These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mioelnir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1641 - 2011-10-12 06:32:03 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Ah, so you're saying that, in fact, nothing will actually change with this fix. Well then, all this whinging is really about nothing.
No he is not.Please do us all a favor and learn to read.
Demon Azrakel
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1642 - 2011-10-12 06:33:08 UTC
J'J'J'Jita wrote:
Obsidian Hawk wrote:
J'J'J'Jita wrote:
Will pilots with the Fighter Bombers or (racial) Titan skills trained be reimbursed their skillpoints in normal drones, since those skills are now totally useless for supercapital pilots?

My Erebus pilot would like those drone skillpoints back.



You will need those drone skills when your erebus gets popped and you are forced back into a regular battleship.


If I lose the Erebus I will just get another one. Like most titan pilots I'm rich personally and in a rich alliance.

CSMA / holding alt are not options because the titan needs to be able to log in at any time on very short notice for alliance ops. Retrieving and swapping out the titan would take too much time.

The fact is, drone skills are now totally useless for titan pilots and those skill points should be reimbursed.


So if CCP nerfs any ship and you do not plan to fly it again, they should immediately give you the SP?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1643 - 2011-10-12 06:36:07 UTC
Mioelnir wrote:
No he is not.Please do us all a favor and learn to read.
I am.
He's claiming that they currently aren't of much use against support fleets. The biggest change here is that they will no longer be of much use against support fleets. Plus ça change…
Demon Azrakel
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1644 - 2011-10-12 06:36:14 UTC
Shadowsword wrote:
Anile8er wrote:


My math was based on BS doing an average of 850 DPS....

so 16000 cap every 24 seconds, thats 20 neuts... total for the fleet.



You are aware that supercaps are generally found in groups, and that they can remote cap and remote repair each other, right?

Theory crafting is something you can twist to support whatever you want, but we need to deal with reality here...


At least in this example, he was talking about solo dropping the group of 30.
Demon Azrakel
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1645 - 2011-10-12 06:38:16 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Celery Man wrote:


If this breaks the game for you, then gtfo :) we wont miss you.


Actually since we're already missing 20% of eve's subscriber base due to the retardation of incarna, I wouldn't so sure that ever super cap pilot quiting wouldn't be noticed at this point.


They'd be big babies to quit, but just the same, saying they wouldn't be noticed is extremely short sighted considering the current server population levels.


I won't be surprised if this brings people back and delays other people unsubbing because they suddenly have a bit more faith in CCP.
Demon Azrakel
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1646 - 2011-10-12 06:39:31 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Ciryath Al'Darion wrote:
Demon Azrakel wrote:
[quote=Avon


Diminishing returns on investment is how eve works, just because the ship costs 10x as much, it should not be 10x as good. ATM, sc cost 10x what a carrier costs, does 10x dps, has 20x the tank, and is ewar immune. this is far, far more than 10x as good as a carrier.


The supercapital ships are different to other ships in one very important part; you cannot leave the ship and change to a new ship.


Right, because no-one ever has minimum-skilled holding alts for their supercarriers when they want to do other stuff with their main?

Right?


That was my plan if I ever got one...
Mioelnir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1647 - 2011-10-12 06:41:29 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Mioelnir wrote:
No he is not.Please do us all a favor and learn to read.

I am.
He's claiming that they currently aren't of much use against support fleets. The biggest change here is that they will no longer be of much use against support fleets. Plus ça change…

Yes, and you then go ahead and claim that because one aspect does not change, no aspect changes. And that is wrong.
Demon Azrakel
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1648 - 2011-10-12 06:42:12 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Malcanis wrote:



Right, because no-one ever has minimum-skilled holding alts for their supercarriers when they want to do other stuff with their main?

Right?


If you are dumb enough to bring your over priced pirtate implants an 6% concord implants out of the hull that keeps them safe, then you go right ahead.



Ever hear of jump clones?

Titan/SC ---> Holding alt, dock up, jc to new clone one system over, lose less isk when you die?

:effort:
Demon Azrakel
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1649 - 2011-10-12 06:44:26 UTC
Mioelnir wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Mioelnir wrote:
No he is not.Please do us all a favor and learn to read.

I am.
He's claiming that they currently aren't of much use against support fleets. The biggest change here is that they will no longer be of much use against support fleets. Plus ça change…

Yes, and you then go ahead and claim that because one aspect does not change, no aspect changes. And that is wrong.


Other than the timer, the changes make the SCs less effective against support fleets. The only other large change as far as I can tell is that they have less extra FBs to back themselves up. Either that, or they had an effect against support fleets, in which case there was a problem, but there wasn't, i need sleep, but that seems to be a logical loop i am stuck in...
ToXicPaIN
Xynodyne
The Initiative.
#1650 - 2011-10-12 06:45:58 UTC  |  Edited by: ToXicPaIN
J'J'J'Jita wrote:
Will pilots with the Fighter Bombers or (racial) Titan skills trained be reimbursed their skillpoints in normal drones, since those skills are now totally useless for supercapital pilots?

My Erebus pilot would like those drone skillpoints back.


I want also the Drone Skills for my Levi titan back ...

so the T2 Heavys / Sentrys are not longer needed ...
sou you can delete all the trained drone skills and give the SPs back !!!
to train this Drones cost a lot of time ... and this time is wasted with this fuc**** patch

or better , let me dock so i can refine the titan
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1651 - 2011-10-12 06:46:02 UTC
Mioelnir wrote:
Yes, and you then go ahead and claim that because one aspect does not change, no aspect changes. And that is wrong.
So what other aspects change, do you think?
URDEAD2ME
A Blessed Bean
Pandemic Horde
#1652 - 2011-10-12 06:59:23 UTC
hope they fix the tracking on dreads too not fun seeing a sc speed tank your guns :(
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#1653 - 2011-10-12 07:01:52 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Mioelnir wrote:
Yes, and you then go ahead and claim that because one aspect does not change, no aspect changes. And that is wrong.
So what other aspects change, do you think?


Nothing changed, there is a thread with the title capital balance, but nothing is actually changing.


Supers still deploy fighters because people didn't want to face the possibility of not being able to run Sanctums with carriers, they had the fighter nerf 'undone', so now, you'll have herds of supers launching their 5-10 fighters with rack loads of webs and painters.

On top of this, the ECM burst ill no longer burst their own reps off, so a proficient group of supers will be bursting every few seconds to keep sub caps having to constantly relock the target while their reps, and the reps of triage carriers remain in tact.

Dropping this in the middle of a battleship fleet spells the end of the battleship fleet, no other help needed but dictors to hold everything in the area.


Thats whats most dumb about this whole series of changes, the carebears inability to let go of ratting in carriers has taken the teeth out of the nerf entirely, and left you with nerfs that just don't make sense from a basic design point of view (drone ships that can't launch normal drones).

As is in its current incarnation this is a super cap BUFF simply due to the ECM changes alone, and it came at a cost of a few hit points that everybody knew they needed to lose anyway....well, except the Hel, in CCPs infinite wisdom they have made it so that a pimp fit archon can achieve nearly the same hit points as a 20 billion isk 'end game' ship.

The problem as it sits right now, is too many people who have only watched supers in all their forms from the outside are attempting to talk like they actually know how the work, when in fact you are mostly clueless.


The day after this nerf, everything will be the same, only you'll be left trying to explain why you want things nerfed even more because you still have the same problems on your hands, because you do not understand the problems to begin with.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
John Hand
#1654 - 2011-10-12 07:15:47 UTC
So I am going to re-iterate what I said about 40 pages back.

Drone Bay.
Completely taking away the use of normal drones is too stiff of a nerf. Splitting the bay into two parts, one that is for Fighters and Fighter Bombers only, and the other for normal drones. Say 1250m3 (50 large drones) for a Nyx, 1000m3 (40 large) for a Wyvern, 875m3 (35 large) for an Aeon and 750m3 (30 large) for a Hel. This would mean that during a fight, supers would run out of drones much faster. If there were a few stealth bombers paying attention during that fight and bombing the drones whenever they were concentrated on something. You would quickly declaw the super fleet and leaving them hanging and looking for a way out as now they are just a big structure to shoot at.

EHP nerf.
This is by far not needed, supers do not have the uber EHP that so many noobs have been toteing around. The EHP of supers is 56mil EHP at most and thats on an Aeon. The most prevalent super, the Nyx, has only 36mil EHP at the most, and not everyone has there supers fitted like that. With the paragraph about, a declawed super is just basically a slowly moving structure to grind through. If you must put an EHP nerf on them, which it seems like you have a hard on for that CCP, a 5-10% reduction would suffice.

Dreads.
Needs more work....A lot more work. For one, they need there drones back, there bays are only the size of a battleship anyways, its not like there massive DPS. A 20% increase in EHP would be a good start for buffing them. The siege cycle is another good thing, but dreads need more then just that, like removing the tracking nerf....completely. Maybe a 50% reduction to RR when in siege? This coupled with a buff to HP could save them from titans and FB's with those buffs it would be a good start in getting dreads to be anti super and titan.


Nerfs are needed in games but IN MODERATION and you (CCP) have had a tendency to swing the proverbial “nerf bat” a little too hard. When swinging that nerf bat keep in mind when nerfing something that take years of training and billions of isk to build, that going too far will make you lose players. Bowing to the weak minded WoW players will make you lose players who have been with you for years and years, people who have supported you for that long. Heed the warning........
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1655 - 2011-10-12 07:16:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Grath Telkin wrote:
Nothing changed, there is a thread with the title capital balance, but nothing is actually changing.
Quite. Which is why one has to ask: what is all the whinging about?
Quote:
The problem as it sits right now, is too many people who have only watched supers in all their forms from the outside are attempting to talk like they actually know how the work, when in fact you are mostly clueless.
The really worrying bit is how many people who have (supposedly) watched supers from the inside are also mostly clueless, as your examples show. My suspicion is that it stems from largely the same factor: they have never actually seen their own ships in the situations where they're causing problems.
Quote:
The day after this nerf, everything will be the same, only you'll be left trying to explain why you want things nerfed even more because you still have the same problems on your hands, because you do not understand the problems to begin with.
The retraction of the fighter change was a prime example of this, since on closer inspection, the problem is actually quite different from the one that was initially presented.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#1656 - 2011-10-12 07:23:33 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Nothing changed, there is a thread with the title capital balance, but nothing is actually changing.
Quite. Which is why one has to ask: what is all the whinging about?


Because an artificial limitation is being imposed on 3 ship types (dreads, supercarriers, titans) that now require them to have support because they can't launch a single 5 drone flight of light drones in their own defense, yet no other ship type needs fall under this hoakey limitation being put into place.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1657 - 2011-10-12 07:32:30 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
If you are dumb enough to bring your over priced pirtate implants an 6% concord implants out of the hull that keeps them safe, then you go right ahead.


ITT: a Titan is a 'safe place' to keep valuables.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1658 - 2011-10-12 07:33:03 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Because an artificial limitation is being imposed on 3 ship types (dreads, supercarriers, titans) that now require them to have support because they can't launch a single 5 drone flight of light drones in their own defense, yet no other ship type needs fall under this hoakey limitation being put into place.
So in other words, things change…

Or, more accurately, things only change if you're doing it wrong — ships that were envisioned as fleet ships now become fleet ships (which is no more of an artificial limitation than freighters having no offence or defence whatsoever). They're having their role defined more clearly. This rather sounds like a good thing.

Yes, there are still things that need to be addressed, most notably the effect of having them in large numbers, but you know… baby steps.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#1659 - 2011-10-12 07:36:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Grath Telkin
Tippia wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Because an artificial limitation is being imposed on 3 ship types (dreads, supercarriers, titans) that now require them to have support because they can't launch a single 5 drone flight of light drones in their own defense, yet no other ship type needs fall under this hoakey limitation being put into place.
So in other words, things change…

Or, more accurately, things only change if you're doing it wrong — ships that were envisioned as fleet ships now become fleet ships (which is no more of an artificial limitation than freighters having no offence or defence whatsoever). They're having their role defined more clearly. This rather sounds like a good thing.

.


So why is every other offensive capital ship being forced into the "Fleet Ship" profile except the carrier?

Shouldn't we remove its regular drones as well and require it to be fielded with support?


After all if you're changing the role of offensive capitals, change them all, don't leave one in its broken state.


They are broken right, thats why we're changing them?

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Jennifer Celeste
The Dark Horses.
#1660 - 2011-10-12 07:42:49 UTC
im very late to this thread...but good god, what a boatload of awesome! The tears in this thread are what I've waited for since they super-buffed Moms and Titans...

Excuse me while I go slosh around in the olympic sized swimming pool full of tears Big smileBig smileBig smileBig smileBig smileBig smileBig smile