ship. They were neat and something you pointed at "ooh look at that!" but not strategically important. Then they were improved dramatically and in doing so they became extremely popular, but also destabilizing. They evolved from being something that was a nice ego booster "Look at what we can make and field!" to something that was a critically important part of 0.0 warfare. Things reached a point where you simply could not compete on any appreciable level unless you fielded a large blob of these damn things and it is strangling the game. The rush to field supercaps fueled black market ISK dealing because people who used to show up and do things in dreads/carriers (battleships) no longer felt useful in the game and rushed to get a supercap by any means necessary.

This has been destructive to the game and the focus on supercaps being the end game content instead of one aspect of end game content had to be stopped. I believe these changes will make it so supercaps are still useful, but not the deciding factor in 0.0 combat. To be successful you must field a balanced fleet and if you can field a supercap fleet in addition to a balanced fleet you will be able to swing your super-dongs around just like you used to, but with a lot more caution.

And titans? They were garbage from the first iteration. They were a dumb idea, poorly implemented, and now they are still a dumb idea but slightly more killable. I would have loved to see some attention to titan gun tracking as well but this is a good first step towards bringing us back from a game where only the rich need apply.

Sigras
Conglomo
#1172 - 2011-10-11 14:44:42 UTC
Casey CIA wrote:
Bloody Wench wrote:


From someone with less than 2 days left on fighters 5 I thank you! A LOT


Hah, I am in the same boat.... I was like, damnit well that was pointless

WHY WHY WHY do people think that fighters being able to hit cruisers is a good thing? The only reason this is still going to be acceptable is with the nerfed drone bay on supercarriers, otherwise supercarrier > everything larger than a frigate.
Velin Dhal
Zeonic CG
#1173 - 2011-10-11 14:45:02 UTC
Misanth wrote:
Kari Kari wrote:
Velin Dhal wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Stealthiest wrote:
How about a rename and some resizing. A super carrier that is not a carrier, but is the same size as a carrier?

As a 2 titan, 1 mS owner I say bout f**king time for most of this, But no dd on Sub-caps at all? No drones on a Super carrier?

I mean really!!!!!



Yes, really. DDing frigates and cruisers is bullshit and you know it.


How is it bullshit ? Sorry that my 30+ billion isk ship that I had to wait like half a year to build and took me 4 years of training to get in can instantly destroy your 10 cent frigate. I mean seriously, what am I thinking its so unfair of me. Why would I ever assume that time and money could buy power in a game running on a capitalist economy ? To make me even more of a bad guy, why would I assume that my hard earned money and dedicated skill training would give me the right to fly ships untouchable by someone with less skills and dedication than me ?

I'm so ashamed of myself



I must say this is pure right on the dot for all super capital players. CCP you need to look at this post and understand frustrations by our community the super capital community. Bowing down to guys who fly battlecruisers and frigates and swarms and did not have the patience or the time and dedication to train for those super capitals in game. Thank you for wasting players time to train these ships and destroy as a whole a community that was over a years worth of training. CCP you fail!


The problem you're facing is that you both argue the wrong way. Arguing that money > all is not a way to balance a game. The proper way to address CCP/this issue would be to highlight how it's incredibly narrow-minded the way this game is developing now: it's all favouring blobs, and all game balance changes are reflecting on blobs. Nullsec and sov warfare has been the outspoken endgame since.. well as long as I remember actually, so it's not surprising CCP want to balance the game around that, and promote that gameplay. What is odd tho, is how they are making it increasingly less appealing to go to null, and how it will only be for blobs.

I.e., balancing ships around what fleetmates you are supposed to have = pigeonholing playerbase into a game/role they might not want to play. There's alot of people (me included) who live in null and don't care about sov warfare. I don't shoot structures, I don't want massive fleets, and I don't mind facing blobs - I took the deliberate choice to fight guerilla "man vs machine". That's fine. But when CCP is changing my ships to force me to join the blobs, they have suddenly changed the essence of EVE (the sandbox) into a game that tell us how to play. That's against the very nature of the core mechanics, the history, and the description of this game. That's what you should highlight, not the isk argument.


While I agree with you, Isk is always a factor. This game has a Capitalist economy. Where there is Captialism, money is always a driving factor.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#1174 - 2011-10-11 14:45:09 UTC
Evil Celeste wrote:
Stupid question :
It is really that hard to adjust orbit ranges for fighters, so they can hit battleships "just fine" - lets say for 100% of dps with 2 target painters - but make them unable to seriously hurt sub bs ships?

Another question :
Wouldnt be the easiest way to lower the performance gap between armor and shield caps simply making slave sets to not affect capitals, making bonus shield ehp from leadership or titan to take effect immediately and slightly lowering the cpu needs for cap shield transfers?

3rd question :
Why are supercarriers capable of using ALL of their special bonuses in lowsec? Titans cant be build in lowsec - they cant fire dd in lowsec. No supercaps ca be build in wh space - they cant even enter. Supercarriers cant be build in lowsec - they can use ALL of their special abilities there...
It would make perfect sense if they lost their point immunity in lowsec, especially if you take into account, how much harder is to keep mom tackled by focused point compared to bubble and how useless are hics in lowsec for anything else but pointing moms.


Do you want free isk with the subscription too? CCP already gave lazy players like you the HIC to tackle supers. We used to tackle them by bumping, nossing and neuting, you should learn the core mechanics of the game before you even beg for free killmails. P

Since I'm all nice and posting helpful hinters today, I'll give you another: a) you can use multiple HIC that rotate their points, so they can be RR'd, b) you can keep at the edge of pointrange, pulse mwd and warp off/back.

It's so ridicilously easy to point supers today that anyone who fails to do so, does not deserve a kill.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.
Evil Celeste
#1175 - 2011-10-11 14:46:55 UTC
Velin Dhal wrote:
[quote=Tippia]
I've watched 6 Supers have to bail on a fight because a 60-70 T2 cruiser gang would have ended up winning the fight.


Fun times.
Six 12k big slowass ships being able to "bail" from 70 t2 cruisers, just because these fools didnt bring at least 15 hics with them on roam...

That i call balance.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#1176 - 2011-10-11 14:48:21 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.


No. Self-destructing deprives the target of a killmail, which is a perfectly viable grieifng method. I'd selfdestruct a Rifter if I thought I was dying, just to get the tears from the other guy when he doesn't get his precioussss. If you think about it, you got the kill so you already won. He lost his isk. The minute you start caring more about the killmail than the actual kill, suddenly you let him beat you when he selfdestruction. Think again about this.. you.. let.. him.. win. If you stop care about the killmail, suddenly you're not losing out on anything.

There was a time where killmails meant nothing, today people are just way too killmail horny. If they fail to kill someone in time, they didn't deserve that killmail. And before you ask; I've lost several mothership km's due to players selfdestructing, and I'm perfectly fine with it. They did what they thought was best at that point, I still killed them. I did not lose anything, they did.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.
Velin Dhal
Zeonic CG
#1177 - 2011-10-11 14:50:08 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Casey CIA wrote:
Bloody Wench wrote:


From someone with less than 2 days left on fighters 5 I thank you! A LOT


Hah, I am in the same boat.... I was like, damnit well that was pointless

WHY WHY WHY do people think that fighters being able to hit cruisers is a good thing? The only reason this is still going to be acceptable is with the nerfed drone bay on supercarriers, otherwise supercarrier > everything larger than a frigate.


I agree that Fighters should not be able to hit cruisers. However, completely nerfing them so that they can't even hit battleships is a little overboard. Removing drone bays all together and nerfing fighters makes it impossible to even kill one. I have expectations that if I get attacked by a small gang of sub caps that I'll be able to defend myself in a Cap.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1178 - 2011-10-11 14:50:18 UTC
Velin Dhal wrote:
They aren't universally better. There are many ships in the game that can kill them. Fleet comp is the all important here. I've watched 6 Supers have to bail on a fight because a 60-70 T2 cruiser gang would have ended up winning the fight.
…and you don't see the contradiction here?
Quote:
While I agree with you, Isk is always a factor. This game has a Capitalist economy. Where there is Captialism, money is always a driving factor.
It's not a factor in balance, which is the whole point here. You cannot claim balance because of price — at best you can do the opposite (i.e. this p.o.s. isn't worth the price tag so fix the price to reflect its value). That is where the capitalist economy comes in: it does that part almost automatically…
Roosterton
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1179 - 2011-10-11 14:50:27 UTC
Idea: Why not keep the Fighter change, but give carriers a tracking/sig resolution skill bonus so that they can bring fighter accuracy down to the level that they were pre-nerf? That way only supercarriers, who don't get the bonus, will be shafted, and will need to be used primarily for anti-cap support.

Sounds better than either a blanket nerf or a blanket non-nerf.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#1180 - 2011-10-11 14:50:45 UTC
ThaWolf wrote:
Maybe instead of nerving we should rather redo the Super-carrier as a whole, after reading this thread, i think they are not fitting in the game as they are, overpowered on one hand, mainly in larger groups, and close to useless if they get nerved that way, while the character is stuck in it.

So i came up with that:

New role, high end toy for all ppl who like to fly Caps, can do much but nothing Overpowered.

- Fighter Bombers will be pure Anti-Structure Weapons, bombing range 35km, anti Pos too, dmg should be like 2 Dreads

- Fighters stay like they are pre-nerv, the SCs should do Damage like 2 Carriers

- Drone bay gets nerved to 1 Bomber set 1 Fighter set and ~500m3 (yeah still normal Drones)

- SC cant use Remote repair mods, they should be only for Standard Carriers.

- ECM immunity stays

- remote ECM stays

- All SCs should be balanced to the defense Capabilities of a NYX (which i think is the most balanced EHP for SCs)

- balance production price of all SCs to the same amount

- SCs should be able to dock as a Compensation, and to make it possible that more ppl rely want to own them, so more can be killed


Agree with everything except the dock part. Supers are unique in the sense that they are a) e-war immune and b) can't dock. That's the benefit and tradeoff you get for flying one, something you accept by taking the seat, and something they should never change.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.