These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Damian Gene
Sons of Seyllin
Pirate Lords of War
#1381 - 2011-10-11 18:06:59 UTC
Oh,

And I have friends that fly supers, do you have any idea how hard it is to swap out drones? Fighters are 4k each?

You cant dock, maybe you didnt know that, but Supers cant dock.
Changing drones even in carriers in space sucks.
Avon
#1382 - 2011-10-11 18:10:25 UTC
Tippia wrote:
[I get that cost is not a balancing factor. That's all there is to get.


I have read you post this many times in this thread, but I don't understand the basis of your argument.

Are you saying that ships should not be better just because they are more expensive?
A HAC is better than a cruiser - is that unfair?

It is harder to make and requires more resources, so it costs more - it also requires more skillpoints to fly.

Cost is very much a balancing factor. It is by no means the only factor, but as it reflects rather than dictates the dificulty in obtaining the ship it is sensible to factor it in.

If that wasn't the case there would be no reason to progress from your n00b ship - it would be unfair for someone with more isk than you to pwn you with a Rifter.



Destroyer Chappy
Doomheim
#1383 - 2011-10-11 18:12:43 UTC
All capitals will soon have a DeathStar vent where a frigate can destroy them with a single shot - right?


Just want to keep rebalancing discussion interesting for people on both sides of the capital ownership line.
Floydd Heywood
Doomheim
#1384 - 2011-10-11 18:14:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Floydd Heywood
trademeyourmoneys wrote:
Floydd Heywood wrote:
Great blog, especially after the fighter nerf is taken out :)

Everyone has access to supercaps, it really doesnt take long to train/make isk. I spent around 2 months making isk to get enough to get a super if i wanted one


Well all the better, if supercaps are cheap and quick to skill, then nobody is harmed by their demise and they should best be taken out of this game completely Twisted

No single individual should be able to fill a role as powerful and versatile like what supers can do now. It leads to small alliances of all-vets no-rooks dominating space, which completely defeats the purpose of a persistent MMO where newer players should always be needed to swell the ranks of alliances to fill roles the old vets have outgrown but that are still vital for the alliance's success. If the supercap vets can do it all alone, the game dies.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#1385 - 2011-10-11 18:14:25 UTC
Unforgiven Storm wrote:
Questions about the new agression session timers and logout.

- I'm ratting in a belt alone in a system with a carrier, someone enters in the system, I logout, we warps sees my carrier still aligning for the emergency warpout, shoots me or puts a point or opens a bubble, I'm agressed in any of these 3 scenarios? will I disapear in 1 or 15 minutes?


You are logged off, not aggressed, so it's a minute. You'd have to be aggressed before you log to have the 15min (and then extention) timers.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.

Demon Azrakel
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1386 - 2011-10-11 18:14:51 UTC
Karim alRashid wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:
Karim alRashid wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:

fighters are an anti bs drone.


OK, they may be now, but tell me why they SHOULD continue to be so?

Quote:
other wise a carrier has no defence against a bs.


Why heavy and sentry drones cannot be used by carriers against BS?


heavys and sentrys do minimal damage against a bs. where as fighters will damage a bs.


Not at all, they can do 900+ dps, which is pretty good for a damage to a ship a class lower. This damage is
almost TWICE the damage a bonused drone BS can do to another BS.


Without, ya know, using any of the available highslots for guns / torps like you are intended to.
iulixxi
EVE-RO
Goonswarm Federation
#1387 - 2011-10-11 18:21:56 UTC
kralz wrote:
do not troll me. do not mock me. cause and effect here is simple.
a steal bomber wing can control when a super carrier panics and recalls his drones. simply by decloaking and launching his payload. no SC carrier pilot wants to watch all hi DPS go poof, and a great many of them dont know that by recalling them they are allowing them to take more damage then they may have. cause and effect. i have been extremely polite up to this point, lets keep it that way, 34 bombs would be very difficult to field against a super cap fleet since MORE then 6 bombs at a time and they will destroy themselves.



do not troll me. do not mock me. - It was never my intention – apologies if I gave you this impression.

What I tried (and failed) to do is point out the fact that while your scenario is theoretically possible giving a number of factors + a bit of luck it is highly improbable in an actual battle situation (lag being the biggest enemy here).

E
Demon Azrakel
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1388 - 2011-10-11 18:23:48 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).


Never assume carriers will use the drone control units. They will, for the most part, find better uses for those slots that make them more likely to win these random carrier vs bs or carrier vs frig fights that you think happen all of the time. Hint, fit a neut or two, maybe a smartbomb, or, how about rr for your buddies in ships intended for those roles. Carrier is, like a SC, not actually intended to be, nor is it, a solo-pwn-mobile.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1389 - 2011-10-11 18:28:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Avon wrote:
I have read you post this many times in this thread, but I don't understand the basis of your argument.

Are you saying that ships should not be better just because they are more expensive?
Yes.

But more importantly, I'm saying that there is a one-way relationship, and it's not in the direction people tend to want to use it. And this a rather important point to make: I'm not saying that cost and performance are completely unrelated, I'm just saying that you cannot balance performance with cost.

Instead, cost should (probably) be a result of performance. Better-performing ship → Higher cost. The beauty of this relationship is that a working market will make it happen automatically. Better performance will lead to higher popularity, which leads to higher demand, which drives prices up. So you don't even have to pick the base price all that well for the whole thing to work. Yes, in designing the ship, it is a good idea to ensure that if it outperforms some other ship, it also requires more expensive and/or exclusive parts, but that is only the beginning, and again: it is the performance that should determine the price, not the other way around, not even a little bit.

The problem is that this often leads to the fallacy (viz. affirming the consequent) that Higher cost → Better Performance. That is not the case. Higher cost does not lead to, explain, promise, justify or in any way promote better performance. It is not a factor in deciding the performance. At most, you can look at low cost and conclude that the performance isn't stellar, but that is still not a causal relationship — the low cost does not cause low performance. Rather, the low cost is caused by a (relatively) worse ship. It is still not a factor — it's just an indicator.

More importantly, cost is never an excuse for overpoweredness — in fact, it rather proves that there is a balance issue that needs to be addressed, because the price wouldn't go as high if it weren't.
thebarry
7-2 Ronin
#1390 - 2011-10-11 18:34:23 UTC
Misanth wrote:
Unforgiven Storm wrote:
Questions about the new agression session timers and logout.

- I'm ratting in a belt alone in a system with a carrier, someone enters in the system, I logout, we warps sees my carrier still aligning for the emergency warpout, shoots me or puts a point or opens a bubble, I'm agressed in any of these 3 scenarios? will I disapear in 1 or 15 minutes?


You are logged off, not aggressed, so it's a minute. You'd have to be aggressed before you log to have the 15min (and then extention) timers.


It's a 1 minute timer if there is no aggression, 2 minutes if there is pve aggression, and 15 minutes if there is pvp aggression. If you are in triage or siege mode you will not disappear until after the current siege/triage cycle has completed. Even though these are the timer 'rules', they are buggy and in our testing you are more likely to disappear at a different time than you are supposed to. Also, it is possible for you to gain a pvp timer AFTER you have logged off, thus ensuring your destruction. The mechanic is quite unreliable...I have personally witnessed an aeon die over 20 minutes after the pilot logged out.
Demon Azrakel
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1391 - 2011-10-11 18:35:09 UTC
Dirk Tungsten wrote:
CynoNet Two wrote:
Some random thoughts...

A blanket EHP nerf across the board is a little silly. The raw HP levels are already out of balance between supercaps of different races. Reducing everyone by the same amount means we miss out on an opportunity to correct that.

Solution? Adjust HP levels as follows:
Aeon -20%
Nyx -10%
Wyvern -15%
Hel - No change

Avatar, Erebus, Leviathan - No change
Ragnarok +10%

Supercarriers fighter bays are a little anemic. These ships are tricky and time-consuming to refit, so carrying a single flight of their only damage tool seems like a recipe for disaster.
Solution? Let them carry 30-40 fighters/bombers.

There isn't enough difference between Capitals and Super-Capitals. Carriers have a role as support and anti-subcap ships, as escorts for Supercarriers that are now unable to defend themselves with their own drones. After these changes Dreadnoughts will still be limited in use as they're still just as vulnerable to being one-shotted as before. If you have enough titans, there will be little reason to use Dreads.
Titans also remain overpowered versus subcaps. With tracking links, remote sensor boosters and enough supercarriers behind them, beating a titan blob simply comes down to having more titans. Beyond a certain threshold subcap numbers still do not matter.

Solution? Three actually:

1) Doomsdays balanced on sig radius - A blanket 'no DD on subcaps' rule seems a little anti-sandbox for me. If I want to burn half my isotopes picking off Rifters, why can't I?
Let's change Doomsday damage to scale on target sig radius. For example:

Dreadnought = ~1mil damage (with DD Op V)
Battleship = ~50k damage
Cruiser = 5k damage
Frigate = 1k damage

It will no longer destroy ships outright (unless they're nearly dead or terribly fitted) and makes Dreads more cost-efficient at taking on Titan fleets, increasing their role. This is also great to help smaller groups fight larger ones using their insured dreads.

2) Jump 'Calibration' - Supercaps should a delay in order to lock onto a player-activated cyno beacon. This time is based on the distance they are travelling, so while a 2ly jump might take five seconds, a jump to the full range could require 30 seconds to lock on. This has several effects. Firstly it means that supercaps planning a hotdrop need to be nearer the target, increasing the odds of them being spotted. It also increases the odds of the cyno and/or tackler being destroyed or jammed before support can arrive. Finally it gives regular capitals an increased role as 'rapid-response' capitals, able to move around faster than their larget counterparts.

3) Electronic Attack Frigates. Yup you read that right.
This diminuitive vessel rarely seen outside of alliance tournaments and hilarious lossmails could use a bit more of a purpose in life. In the same way that HICs bypass the supercap immunity to tackling, EAFs should bypass their immunity to ewar.
The best part about this change is that it balances itself:
EAFs are already made of paper, which means that any supercap fleet with a supporting fleet of any description will be able to swat them down with ease. It provides a counter to the exponential remote-repping and tracking links of hundred-strong supercap fleets, especially when faced under a cynojammer. Plus of course it opens up an avenue for the Eve Newbie. Remember that guy? Well now he can be taking on the big boys in a few short weeks of training, helping to make a difference to that fight.



At last a goon with something worth while to say.


I approve of this actually, a bit more balanced approach to balancing... and I like the idea of not being 1-shot by a titan in my moros. However, i would say a titan can do this new sig-related dd every 5 mins or so.
Alice Katsuko
Perkone
Caldari State
#1392 - 2011-10-11 18:36:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Alice Katsuko
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.


Glad to see that player feedback is being taken into account.

A bit late now, but here's a chart showing probability of an orbiting Firbolg fighter to hit a stationary battleship and a battlecruiser at different signature resolutions. For the sake of simplicity, I assumed that a battleship will have a signature radius of 400m, and a battlecruiser will have a signature radius of 300m, and that a fighter would orbit at its optimal range (1500m) at the highest possible velocity (280m). I assume you have made similar charts, but this should help players understand the issue with changing fighter signature resolution to 400m.
Demon Azrakel
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1393 - 2011-10-11 18:36:49 UTC
Anile8er wrote:
Evil Celeste wrote:
Anile8er wrote:

Wow, I can tell you fly supercaps.

Lets start with my active tank... oh wait supercaps are max EHP buff with no local reps becasue, 1: you would have to fit CCC rigs to run local reps which would nerf your EHP tank which would, 2: cause you to melt in a fleet fight.

Now lets talk about my cap recharge on a supercap... when supercaps got buffed one buff that didn't happen was cap amount / recharge. So in my passive EHP tanked Nyx I generate 64.1 cap per second with a cap base of 84,375.

So back to the small roaming gang, with a single dictor and a cyno ship on the way. Now I cant kill the dictor and Im not in a massive blob alliance that can just form up a support fleet and use 0.0 POS jump becons to get to me quickly. So here I am tackled with some nano ships that arent doing much to me other than the Curse or Pilgrim who probably has me neuted down pretty well by now and here comes the cyno ship, cause no one has supercaps or dreads in EVE am I right? So now here I am tackled by a single dictor, neuted out, and dying to a few super caps and dreads.

Pretty ******** if you ask me.


Why ffs you would warp/jump solo sc on small roaming gang?
...you desperately want your SOLOPWNMOBILE, dont you?



Maybe Im moving my supercap and they warped to my cyno, maybe im ganking a carrier on a pos. A 20 billion isk ship should have some defense against a 1 or 2 tacklers or a small unperpared gang.


Have you tried a support fleet?

Also, why doesn't a dread have a defense against that, why is your super so ******* special. Also, why can't my 10 bil vindi kill that arazu that has me pointed 80k out?

Try harder.
Demon Azrakel
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1394 - 2011-10-11 18:38:52 UTC
Obsidian Hawk wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
SERIOUSLY LETS PAY ATTENTION REALLY QUICK.


AN 900 MILLION ISK CARRIER CAN LAUNCH 10 WARRIOR 2'S TO DEFEND ITSELF FROM A SABER






BUT



AN 18 BILLION ISK SUPER CARRIER CAN'T.


That sounds fair and balanced and normal to everybody here that makes this game?

To be very clear, I do not own a supercarrier, and do not care about them whatsoever, I'm just trying to make sure we're all working with the same amount of sanity.



IF YOU CAN AFFORD TO BUY AN 18 BILLION ISK SUPERCARRIER!!!!!


THEN YOU CAN CERTAINLY AFFORD TO BUY SOME FRIENDS TO PROTECT YOU FROM A SABRE!!!


OMG WORKING TOGETHER AS A TEAM!!!! CCP IS FORCING US TO SOICALIZE AND WORK TOGETHER WHAHHH WAHHHH!!

Go pod youself sir. oh can i has your super cap?


YOU MEAN I HAVE TO PLAY WITH TEAMMATES IN THIS MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE GAME?!?!?!?!?!?!???!
Circumstantial Evidence
#1395 - 2011-10-11 18:47:04 UTC
kralz wrote:
yes many of them were as they were all on the ihub trying to blow it up. however little known fact is that the FB sig radius goes up HUGELY when a super pilot recalls them and the MWD turns on...
[...]
i am very sad when i see incomming bombs, thinking about all those damn letters i have to write to the families of my dead FB pilots.

Been there, have a screenshot. http://i56.tinypic.com/21nfvc3.jpg 2011.08.12.14.02.17

RA brought about 10 supercarriers (only) to destroy two SBU's, and lost a ton of FB's in doing so. When the second SBU went down, slower than the first, we saw more regular drones being used than fighters. (You can say "they were recalled due to damage and no longer deployed," if you like.)

Our side lost a couple bombers, to supercarriers remote sensor boosting each other, as we decloaked to drop bombs, hitting us with sentries. Oh wellSmile

Looking forward to the changes!
DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
#1396 - 2011-10-11 18:58:18 UTC
First time posting on new forums; stopped halfway to take a rage poop. Didn't bother to copy my text like I usually do because new forums right? What can go wr--FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

5/10 troll
10/10 nostalgia

Aside from the logoff timer fix which should have been done six years ago, these changes are fundamentally flawed. They do nothing to make fleet warfare better, they only readjust capitals to fit the reality of how they are used and how widespread they have become. It's playing catchup to players rather than doing any real game design.

The biggest problem with capital ships is that they've always been based off ships. They share the same ship mechanics with minor differences and not the other way around. Every single time I see CCP do something to capitals (and this is the fourth major revision), it entrenches this sad little fact even more.

You could probably get away with doing Dreads correctly with only stat changes. Carriers need a few new mechanics to perform the role of ship resupply platforms in active combat much better than they do now. Jump drives need a serious overhaul as well, but Supercapitals on the other hand are beyond salvation in their current form and need to be redone from scratch.

You can argue for one set of changes over another when it comes to dreads and carriers, but for the most part everyone knows what they should be for and doesn't dispute that. Motherships/SC and Titans have no specific role that needs to be done, but most people agree on what they should be: big, powerful, scary, yadda yadda.

I don't know about you but I'm not very scared or impressed by a ship any rich carebear can get, adding to the pool of hundreds/thousands already out there.

In my opinion, Motherships/SC should be the ideal mobile support base for small to medium sized gangs (up to 30), and the ultimate wet dream for corporations who want to live in deep space without laying a very visible and vulnerable claim to it. Their primary role should be to have a secret and safe gathering point with basic facilities such as cloning and production. It's main defense would be stealth and the relative mobility that starbases do not have. Once discovered it needs to be defended just like any other asset.

Titans on the other hand are even simpler. If there is more than 3-6 in the hands of players at any given moment, something is fundamentally wrong with their implementation. This means that a Titan should be able to support an alliance fleet and essentially bring your sov / space with you much in the same way a real world supercarrier acts as a staging point for planes and bombers. It would cost a lot to upkeep in both manpower and resources, it would be very visible and impossible to hide, it would not be any more defenseless than a deathstar POS. It would be something you park in any system you want to control but don't and probably won't anytime soon (examples; YZ, NOL, BKG, AZN, etc).
Dynast
Room for Improvement
Good Sax
#1397 - 2011-10-11 19:00:41 UTC
Glad to see changes like these being made. The logout change is pure gold and long overdue. The hitpoint reduction is sensible. The rest, only time will tell, but they indicate an awareness of the problem on CCPs part which was not demonstrated in the past.
Carabusu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1398 - 2011-10-11 19:06:47 UTC
Demon Azrakel wrote:
Dirk Tungsten wrote:
CynoNet Two wrote:
Some random thoughts...

A blanket EHP nerf across the board is a little silly. The raw HP levels are already out of balance between supercaps of different races. Reducing everyone by the same amount means we miss out on an opportunity to correct that.

Solution? Adjust HP levels as follows:
Aeon -20%
Nyx -10%
Wyvern -15%
Hel - No change

Avatar, Erebus, Leviathan - No change
Ragnarok +10%

Supercarriers fighter bays are a little anemic. These ships are tricky and time-consuming to refit, so carrying a single flight of their only damage tool seems like a recipe for disaster.
Solution? Let them carry 30-40 fighters/bombers.

There isn't enough difference between Capitals and Super-Capitals. Carriers have a role as support and anti-subcap ships, as escorts for Supercarriers that are now unable to defend themselves with their own drones. After these changes Dreadnoughts will still be limited in use as they're still just as vulnerable to being one-shotted as before. If you have enough titans, there will be little reason to use Dreads.
Titans also remain overpowered versus subcaps. With tracking links, remote sensor boosters and enough supercarriers behind them, beating a titan blob simply comes down to having more titans. Beyond a certain threshold subcap numbers still do not matter.

Solution? Three actually:

1) Doomsdays balanced on sig radius - A blanket 'no DD on subcaps' rule seems a little anti-sandbox for me. If I want to burn half my isotopes picking off Rifters, why can't I?
Let's change Doomsday damage to scale on target sig radius. For example:

Dreadnought = ~1mil damage (with DD Op V)
Battleship = ~50k damage
Cruiser = 5k damage
Frigate = 1k damage

It will no longer destroy ships outright (unless they're nearly dead or terribly fitted) and makes Dreads more cost-efficient at taking on Titan fleets, increasing their role. This is also great to help smaller groups fight larger ones using their insured dreads.

2) Jump 'Calibration' - Supercaps should a delay in order to lock onto a player-activated cyno beacon. This time is based on the distance they are travelling, so while a 2ly jump might take five seconds, a jump to the full range could require 30 seconds to lock on. This has several effects. Firstly it means that supercaps planning a hotdrop need to be nearer the target, increasing the odds of them being spotted. It also increases the odds of the cyno and/or tackler being destroyed or jammed before support can arrive. Finally it gives regular capitals an increased role as 'rapid-response' capitals, able to move around faster than their larget counterparts.

3) Electronic Attack Frigates. Yup you read that right.
This diminuitive vessel rarely seen outside of alliance tournaments and hilarious lossmails could use a bit more of a purpose in life. In the same way that HICs bypass the supercap immunity to tackling, EAFs should bypass their immunity to ewar.
The best part about this change is that it balances itself:
EAFs are already made of paper, which means that any supercap fleet with a supporting fleet of any description will be able to swat them down with ease. It provides a counter to the exponential remote-repping and tracking links of hundred-strong supercap fleets, especially when faced under a cynojammer. Plus of course it opens up an avenue for the Eve Newbie. Remember that guy? Well now he can be taking on the big boys in a few short weeks of training, helping to make a difference to that fight.



At last a goon with something worth while to say.


I approve of this actually, a bit more balanced approach to balancing... and I like the idea of not being 1-shot by a titan in my moros. However, i would say a titan can do this new sig-related dd every 5 mins or so.


I am not looking at what alliance anyone is in. I care only about the validity and strength of the information being supplied and I must say, your post was VERY well thought out.

**** CCP TALLEST - I HOPE YOU READ THAT POST ****

He nailed it on the head. That is truly a balancing act, where as "NO MORE OF THIS and NO MORE OF THAT" is little more than using the ON/OFF button. Shame on you CCP for once again taking the easy way out.

More balance and work - Less Monacles and font changes.

Fly Well, Kill Many The Busu

Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1399 - 2011-10-11 19:14:23 UTC
DigitalCommunist wrote:
Supercapitals on the other hand are beyond salvation in their current form and need to be redone from scratch.

You can argue for one set of changes over another when it comes to dreads and carriers, but for the most part everyone knows what they should be for and doesn't dispute that. Motherships/SC and Titans have no specific role that needs to be done, but most people agree on what they should be: big, powerful, scary, yadda yadda.

I don't know about you but I'm not very scared or impressed by a ship any rich carebear can get, adding to the pool of hundreds/thousands already out there.

In my opinion, Motherships/SC should be the ideal mobile support base for small to medium sized gangs (up to 30), and the ultimate wet dream for corporations who want to live in deep space without laying a very visible and vulnerable claim to it. Their primary role should be to have a secret and safe gathering point with basic facilities such as cloning and production. It's main defense would be stealth and the relative mobility that starbases do not have. Once discovered it needs to be defended just like any other asset.

Titans on the other hand are even simpler. If there is more than 3-6 in the hands of players at any given moment, something is fundamentally wrong with their implementation. This means that a Titan should be able to support an alliance fleet and essentially bring your sov / space with you much in the same way a real world supercarrier acts as a staging point for planes and bombers. It would cost a lot to upkeep in both manpower and resources, it would be very visible and impossible to hide, it would not be any more defenseless than a deathstar POS. It would be something you park in any system you want to control but don't and probably won't anytime soon (examples; YZ, NOL, BKG, AZN, etc).

Long term, these may be welcome changes, but they would need extensive, detailed rewriting of entire swathes of the game. They are things which could be incorporated into the 0.0 Design Document Greyscale was recently touting, but even he said it may be 5 years before the bulk of those changes actually appear in game.

Meanwhile, here in the real world, its 2 months or so to go before the winter expansion, and CCP is still (even with resource re-allocation) split between WoD, Dust, Spaceships, and Incarna.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

Nabuch Sattva
The Green Cross
Already Replaced.
#1400 - 2011-10-11 19:16:35 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
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.


^^ Well said. Its just stupid internet spaceship design not to incorporate this DEFENCE mechanizm!