These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
John Hand
#1821 - 2011-10-12 19:31:41 UTC
Some people have been quoting this guy up and down. He has a few good ideas but I am gonna pick him apart on a few of them.

zero2espect wrote:

My preface is that the very people who have been paying subs for the last 5 years, the people who are growing tired of the game because it is broken, are being placed even more offside by these stupid changes. People who have invested millions of SP and billions of isk into capitals are being killed through stupid misconceptions about how they are used.

For me, the 15min logoffski timer would fix 40% of the issue anyway. Just by itself

Another point is that there needs to be a mechanic separating 0.0 and low-sec. in 0.0 let the big boys duke it out for the billions of moon goo and the like – jump the titans, supers and dreads around all you want. Have different rules for them – they’re fighting for sov, let them bring out the bling – max bonuses. In low sec there needs to be protection for the 3643 (or whatever) corps of 50 people or less who want to pvp without the threat of their 5 baddons, 2 megas and scorp being dropped on by 15 SCs just because it’s fun on a Friday night. Limit the amount of ships that can jump through a cyno into low sec. Prevent fleets with more than 5 caps cynoing into a system. Implement a cyno cool-down onto fleets. Halve the bonuses due to security scanning protocols in low sec. Do something. You dont need to screw supers to fix the prob.


This is actually a good idea, putting a nerf to supers that is tied to low sec, but none when in null. I like +1 for this one.

zero2espect wrote:


Supers. Where do I start. Forget your stupid idea with the drones. Listen, just give the super enough drone bay for 10 bombers and 5-10 fighters and halve the amount of drones able to be deployed at once. Balance this with an additional % of damage per level. Make the pilot choose between putting in bombers, fighters (cap vs bs shooting) and/or any mix of standard drones they wish – a super with 10 sentries/heavies/jamming drones isn’t going to win the next fight in delve but makes a difference to a guy bumped off a pos tackled by a hic and being bumped by 2 machs. Remove the bonuses that allow SC only fleets to remote rep each – force commanders to mix up fleets for reps. Change the ecm burst so that it uses stront so that there is a finite amount of bursting that can be accomplished. The EHP drop is there purely for SC haters – but again it’s stupid. If people are flying supercaps they’ve earned the right to have some ehp buffer. The logoffski rules provide a means that committed smaller fleets have a chance at a kill if they deserve it. I’d be happy to see that the hanger bay and corp hangers on supers be taken away so that they are pure combat ships and must rely on other jump capable ships for logistical support, amp up the fuel bay if you do this.


-1. NO. Limiting the number of drones deployed just makes supers into glorified battleships with bonuses. The ability to deploy more then 5 drones is something that draws people to carriers in the first place. Limiting them would fix lag, but only temporarily, and with time dilation on its way this is a mute issue now. Having drone models unchecked on your settings would also fix any PLAYER lag you may get from having hundreds of drones on the field. Split the bay into two parts, one that is for (25) Fighters and (25) 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. Fewer back up drones, means a declawed super, and that makes a dead super.

zero2espect wrote:


Titans. Remove the ability to bridge fleets or make it prohibitively expensive/limited – e.g. costs much much more or limits the number of ships similar to a wormhole (more smaller ships, few bigger ships). Fleet fight suppression is more based on the fear of massive-hostile-fleets bridging in rather than OMG 35 titans have jumped in. make the distinction between titan and super not guns but the DD and (rebalanced) jump portal. I can tell you for free that having an erebus gate camping in low sec instapowning anything with guns does not make for a fun eve (and unable to do anything because within range there are 12 supers waiting to jump in and take down anybody dumb enough to counter).


-1. Leave the bridge alone, its fine as is. Limit it if you must but in low sec only. I do agree that supers need to have limits for being in low sec, after all it still is empire. Titans are mobile jump bridges for people too poor to live in null and do not have a jump bridge network.

zero2espect wrote:

I don’t have a super but I’m not on the bandwagon of NERF THE SUPERS! just because I don’t have one. I want to aspire to one day have one on this toon and the way things are going there is nothing beneficial in “wanting more” out of this game. I might as well stop producing items, buying plexes and adding value to the game and just fly ceptors and cruisers because at least when you **** them up I won’t be throwing billions down the toilet.


You sir about the smartest sub cap pilot I have seen yet. Wrong on a few things but better then most.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1822 - 2011-10-12 19:35:16 UTC
Indeterminacy wrote:
Just needed to make sure I got in on this threadnaught.


Welcome aboard!

I'm hoping we reach the same size as the old nano-nerf feedback thread (we're already on course for similar amounts of raging, entitlement complexes, self-delusion, account cancellation threats, and general incoherent flailing)Big smile

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Trader 99
The Black Hornets
#1823 - 2011-10-12 19:39:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Trader 99
i think being dreads cant move in siege i would let them keep their dronebays personally, but not let the supers or titans use regular drones because i think they should be easy to tackle if alone with no support.Just because titans and supers cost quite a bit they shouldnt make it so its easy to deal with the only ships that can hold them.This should be one of there achilles heels.
Gesina Kouvo
Doomheim
#1824 - 2011-10-12 19:44:49 UTC
@CynoNet Two some ideas are good some of them will actually change nothing in today's scenario. Let me explain myself:

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


Ragnarok has the best tracking out there, you can actually track a frigate, an increase in HP will make it by far the best of all titans.

Quote:
Alternatively, remove the in-built drone deployment bonus in Supercarriers but increase the number that can be deployed using Drone Control Units. This introduces a trade-off between raw damage and remote-rep ability, as well as an increased risk of losing all your bombers in one flight or deploying less but having spares available.


And this will change the actual blobing-with-supers scenario how exactly? You will simply jump 200 SC (like you do now – objective) (with 5 x DCU fitted) and 50 triage carriers for remote-rep and NOTHING will move on grid, kill everything → go home.

It's funny to read that some guys are bringing the “blob” card out front when now they are the ones that blob … with supers … :)
Vaako Horizon
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1825 - 2011-10-12 19:48:36 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.


This is a balance issue.. While I am happy for those that like this I dont much like how CCP ignores confirmed bugs in favor of balance... :P
As I am a high sec carebear these things dont affect me but since incarna there has been a bug which affect all players using them ( havent hard any user say otherwise )... DRONES!! ( no focus fire+idle )
Would it not be better to fix an actuall bug that affect "everyone" before looking towards balance issues?
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1826 - 2011-10-12 19:50:51 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Le Cardinal wrote:
A 20B endgame ship shouldnt be able to hold at least a few drones to fend off a dictor? lol. How somone could say thats a sane thing to do is beyond comprehension.


please let me reiterate, this is not WoW, end game does not mean end all and be all. In WoW level 85 is just arbitrarily better than level 84. Just because a ship is bigger doesnt mean that it is better

Le Cardinal wrote:
There are ships designated for most roles in the game, so if you wanna pull the role-card then make it happen to all classes.
I would like to see the reactions then from the people in this thread who support the current nerf.


What you fail to realize is that ships can have multiple roles and engage multiple ship types but the biggest ships cant because you cant escalate up from them. There is nothing bigger to bring to counter them, so they have to have a weakness to something smaller than them otherwise everyone would just bring those ships because they are uncounterable which btw is what happened.


Le Cardinal wrote:
No matter how you twist and turn it, you do in fact sometimes end up in situations where you are alone and without support, either from logging at a safespot or pos or whatever. Its inevitable.

and it would be YOUR fault for letting that happen in hostile space.



I find all this coming from an alliance that myself and ~8 guys came to within a few days of wiping off the sov map entirely pretty amusing. I guess what he fails to realize is that supers should be utterly defenseless. That way us super pilots can spend more time in EVE doing what you guys do, like hiding in poses refusing to fight, then using exploits to escape from our poses after hostiles rapecage and reinforce them.

Hahaha, incredible. The guys who have to use password resets to fling their jumpfreighters out of rapecaged, soon-to-die POSes because they wouldn't fight 8 people are lecturing us on why supers need to be easier to kill.

Go **** yourselves, Imperial Legion. You're terrible renter scum whose nullsec existence is entirely at the whim of others. Your input in this discussion means next to nothing.
Kern Walzky
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#1827 - 2011-10-12 19:51:05 UTC
CCP. i think this nerf aproach is the wrong way.
i have played since 2004 and spent alot of RL money and spent alot of time.

Not only the ship will become nerfed, but the BPO's, and all investments to produce theese ships/BPO's will become worthless.
So with a swith stroke from you CCP all my investment is ruined... im stuck in this sadness.

Why not make a dread a bit better to be a cheap competitor to the supers.
Instead of making supers worthless.. a ship used only to kill caps and boooring structures. and you need a alt to hold it. subscribtion needed here.

its not tears. but a sad day when Eve becomes booring with no benefit to have isk and skills.

Supercarriers will become the next dread. almost never used... again BS and hacs will become the iwin... with no consideration for skills and isk and the current owners of the supercarriers & titans... Evil
Solinuas
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1828 - 2011-10-12 19:51:37 UTC
You know a Sc fix seems pretty simple, just dissallow locking (or possibly only allow 5 drones?) on anything smaller than a bs (exept dictors and hics maybe) and have that with the other changes, and for the love of ****, fighters themselves are fine, if you play it right they cant hit anything smaller than a BS at all
onefineday
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1829 - 2011-10-12 19:53:23 UTC
I think your re balancing is useless and thats why

Reasons:

You say super caps are two strong because they carry drones and they blob, the thing witch will happen the you will limit them to fighter and bomber drones they gonna blob even more.

i know its way harder for you to change amount of armor and shield they have and it would straight away make them easier to kill another thing make dps from bombers smeller whats a point of a carier if he cant even defend him self from one single dictor ?
thats a reason they gonna blob even more because they wont be able to defend them self alone so they gonna do everything to make sure they don't die so the same thing ho have more super caps wins :) no logic to your desitions, titan dd is to strong its its lol luck titan uses dd he cant move 5mins he is target if you luck to the history goonswarm not so long ago nearly killed two titans in trash hurri hang because they used dd and cud not move :) cut armore shield ammaunth dps they do but don't cut drones because its juts sorry for expression stupid, can you Emogene moros without drones sorry but its galente ship it has to have drones its all point yes i agry dreads are two weak but maby you sud increase they dps cut armore and shield on titans and supercaps reduce they dps little bit and it will be all good :) it would be relay strange if one dictor would be able to kill super cap because he cant use small drones to kill it away :) don't be lazy to program more because its only reason i can see you choosing this way for super cap nerf, you destroying a game witch i love!
Gesina Kouvo
Doomheim
#1830 - 2011-10-12 19:57:49 UTC
Can some one with ridiculous amounts of spare time can count the posts against super-cap nerf from certain alliances?
I am just curious ... Blink

Love the tears BTW. If I were CCP I wold go even further ... allow supers to deploy ONLY RACIAL fighters / fighter bombers ... like titans ... plus of course all the proposed changes.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1831 - 2011-10-12 20:07:58 UTC
Trader 99 wrote:
i think being dreads cant move in siege i would let them keep their dronebays personally, but not let the supers or titans use regular drones because i think they should be easy to tackle if alone with no support.Just because titans and supers cost quite a bit they shouldnt make it so its easy to deal with the only ships that can hold them.This should be one of there achilles heels.


I guess I'm the only one that (should a Dreds roll be deemed a bit too limited, and some anti support fleet capability be desired) instead of keeping the drone bays instead allow them the rest of their high slots (8) that they can only mount smaller guns/missile launchers/etc in.

I admit to having a vision of Dreads bristiling with guns of all different sizes. Big smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
zero2espect
Space-Brewery-Association
#1832 - 2011-10-12 20:09:20 UTC
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1833 - 2011-10-12 20:20:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
zero2espect wrote:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=176360#post176360
^^ original post

thanks for all the props guys.



There are a lot of good points in your post that could work, CCP's plan (with a few tweaks) can work as well however. There are a lot of subtle effects from either plan that could make or break the whole line of thought. Testing will tell in CCP's case.

I will agree that they need to be careful, particularly of following too closely the expressed desires of the community. Yes, feedback is valuable, however the reason Super Caps are in the shape they are today is because they listened too closely to the community wish list. Blink

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
penifSMASH
ElitistOps
Deepwater Hooligans
#1834 - 2011-10-12 20:24:41 UTC
hi can you fix titan bridge bug

the titan bridge bug is when a titan bridge goes up, a player then session changes, and said player is unable to go through said portal

thanks
Sahjahn
Pyke Syndicate
Solyaris Chtonium
#1835 - 2011-10-12 20:27:56 UTC
Rodent Jr 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 fighters/bombers.
Alternatively, remove the in-built drone deployment bonus in Supercarriers but increase the number that can be deployed using Drone Control Units. This introduces a trade-off between raw damage and remote-rep ability, as well as an increased risk of losing all your bombers in one flight or deploying less but having spares available.

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:

Supercap = full damage
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 have 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.


Bumping dis post from page 64


Quoting a Goon, good god. None the less quoting cos some ideas in here are good, the only one i really don't like is the jump calibration one, but meh.
Neurotica
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#1836 - 2011-10-12 20:38:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Neurotica
Blobbing wont stop, this will just bring about more BC blobbing with the introduction of more carriers being backup.

It's way to drastic, we already had the dreadnoughts / super carriers / titans around for such a time that these sort of changes shouldn't be happening with just a hammer and blindfold.

I wont deny that supers need balancing and it's all about who has more.

A nice apology, then to back it up withan amateur alpha stage style balance.

Monkeys and typewriters do not write Shakespeare. And the certainly can't build bridges.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#1837 - 2011-10-12 20:49:59 UTC
Neurotica wrote:


Monkeys and typewriters do not write Shakespeare. And the certainly can't build bridges.


You ever give a monkey a typewriter to be sure?

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Melivein
Ore Exploration Team
#1838 - 2011-10-12 20:54:07 UTC
ABOUT TIME ... Not enough, but will do for now.
Better then nothing. (that was over due for over 5 years)
Kerri Desdemonia
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1839 - 2011-10-12 20:54:09 UTC
Temmu Guerra wrote:
zero2espect wrote:
So i think that this is page 86 of a forum thread

(lots of text)

I don’t have a super but I’m not on the bandwagon of NERF THE SUPERS! just because I don’t have one. I want to aspire to one day have one on this toon and the way things are going there is nothing beneficial in “wanting more” out of this game. I might as well stop producing items, buying plexes and adding value to the game and just fly ceptors and cruisers because at least when you **** them up I won’t be throwing billions down the toilet.

You’d get just as much love out of non-capital pilots if you just fixed low sec and militia and bring in some new sub-capital ships.


Hope CCP is watching the number of people that keep posting this tidbit.


Quoting this post multiple times doesn't make it come true. It just makes it annoying!
Karim alRashid
Starboard.
#1840 - 2011-10-12 20:58:15 UTC
Maria Kitiare wrote:
I am saying that the skill tree, made by CCP, indicates that Caps is the next step after sub-caps..


No. Just no.

Caps are not next step after sub-caps. Sub-caps are the step before caps.

Think for a second how these statements mean different things.

Pain is weakness leaving the body http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos