These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Vulpes Ignis
Doomheim
#2261 - 2011-10-17 18:50:25 UTC
want to nerf the super blob so that subcap blob becomes #1


ALSO: I demand my Clone Vat Bay back if your going to take away my 10000 drones
Thelron
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#2262 - 2011-10-17 19:03:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Thelron
(snip)

WTF forums, throwing out what I wrote and posting what I'd deleted from the quote...
Damian Gene
Sons of Seyllin
Pirate Lords of War
#2263 - 2011-10-17 20:38:22 UTC
Silly Code, wouldnt let me edit so i had to repost:

I think that the Super Carrier's role needs to be defined.

What do we want it to do?

I strongly feel that it should be versatile.

Why? Well, because it's my own construct for what a Super Carrier is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercarrier

Name a situation that one of the US's super carrier's can not handle?

The US's military, is not the biggest, in fact may other military's are much bigger.
Where we have the advantage is Force Projection. We can mobilize and deploy a force anywhere in the world within 48 hours.

We pay for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
We spend almost 700b on military per year.
We spend 6 TIMES that of China, which comes in 2nd. We spend 4.7% of our GDP on military spending.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford_class_aircraft_carrier A 2009 report said that the Ford (a new class of SuperCarrier's that is expected to roll out soon) would cost $14 billion including research and development, and the actual cost of the carrier itself would be $9 billion.[12]

This ship is a little more then 1% of what we spend annually.

What is it's role?
It projects force.

I would like to see THAT be the role of the Super Carrier.

I would love to have a fleet with a SC, where when my ship get's popped, I can get a new one from the SC. Where having an SC in fleet means that I can fight harder and longer.
Right now, they don't get used for this often, as if the ship is configured other caps can take the ships out of them into their bay.

But that's just me, the whole point is that CCP needs to define what an SC should do, and we should decide what we would like it to do.

CCP, tell us what you intended the role to be, not a huge request, but that will go a long way :)
Rogatien Soldier
C A R D I N A L
#2264 - 2011-10-17 21:16:45 UTC
So from what I've read, when the dust settles, daily combat will swing toward sub-cap engagement as the standard because SC will be more vulnerable while remaining just as expensive. SC will be hoarded until they are pulled out for MAJOR fleet engagements.

CCP is re-balancing end-game combat to make it more accessible to newer (sub-cap) players (subscriptions) while making SC into a strategic asset to be used in rare situations (instead of daily) and only when supported by huge sub-cap fleets. Bottom line, SC-pilot tears is actually the goal of this change, so keep em coming. Sorry :-(

Just what I was thinking as I read it. But I'm a 10m sp sub-cap noob so probably wrong.
Tarra Nobilii
Doomheim
#2265 - 2011-10-17 23:25:44 UTC
I think the moves are 'good hearted' but poorly conceived. I do not live in nul but do see many hotdrops in low that do discourage smaller alliances from even bringing their caps out. I do agree something needs done...however...I reject the following;

1) As stated in blog: "Dreadnoughts are not good enough" yet when one scrolls down on the same page you read "Dreadnoughts
Remove drone bay from all dreadnoughts.
Siege Module I: Boost damage bonus from 625% to 700% to compensate for loss of drones.
Siege Module I: Duration time reduced to 5 minutes. Fuel cost -50%.
Moros: Remove drone bonus.
Moros: New bonus: 5% bonus to Capital Hybrid Turret rate of fire per level."

Quite frankly, stating that dreads are not 'good enough' then taking their drone bay is counter intuitive to me. In addition, what kind of swing does a 50m3 bay actually give? I think a small bay is perfectly adequate. As a Moros owner, I have sold my ship in preparation of the changes as I think they are crap..as is. The Moros was a ship with alot of flexibility....now it will become just like the others as a pure POS basher. While that role may be needed, it is totally boring and limited. I think dreads had a chance to be 'anti supercaps' or 'anti carrier'...but from this feedback I dont see that as a possibility. At this point, I am discouraged that i wasted skillpoints, isk, and time training for one....

2) I think a concept like this would be more plausible;

-Dreads (option 1) are good vs. battleships and above; can be overwhelmed by small stuff (BC and below) or (option 2) they are kings of subcaps but dont do much vs. other caps...both work...both fun
-Carriers counter Dreads with fighters/bomber (limited sized bay....you carry bombers which are good vs. dreads, worthless vs. subcaps; you carry fighters which are worthless vs. dreads; effective but not great at subcaps (basically like frigs)) -elminate or greatly limit logistical roles...fewer high slots; limited size of drone/fighter bay forces decisions to be made. If drone bay is limited in size, then pilots cannot carry wings of fighters/bombers...they might only have 10-15 total fighters/bombers...thus they can mix types or specialize. Mixing makes their dps ****...specializing makes them victimized by opponent if the wrong type of fighter/bomber is used.
-Super Carriers as huge logistics ships (no increase in offensive ability from carrier)..more high slots than regular carrier; able to fit multiple reppers/cap transfers and/or gang links...keep fleet alive; idk about hitpoints...maybe more hull?
-Titans used to break logistics chains by popping caps only; equal to dread at bombardment; worthless vs. supcap

Anyways, just being creative. But each ship having a specific role is the start. I may be wrong but it seems supercaps were originally created to be superawesome big ships...idk if they have a role in mind to start. In addition, make capital remote reppers unable to be fit to Titans/dreads to enhance specialization. Give dreads/carriers ability to use gates in nul; some of the gates are absolutely huge...dont tell me they cant fit. So if someone uses 20 titans to hot drop...they wont be able to kill any subcap ships (perhaps use drones). If someone hot drops 20 supercarriers...probably the hardest to counter with the logistics chain...need to counter with dreads and/or titans (depending no their drone selection). Finally, alter cyno so supercaps have a garbage jump range (prevents hot drops quickly)...provides more powerful force but they are unable to make huge leaps into space. Titan can still bridge...but in very short ranges. Perhaps tie this into some recent changes to jump bridges (not knowledgeable to offer any feedback with that).

Anyways, just some creative thinking. As stated, I am not a nul resident so maybe my feedback is crap...
Neterti Axexut
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2266 - 2011-10-17 23:31:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Neterti Axexut
As we have seen this weekend, titans and SCs are vulnerable as is. Not just to other supers, but also to conventionals. See the battle between RA versus Gypsies and friends where SEVEN titans and a SC went down.

These proposed nerfs make supers significantly more vulnerable when used in smaller groups (no - I am not advocating fixes that would allow for solo use of what are meant to be fleet ships), but do not solve the real problems behind their designs and do not address the issues of N+1: Blobs of conventionals will still be a threat, and N+1 super (SC or Titan) is still a viable counter.

So, start by tossing out the existing proposed nerfs. (if you want to keep the logoff timer change, apply it to EVERYTHING in game)

A simpler and more complete solution could be:

Titans

Adjust the sensor strength and the way that sensor strength calculates targeting time. That is, make it geometrically longer time to lock a ship the smaller it is. A simplified example would be:

  • If a titan is attempting to lock another titan, SC or structure . . . . no change in lock time.
  • If a titan is attempting to lock a BS-class hull, increase the lock time from 20s to 40s
  • If a titan is attempting to lock a cruiser-class hull, increase the lock time from 40s to 120s
  • If a titan is attempting to lock a frigate-class hull, increase the lock time from 90s to 360s

(the multiplier number could be adjusted a lot easier by CCP later if needed)

Let titans have the ability to DD or hit with its capital weapons any target.

- and -

Let titans only lock one or two targets at once.

In this way, if you want to DD a HIC or command ship, or blast it with your cap weapons . . . . fine. But it is going to take you considerable time to lock. And, as you know, once you begin locking a ship, that process has to continue. Changing your mind so you can either DD or plink with Cap Weapons a different target would then be a serious strategic decision.


Supercarriers

Apply the same lock time adjusts as detailed above.

Removing 20% of their Shield / Armor / Hull is neat, but is irrelevant if you have 60 of them on field remote repping each other. Instead of "fixing" the tank by reducing it, make SCs unable to remote rep other SCs. Keep their old HP. Hell. Increase it. And for the love of whatever personal God or gods you pray to, keep the regular drones. Just remove the ability to remote rep.

Regular carriers could still rep the SC (or titan for that matter), but are squishier and now even more an essential aspect of the support fleet. Once the carriers die, the SCs and titans get in trouble.


Finally, CCP please fix the shield tanked ships (from conventional to super) in the way their bonuses are applied. And give the Levi, the red-haired-stepchild of titans, the ability to hit smaller ships with its citadels like that its gunboat brothers have. While the gunboats can receive remote bonuses that enable them to track BS and other hulls quite well, the Levi just has to sit there and look pretty. At least it does that well!
FHM
Doomheim
#2267 - 2011-10-18 06:22:59 UTC  |  Edited by: FHM
Damian Gene wrote:
Silly Code, wouldnt let me edit so i had to repost:

I think that the Super Carrier's role needs to be defined.

What do we want it to do?

I strongly feel that it should be versatile.

Why? Well, because it's my own construct for what a Super Carrier is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercarrier

Name a situation that one of the US's super carrier's can not handle?

The US's military, is not the biggest, in fact may other military's are much bigger.
Where we have the advantage is Force Projection. We can mobilize and deploy a force anywhere in the world within 48 hours.

We pay for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
We spend almost 700b on military per year.
We spend 6 TIMES that of China, which comes in 2nd. We spend 4.7% of our GDP on military spending.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford_class_aircraft_carrier A 2009 report said that the Ford (a new class of SuperCarrier's that is expected to roll out soon) would cost $14 billion including research and development, and the actual cost of the carrier itself would be $9 billion.[12]

This ship is a little more then 1% of what we spend annually.

What is it's role?
It projects force.

I would like to see THAT be the role of the Super Carrier.

I would love to have a fleet with a SC, where when my ship get's popped, I can get a new one from the SC. Where having an SC in fleet means that I can fight harder and longer.
Right now, they don't get used for this often, as if the ship is configured other caps can take the ships out of them into their bay.

But that's just me, the whole point is that CCP needs to define what an SC should do, and we should decide what we would like it to do.

CCP, tell us what you intended the role to be, not a huge request, but that will go a long way :)


Take 3 coast guard frigates or cruiser and send them against that supper carrier let them unleash a salvo against that deck and see how many fighters can you get off of it. Or take a single battleship let it fire one salvo off its turrets and that super carrier goes from a ship to a useless husk.

Yes such a ship could respond fast to an attack but caught by even a frigate alone its pretty much dead.. Thats why these big ships depend on smaller, agaile and fast ships to defend it aka sub capitals. Thats why navy puts them in to battlegroups where a carrier or a super carrier is a main command vessel.

To give you an idea of how it looks like and how it should look like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abraham-Lincoln-battlegroup.jpg

Also loosing say USS Nimitz that is a super carrier would be a BIG DEAL for USS and it would severely disrupt its military operations where Nimitz was active and they would not have a new Nimitz 10 min after that one was sunk already doing the old ones job and the loss would have much more dire consequences.

Since we are already comparing to real life examples.
FHM
Doomheim
#2268 - 2011-10-18 06:43:11 UTC
Neterti Axexut wrote:
As we have seen this weekend, titans and SCs are vulnerable as is. Not just to other supers, but also to conventionals. See the battle between RA versus Gypsies and friends where SEVEN titans and a SC went down.

These proposed nerfs make supers significantly more vulnerable when used in smaller groups (no - I am not advocating fixes that would allow for solo use of what are meant to be fleet ships), but do not solve the real problems behind their designs and do not address the issues of N+1: Blobs of conventionals will still be a threat, and N+1 super (SC or Titan) is still a viable counter.

So, start by tossing out the existing proposed nerfs. (if you want to keep the logoff timer change, apply it to EVERYTHING in game)

A simpler and more complete solution could be:

Titans

Adjust the sensor strength and the way that sensor strength calculates targeting time. That is, make it geometrically longer time to lock a ship the smaller it is. A simplified example would be:

  • If a titan is attempting to lock another titan, SC or structure . . . . no change in lock time.
  • If a titan is attempting to lock a BS-class hull, increase the lock time from 20s to 40s
  • If a titan is attempting to lock a cruiser-class hull, increase the lock time from 40s to 120s
  • If a titan is attempting to lock a frigate-class hull, increase the lock time from 90s to 360s

(the multiplier number could be adjusted a lot easier by CCP later if needed)

Let titans have the ability to DD or hit with its capital weapons any target.

- and -

Let titans only lock one or two targets at once.

In this way, if you want to DD a HIC or command ship, or blast it with your cap weapons . . . . fine. But it is going to take you considerable time to lock. And, as you know, once you begin locking a ship, that process has to continue. Changing your mind so you can either DD or plink with Cap Weapons a different target would then be a serious strategic decision.


Supercarriers

Apply the same lock time adjusts as detailed above.

Removing 20% of their Shield / Armor / Hull is neat, but is irrelevant if you have 60 of them on field remote repping each other. Instead of "fixing" the tank by reducing it, make SCs unable to remote rep other SCs. Keep their old HP. Hell. Increase it. And for the love of whatever personal God or gods you pray to, keep the regular drones. Just remove the ability to remote rep.

Regular carriers could still rep the SC (or titan for that matter), but are squishier and now even more an essential aspect of the support fleet. Once the carriers die, the SCs and titans get in trouble.


Finally, CCP please fix the shield tanked ships (from conventional to super) in the way their bonuses are applied. And give the Levi, the red-haired-stepchild of titans, the ability to hit smaller ships with its citadels like that its gunboat brothers have. While the gunboats can receive remote bonuses that enable them to track BS and other hulls quite well, the Levi just has to sit there and look pretty. At least it does that well!


The proposed changes make no sense. All it would do is prolong the fight for 10min and nothing else. Only way to stop the super capital blob is to take away their ability to either be able to blob up or to damage super capitals or carefully introduce a new type of ship and implement industry, 0.0 and sov changes that make it very very difficult to produce these.

Only reason RA lost that fight is because they were 2 stupid read upon it of what actually happened in the fight. Nerfing sub capital blob by implementing some kind of restrictions, limitations or say:

Countering sub capital blobs in a way Incursions are made, represented by a graf that defines income by the number of people you have. Consider more people you have pass the limit more ship bonuses you are loosing if you blob up 2 much you loose all your boosters and ship bonuses. Enjoy your ship then when the cap bonus no longer applies and you can only fire 1 salvo every 20-30s whit lowered dps and tracking etc.

And then introduce limits by how many fleets can be active so you cant bypass the changes.
Sylthi
Coreward Pan-Galactic
#2269 - 2011-10-18 07:27:39 UTC
So..... "Dreadnoughts are not good enough".....

and you are going to FIX it by REMOVING all the Drone bays and adding NOTHING.

This is a "FIX" how, EXACTLY!?!??

Just so you have your vocabulary straight, REMOVING something, and adding NOTHING; yeah, that's a NERF not a FIX. And NO, adding something that works ONLY when you are in Siege mode does not count as "adding something" when you take AWAY something that you can use any time. Because removing drone bays makes dreads a HELL of a lot more vulnerable than is even closely compensated for by the SLIGHT increase in Siege DPS. You would lamost have to DOUBLE the DPS bonus to come even CLOSE to the worth of what you are taking away. I mean seriously, how many dread pilots would trade the 75% additional siege DPS for their drone bay back? I took a poll from the dozen or so dread pilots I know and NONE of them would trade their drone bay for the siege dps as proposed. NONE. Not a single one. But, here is comes anyway. Yet another nerf by CCP shoved down our throats.

Just checking in with that little point.

Oh, yeah, and HOW, again, EXACTLY, is NERFING the HELL out of CARRIERS (with the fighter 'FIX") going to fix SUPER-CARRIERS???!!??

Just CCP playing Russian roulette with our thousands of paid days of account time and millions of skill points.... AGAIN..... I guess....

F-ing JERK-OFFS!!!!

When is CCP going to STOP taking AWAY from the players and actually GIVE something to us..... NEVER I guess..... Time for a NEW GAME if you want that little "feature" of getting something BACK from the company you pay I guess.....


...out....
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2270 - 2011-10-18 08:34:01 UTC
Sylthi wrote:
So..... "Dreadnoughts are not good enough".....

and you are going to FIX it by REMOVING all the Drone bays and adding NOTHING.

This is a "FIX" how, EXACTLY!?!??

Just so you have your vocabulary straight, REMOVING something, and adding NOTHING; yeah, that's a NERF not a FIX. And NO, adding something that works ONLY when you are in Siege mode does not count as "adding something" when you take AWAY something that you can use any time. Because removing drone bays makes dreads a HELL of a lot more vulnerable than is even closely compensated for by the SLIGHT increase in Siege DPS. You would lamost have to DOUBLE the DPS bonus to come even CLOSE to the worth of what you are taking away. I mean seriously, how many dread pilots would trade the 75% additional siege DPS for their drone bay back? I took a poll from the dozen or so dread pilots I know and NONE of them would trade their drone bay for the siege dps as proposed. NONE. Not a single one. But, here is comes anyway. Yet another nerf by CCP shoved down our throats.

Just checking in with that little point.

Oh, yeah, and HOW, again, EXACTLY, is NERFING the HELL out of CARRIERS (with the fighter 'FIX") going to fix SUPER-CARRIERS???!!??

Just CCP playing Russian roulette with our thousands of paid days of account time and millions of skill points.... AGAIN..... I guess....

F-ing JERK-OFFS!!!!

When is CCP going to STOP taking AWAY from the players and actually GIVE something to us..... NEVER I guess..... Time for a NEW GAME if you want that little "feature" of getting something BACK from the company you pay I guess.....


...out....

I could understand the "no time to read blog properly, must post!" approach if this had just been released and you were rushing for the first reply, but we're on page 114.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Ivan Svyatoslav
RedSun Corporation
#2271 - 2011-10-18 08:37:37 UTC
I used to really like the idea of the Motherships of old. Just like how carriers were designed to be heavy support ships for squads and small fleets, the moms were designed to be the scaled-up version of that for large fleets. They could carry lots of other player's ships, had the clone vat bay to let players travel to it quickly, and had the ecm burst and RR to assist said fleet.

Currently the supercarrier is stuck somewhat in between what it used to be and where it is currently intended. (What that is I am not sure. Not sure anybody knows atm) This presents a problem as it can still do a lot of the RR and ecm bursting, but now has these fighter bombers added on to it, which lets be honest is really stepping on the turf of the dreads, being anti-capital and structure warfare. So, if we want the SCs to be more in that particular direction, it probably needs a couple of the inherent disadvantages of that method of warfare as well. For example (thought experement only, I am sure there are tons of reasons not to do this) why not give the SCs the siege module? All it would have to do is allow you deploy fighter bombers, at the standard expenses of movement and remote assistance. (Perhaps disable the ECM burst as well) Thus, without siege you can fly around and provide support to your fleet if you so desire, utilize an army of regular fighters to add a little offensive power, and provide RR without fear of electronic warfare, but if it really comes down to that you want to unleash hurt, well, you have to make some sacrifices as well, namely mobility and remote assistance. This is merely an example, I am not necessarily advocating exactly this, but hopefully it gets people thinking in perhaps a similar direction.

Right now I feel the reason the dreads are not being used is because the supercarriers do the same thing SO much better. Anti-capital warfare while being mobile, ecm immune while being mobile, all this and you can get RR'ed too. Perhaps what is needed is not so much taking the offense away but adding some element of risk in as well.

My two (probably greatly devalued) cents.
Sylthi
Coreward Pan-Galactic
#2272 - 2011-10-18 12:48:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Sylthi
[/quote]
I could understand the "no time to read blog properly, must post!" approach if this had just been released and you were rushing for the first reply, but we're on page 114.
[/quote]

I could undertand your need to quote me a reply if you actually had a point or something to say.......

Quotes? Page Numbers? Other DEV posters quoted in YOUR post that apply to what I had to say or proves my points have already been covered multiple times?

Kind of noticed you didn't have any of those..... because as far as I have read no DEV has talked about these topics specifically.

So again, I don't see your point.

Just saying.

Thank you for your participation in the discussion.

Roll

edit: put in the "Dev" requirements.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#2273 - 2011-10-18 14:07:47 UTC
Sylthi wrote:


I could undertand your need to quote me a reply if you actually had a point or something to say.......

Quotes? Page Numbers? Other DEV posters quoted in YOUR post that apply to what I had to say or proves my points have already been covered multiple times?

Kind of noticed you didn't have any of those..... because as far as I have read no DEV has talked about these topics specifically.

So again, I don't see your point.

Just saying.

Thank you for your participation in the discussion.

Roll

edit: put in the "Dev" requirements.


I'm not going to dig through 114 pages to give you links, I suggest you take some time and read before you sperge out.

But in the interest of educating you a bit:

- Fighter change revoked, not going in, as said by a Dev in this thread

- Many of us think removing drones is dumb but saying you get 'nothing' in return is pretty dumb.

A) 50% tracking buff while in siege is huge. I shouldn't need to explain that to you.

B) increasing the damage bonus by another 75% is huge. I shouldn't need to explain that to you either

C) Dropping the siege timer to 5 minutes is so overdue its ridiculous.

If your dread pilots (all dozen or so) don't get why this is so huge to the dread then perhaps they should do some more studying of game mechanics for a bit.

Also if you haven't been reading, this is the thread where CCP decided that every cap ship needs a support fleet except carriers, so just take 5 or 6 carriers with your dozen dreads when you drop something and your need of light and medium drones is covered. The DPS increase from the guns far outstrips the DPS loss from any drones.

And if you think its dumb that you have to deploy support with a certain fleet type, well, get on the bus, so do the rest of us but Goons have talked CCP into craming this down our throats, so you either roll with it like everything else or you find a new game, its pretty simple.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Aase Nord
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2274 - 2011-10-18 14:21:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Aase Nord
Grath Telkin wrote:


I'm not going to dig through 114 pages to give you links, I suggest you take some time and read before you sperge out.

But in the interest of educating you a bit:

- Fighter change revoked, not going in, as said by a Dev in this thread

- Many of us think removing drones is dumb but saying you get 'nothing' in return is pretty dumb.

A) 50% tracking buff while in siege is huge. I shouldn't need to explain that to you.

B) increasing the damage bonus by another 75% is huge. I shouldn't need to explain that to you either

C) Dropping the siege timer to 5 minutes is so overdue its ridiculous.

If your dread pilots (all dozen or so) don't get why this is so huge to the dread then perhaps they should do some more studying of game mechanics for a bit.

Also if you haven't been reading, this is the thread where CCP decided that every cap ship needs a support fleet except carriers, so just take 5 or 6 carriers with your dozen dreads when you drop something and your need of light and medium drones is covered. The DPS increase from the guns far outstrips the DPS loss from any drones.

And if you think its dumb that you have to deploy support with a certain fleet type, well, get on the bus, so do the rest of us but Goons have talked CCP into craming this down our throats, so you either roll with it like everything else or you find a new game, its pretty simple.

+1
Nabuch Sattva
The Green Cross
The Skeleton Crew
#2275 - 2011-10-18 14:51:33 UTC
FHM wrote:
BRICKS4BALLS wrote:
Why shouldnt Super-capitals' have some sort of means to defend themselves from smaller ships for a short period of time at least.

Some people have played this game for an awful long time and have accumulated lots of isk/skills etc, and decided to never stay in smaller alliances/corps. At the same time some of these smaller groups may have a few supercaps, this change will take away those players ability to ever use these ships, knowning the increased chance of being pinned down now with no way to defend yourself. Some of the smaller corps/alliances simply wont ever have the numbers playing to have proper support.

Yea sure, I am aware that in the real world small organizations would'nt own massive ships like this.

The changes may work well to prevent big alliances blobing, but I'm sure they restrict smaller groups using them at all now.

Giving them an ability to field fewer drones than fighters/bombers may have been a better option, so at least a single HIC cant keep them pinned down for 30mins or so whilst they get a fleet together.

Also if someone goes to the trouble of baiting a frigate or cruiser so they drop a titan in to use the doomsday, then why not? Surely acts like this are humouous.


No that is exactly what needs to happen if you are 2 stupid to go and do something SOLO whit a FLEET SUPPORT ship whitout sub capital backup you deserve to die. The time when you did that and then got caught and log-offed and survived is over.

NO MORE BLOB WARFARE - NO MORE SOLO SUPER CAPITALS
Anyways Super Carrier and Fighter nerf is final and you can cry about it all you want. 20B does not buy you immunity or ability to kill everything in game. You had your fun for 2 years NOW IT OVER go SUCK A LEMON.

Also the argument saying you are bound to that ship or that you need a holding toon is compleate bullshit all Super Capital pilots can leave their ship and go to market or go fly sub capital ship for a moment. Thats why we have Capital Hangars and password protected POS where you can jump out of it and go do what you need to do.

So all following argmuents:
- They cost 20B ISK
- They cant be docked
- They took 1 month more to train than a ordinary carrier
- They need to be massive DPS ship
- They need to be unkillable
- Super Capital blob warfare needs to stay
- They need 500m3 drone bay at least
- They need to be able to defend them selves against sub capital
- They need to be SOLO and FLEET ships

All those arguments are beyond STUPID and GAME BRAKING none of those arguments are valid not enough to even consider not implementing this nerf. Support skills you need for Super Capitals do not apply and are not valid you need the same skills you need for a carrier only you need carrier 3 meaning you did not spend any extra time for these ships training support skills is completely you decision and since these skillls apply to other ships as well they are not a valid argument nor will they be reimbursed.

SOLO SUPER CAPITALS AND SUPER CAPITAL BLOB are OVER
FINALY SUPER CAPITALS NEED TO RELY ON SUB CAPITAL SUPPORT TO DEFEND THEM AGAINST OTHER SUB CAPITALS



DEAL WHIT IT


Buddy you've posted in this thread, what, 100 times? you have 4 likes, get a clue, get a life. what you say is not final, and you know it, thats why you keep posting.

You have your ideas, they are not the greatest thing in the world, but if you just shus now, you'll help the idea you defend, more then if you keep on blabing like EVE is your personal baby and you know whats best for it.

Nabuch out.
Phunnestyle
Doomheim
#2276 - 2011-10-18 15:15:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Phunnestyle
zero2espect wrote:
wrote:

It’s obvious to me that the number of players are dropping. the fury of recent blogs are designed to re-energise people into staying. Unfortunately, the changes that are listed as CCPs solutions are just ill thought through, knee jerk reactions by people so far removed from the playing of the game it makes me furious.

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.

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.

Supers. Where do I start. Forget your stupid idea with the drones. Listen, just give the super enough drone bay for 10 bombers and 10 fighters & 5 spare fighters/fighter bombers 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.

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).

When will CCP learn that nothing good comes from BIG changes to anything. In a complex environment like EVE is, you can never understand what will happen when you make even little changes, and big changes are completely random in how they play out. Let’s be honest, CCPs record of deploying quality changes and balancing and game features is not stellar – this smells like more of the same. This whole situation came about because of a BIG change to motherships to become supers. This is like a roundabout now.

For the love of god, instead of making all these changes do 1 or 2 like I suggest, see what happens. if it’s not enough in a month do another one, then another one. Half of why we hate you CCP is that you hype up all these big changes and they never deliver what was promised. Promise less, do more small things and keep your current players happy. You may be trying to grow the game but at this rate you wont grow faster than people will leave if you keep doing crazy wholesale changes that effect people with BILLIONS invested into your universe.

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.



Listen to the guy.
Rework the winter patch, Goons will cry, all they care about is self gain, evindently not eve community gain. Get rid of alot of that insulting winter patch & rework the rework & listen to some wisdom plz
Shadowsword
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2277 - 2011-10-18 15:18:58 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
A) 50% tracking buff while in siege is huge. I shouldn't need to explain that to you.


What? I missed that one. Not that I dislike this change. Where is the dev post about this?


/me finish amarr dread V tonight.
Skarrudon
#2278 - 2011-10-18 15:44:37 UTC
1) Clearly loggoff timer past 30 mins is insane given the instability of the servers, and login servers during massive fleet fights and busy times. As seen in wicked creek 20,000 USD CCP RMT value worth of ships was destroyed in 25 mins with an even fleet. (plus 30 mins with time dilation? is that gonna be 1 hour+? lots of ships will die.
2) With years of time invested in skill training and the obscenely massive size of dreads, supercarriers, and titans, there is no way that the engineers did not put in massive drone bays so they would have some defense against smaller targets, there is no logic that could explain this.
3) some fixes may be needed, If minmatar caps are going to be the weakest and always be primary they better get more of a niche, more cap regen and cpu at least so they can act as better logistics caps if that's what they are determined to be.
4) again point 1, I cant see how this is a good idea at all, people will flow into a system and will continue to from the whole region if this is implemented just to get on a SC kill they don't care about because he will be held there indefinitely and eventually will die.

Anyways I sense that the main problem is the force projection involved with supers, the relatively cheap fuel/capacitor requirements for jumping such massive ships large distances are what allows for 200 man "superblobs" to come together so quickly/easily in the first place (and it wasn't so quick and easy) fear of the old Northern Coaliation with all the income in a the universe, direct access to the biggest trade hubs, and a sea of blue for regions all around the north. People feared that the nearly 100k players that made up that massive blob would eventually have all supers and all the money needed to pay for them so a group of players across multiple time zones banded together to push them out. Just because 100,000 USD RMT CCP value worth of ships (or more) is able to clear sov fast and stand up against massive fleets of Goons and some goon pets, doesnt mean supers need to be reduced in effectiveness. Maybe they should have helped their brosefs while they had the chance. We have seen time and time again supers can die, they die quick and easily is not supported by a good fleet already. Your nerfs will kill the whole class of ship in my opinion and disenfranchise some of your most loyal and dedicated veteran players which is clearly seen in the responses across this thread.
FHM
Doomheim
#2279 - 2011-10-18 16:02:07 UTC
MEH **** THIS NERF ... LOOK AT THIS:

http://www.eveonline.com/en/winter2011/gallery/

Look at the first picture they are going to make it omg this is so ******* awesome they are making the ship that was the winner of ship design contest they had last year.

This is the link to winners entry take a look and be amazed at this beauty:
http://dreamwa1ker.deviantart.com/art/EvE-Online-Tornado-182153653
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#2280 - 2011-10-18 16:35:45 UTC
Shadowsword wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
A) 50% tracking buff while in siege is huge. I shouldn't need to explain that to you.


What? I missed that one. Not that I dislike this change. Where is the dev post about this?


/me finish amarr dread V tonight.


Look closely at the changes to the siege module, it went from a 99% tracking debuff, to a -50% tracking debuff so there wouldn't be a problem hitting Supers while in siege that were moving.

Its going to translate to Dreads being able to **** BS fleets while in siege but I doubt that will be a problem.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.