These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Minmatar Capitals are being re-worked

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
CynoNet Two
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#81 - 2011-10-14 10:16:30 UTC
Oh Christ. This thread got to 4 pages of OMG NURF SLAVE SETS retardation before I found it. Let's see what we can fix.

Here's a revelation - the problem with armour/shield supercap balance has absolutely nothing to do with Slaves. At all. Many of you are just leaping on them as a scapegoat, as the underlying cause of the imbalance is actually several interconnected problems. Let's demonstrate... who has EFT?

Fit up standard Fleet Erebus (4 X-types, 2 A-type EANMs, magstab and slaves) with its own bonus. You should come out with a number around 50m EHP

Now fit up a typical Ragnarok (DC, 3x PDS, Pith X-types and 2 invulns). Give it a Levi fleet bonus and swap out the regular CN invulns for Vepas ones. Yup, Vepas. You should be seeing around 55m EHP (42m without the Levi).

Now let's do a similar thing for the Nyx and Hel. A Nyx with 7-slot tank, Slaves and Erebus bonus should be in the region of 45m EHP. Now let's take a Hel with 6-slot tank+DC/PDS, Levi bonus and pimp it up to Vepas invulns... ~39m EHP.

Why did I use Vepas Invulns?

If you look carefully, any self-respecting armour supercap will be fitting A-Type EANMs, which are a meta-13 deadspace mod and on equal stats to Ahremen EANM's. By swapping to Vepas rather than the typical CN faction invuln, it put the shield tankers on the same meta level and made them comparable.

So what are the problems?

1. No meta-13 invulns. Armour tankers have the luxury of a ton of deadspace EANMs available at prices affordable relative to their ship. We need A-Type Invulns seeded so that shield tankers are not paying out the nose to compete on the same level.

2. Shield gang bonus is not applied instantly. This is a no-brainer - for anyone to benefit from the Leviathan properly then shield bonus HP need to kick in immediately just like armour bonuses do.

3. The Hel is a little short on raw HP. Most shield tanking ships have less base HP than their armour counterparts, which is often compensated by the having use of active omni-tanking Invulns to give them better overall resists. For the Wyvern this isn't much of an issue, as it get's an inbuilt resistance bonus too. However the Hel suffers from a combination of low raw HP, fewer midslots and no innate resistance bonus.
Solution? Give it +5% shield HP per level and it now has a bonus suitable for its race and role.
Headerman
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#82 - 2011-10-14 10:26:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Headerman
^^^ Came to the same conclusion about increasing the shield amount, that is a good bonus.

I think the only down side is that it's not an offensive bonus to go hand in hand with the Nyx's offensive bonus, and the opposite of the Aeons defensive bonus.

But, it's sure better than the RR bonus.

If the Hel was given a bonus to drone tracking, would it make it more of a target to remove first?

Should there be deadspace Invuln fields?

Maybe an alternative is to make a set like the Halo set into shield resist amount? The numbers should add up to a comparable Aeon then (with the 5% extra shields per level) or be very similar to the Nyx without the extra shields per level, allowing a RoF or a tracking speed bonus

Australian Fanfest Event https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=90062
Lugalzagezi666
#83 - 2011-10-14 10:41:36 UTC
And then compare cookie cutter aeon and wyvern.

Aeon using 8 slots for tank - 35m ehp.
Wyvern using 10 slots for tank - 37m ehp WITH VEPAS INVULS

Now plug in hg slaves and aeon suddenly has 51m ehp. Apply titan bonuses and difference is 20m ehp /even if levi bonus actually increased your current shields/.

No, slaves are definitely not a problem. Roll
Cruthensis
Xeno Tech Corp
Black Cartel.
#84 - 2011-10-14 10:53:50 UTC
I like the idea that Min capitals should fit in wiht the Minmatar ethos of fast, agile combat. To that end, the carriers could have a bonus to support that play style, rather than to directly play that style (as if a carrier's would ever orbit in falloff Lol ).

A decent bonus to remote repair range might do that, allowing the support fleet to leverage their advantage of speed and range dictation over a large grid area, without getting out of rep range. I'd see that being primarily useful for small - medium sized gangs I suppose.

It could also play well with paired blobs of sniping alpha Dreads and BS.
CynoNet Two
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#85 - 2011-10-14 11:02:39 UTC
Lugalzagezi666 wrote:
And then compare cookie cutter aeon and wyvern.

Aeon using 8 slots for tank - 35m ehp.
Wyvern using 10 slots for tank - 37m ehp WITH VEPAS INVULS

Now plug in hg slaves and aeon suddenly has 51m ehp. Apply titan bonuses and difference is 20m ehp /even if levi bonus actually increased your current shields/.

No, slaves are definitely not a problem. Roll


At no point did I say that the Aeon's base hitpoints were balanced. That isn't the subject of this thread. The fact that it has the highest base armour value AND a resistance bonus should be addressed as part of its own balancing.

It's worth pointing out that I'm not in favour of a 20% across the board HP reduction for supercaps, but rather differing reductions based on things like this. For example, the Aeon should be dropped by 20%, while the Hel should not be touched at all. And I say that as an Aeon pilot already.
Lugalzagezi666
#86 - 2011-10-14 11:28:05 UTC
Nyx with slaves - using 7 slots for tank - 33,5m ehp.
Hel using 10 slots for tank - 26m ehp WITH VEPAS INVULS.

Nyx without slaves - 22m ehp.
Hel with cn invuls - 21,5m ehp.

So even if high meta deadspace invul was in game and cost the same amount of isk as a-type eanm, even then the bonus of hg slaves /that are 2bil/ is much much bigger.

No, ehp of supercaps isnt 100% balanced, but slave implants mean even bigger imbalance, that should be fixed.
CynoNet Two
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#87 - 2011-10-14 12:58:45 UTC  |  Edited by: CynoNet Two
Lugalzagezi666 wrote:
Nyx with slaves - using 7 slots for tank - 33,5m ehp.
Hel using 10 slots for tank - 26m ehp WITH VEPAS INVULS.

Nyx without slaves - 22m ehp.
Hel with cn invuls - 21,5m ehp.

So even if high meta deadspace invul was in game and cost the same amount of isk as a-type eanm, even then the bonus of hg slaves /that are 2bil/ is much much bigger.

No, ehp of supercaps isnt 100% balanced, but slave implants mean even bigger imbalance, that should be fixed.


You seem to be having trouble comprehending more than one line of my post at a time. I'm going to refrain from pointing out your logical errors and ending my sentences IN RAGE CAPS, and instead post ~pretty pictures~.

Through the magic of a hex editor I have buffed the Hel (alas only in my own copy of EFT) to show what would happen if my proposed changes went in and the world was a happier, shiner place.

They say a picture paints a thousand words. What if it's a picture* of several pictures with more words inside them?!?!?. I hope you can keep up!


*apparently BBcode no longer works so: http://i.imgur.com/p0vNs.jpg
Lugalzagezi666
#88 - 2011-10-14 13:17:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugalzagezi666
You somehow doesnt seem to understand, that its exactly hg slave implants that are generating the ehp inbalance issue in sc class.

So instead of making slaves to not affect capital hulls, you think its better to create some new magical deadspace invul and add shield bonus to 1 ship to fix that imbalance generated by slave implants.

Only that slaves provide significant benefit to all other armor tanking supercapitals, so you will have to balance ehp of all other scs too. And all you will get is, that slaved armor scs will still have more ehp than shield scs when using same amout of slots for tank.

E :
CynoNet Two wrote:
They say a picture paints a thousand words. What if it's a picture* of several pictures with more words inside them?!?!?.

http://i.imgur.com/y0qg3.jpg
Aamrr
#89 - 2011-10-15 01:41:57 UTC
And....that little EFT screenshot really says all there is to say. +1.
Justin Cody
War Firm
#90 - 2011-10-15 07:30:50 UTC
Aamrr wrote:
Tanya Powers wrote:
CCP already stated that passive shield regen is way overpowered has it is.


This statement confuses me. Barring a few ratting drakes out in the belts of nullsec, I can't remember the last time I saw passive tanks being used in any significant capacity. Buffer is indisputably popular, but that's certainly not an issue relevant to regen.

Battlecruiser level aside, there really aren't many ships out there that I would say should be passively-regen tanked. More often than not, you can get superior damage projection with using an active or buffer configuration with similar survivability.

Does anyone else feel this way, or am i mistaken?


You are 100% correct.

Passive regeneration of shield HP is not over powered. Not at all. The fact that minmatar shield tank (sub cap) far better than caldari is a shame.

I would like to see passive tanking expanded upon for caldari as a strategy that is meant to happen rather than being incidental.
They are supposed to have the most advanced shields in EVE.

Buffer tank isn't regen which confuses some people. Regen is affected primarily by your shield recharge time and then by resistances. which multiply the effect.

I can make a phoenix with a nasty buffer tank, and it does regen pretty well...but it isn't spectacular or even close to the active tank it can have.

There should be more passive tanked caldari ships. That is the end of it.
Alara IonStorm
#91 - 2011-10-15 10:20:39 UTC
Aamrr wrote:

[list]
  • Slave implants. Really, does it need to be said? The best option is probably to make them not work on supercapital ships. Pilots with the ability to fly supercapitals should probably have the implants removed and placed in their cargohold or hangar, as appropriate.

    • Yeeesss

    Don't remove the Implants though, just make Supers not effected by them entirely.
    Headerman
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #92 - 2011-10-15 10:45:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Headerman
    Remember this is a thread on how to fix Minmatar capitals, not debate weather an Aeon is OP with a slave set

    Hel: I would say give a slight buff to shield amount, a slight reduction in armour, and swap the RR bonus for a tracking speed bonus for fighters and FBs

    Nidhoggur: Buff CPU and cap so it can do it's RR'ing properly

    Nag and Rag: Increase the base damage multiplyer of x-large projectiles to reinforce Minmatars better weapons

    Australian Fanfest Event https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=90062
    Alara IonStorm
    #93 - 2011-10-15 11:01:08 UTC
    Headerman wrote:

    Nag and Rag: Increase the base damage multiplyer of x-large projectiles to reinforce Minmatars better weapons

    For the Nag why not change it to Trip Projectile Turrets?
    Ragel Tropxe
    The Graduates
    The Initiative.
    #94 - 2011-10-15 11:21:05 UTC
    when they last looked at the Nag the view was giving it three turrets wasnt possible due to artwork restrictions

    Instead of that, how about removing the two launcher hardpoints but giving a built in bonus of 150% capital projectile turret damage?

    (ie 2 turrets *150% = 3 turrets)

    would also mean the Nag benefits from the MOOAR ALPHAA (well per gun anyway)

    Take one of the high slots and move it to a mid, lose the other.
    Alara IonStorm
    #95 - 2011-10-15 11:23:54 UTC
    Ragel Tropxe wrote:
    when they last looked at the Nag the view was giving it three turrets wasnt possible due to artwork restrictions

    It would not take much to fix that. Besides they are planing to add Launcher hard points and redesigning all of the ships anyway, just throw it on the pile.
    Epiphaniess
    Verboten Technologies
    #96 - 2011-10-15 15:36:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Epiphaniess
    Alara IonStorm wrote:
    Ragel Tropxe wrote:
    when they last looked at the Nag the view was giving it three turrets wasnt possible due to artwork restrictions

    It would not take much to fix that. Besides they are planing to add Launcher hard points and redesigning all of the ships anyway, just throw it on the pile.


    Adding Launcher hard points, is something CCP wants to do does not mean it will get done any time Soon™.

    And it certainly won't be something that will get done by winter. Even if CCP wanted to add a third turret to the Nag it would not get done by this winter. With how long it takes CCP to make art assets.

    Personally I like the Nag with Two projectile turrets and two missile launchers, instead of trying to nerf it's uniqueness by making it like all the other dreads, plus won't the Nag be that much awesome when CCP does add Launcher Turrets and the Nag will have 2 guns and 2 launchers firing.

    No what the Nag needs is a buff to Damage out put, Alpha or DPS to match the larger time investment in skills need to use the Nag at it's most effectiveness.
    Alara IonStorm
    #97 - 2011-10-15 15:47:31 UTC
    Epiphaniess wrote:
    Nag will have 2 guns and 3 launchers firing.

    That would make it worth the time. Are we adding another slot for the siege mod or is that extra launcher just a Citadel sized tease.
    Epiphaniess
    Verboten Technologies
    #98 - 2011-10-15 15:48:55 UTC
    Alara IonStorm wrote:
    Aamrr wrote:

    [list]
  • Slave implants. Really, does it need to be said? The best option is probably to make them not work on supercapital ships. Pilots with the ability to fly supercapitals should probably have the implants removed and placed in their cargohold or hangar, as appropriate.

    • Yeeesss

    Don't remove the Implants though, just make Supers not effected by them entirely.


    Slaves implants do make Armor tanking in the Cap level more desirable. But the solution is not to remove them or even to make them not work with Capital ships. Making them not work with Capital ships sounds like a much more complicated solution, than is necessary.

    The solution that makes more since would to add a new set of implants, or revamp an existing set like the Halo set from reduced signature to increased shield amount and help balance out some of the extra passive shield regen boost you would get could give them a shield regen penalty. Though I am not sure the extra shield regen would be all that OP, that would have to be some number that would need looking into.
    Epiphaniess
    Verboten Technologies
    #99 - 2011-10-15 15:49:56 UTC
    Alara IonStorm wrote:
    Epiphaniess wrote:
    Nag will have 2 guns and 3 launchers firing.

    That would make it worth the time. Are we adding another slot for the siege mod or is that extra launcher just a Citadel sized tease.


    Opps my bad typo ShockedRoll

    I'll fix.
    Mina Sebiestar
    Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
    #100 - 2011-10-15 16:01:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Mina Sebiestar
    Mini dread, right thing to do is 3 turret slots,cheap thing to do is to give back what you nerfed in the first place...yes you know what am talking about.

    Mini mothership(supers is just so gay word) need to be either dps bonus so there are 2 tank and 2 dps or mayor buff to crappy RR it have now or smtn new like fleet coordinator role that is command ship on steroids or w/e.

    petty re balances of shield/armor hitpoints.

    oh almost forgot mini titan need to look less of scorched dog poop on a sun seriously it's offensive to look at.

    You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

    Because >>I is too hard