These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Shin Dari
Covert Brigade
#2341 - 2011-10-22 23:58:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Shin Dari
Mioelnir wrote:
Shin Dari wrote:
GRIEV3R wrote:
when you're talking about that kind of money, the rules of the game have to change.
It is extremely unfair to supercap pilots who have invested that much time and money into the game to allow them to have their ships destroyed by a group of players who have not - at least in aggregate - invested similar time and money.
Nope.
The economy can be seen as the flow of value, the stronger and wider the flow is the better the economy is. So its better for the EVE economy for such ships to be destroyed regularly.

I will greatly anticipate your tears.

If you stopped drooling over the vain hope of supercapital kills and actually read his post, you would have noticed that he did not argue that they should not die. And by the way, compared to before the buff, they die in spades. Because they get used.

What he is arguing is basic risk vs reward. You want the reward of a 20b killmail? Bring 20b in ships. Any ships. Even ignoring insurance and putting a fleet bs at an average 200 million, thats 100 fleet bs. I HIGHLY doubt you will find a supercap that got caught by 100 bs and lived to tell the tale.
Your vision on what he was saying makes him sound like a spoiled brat.

In EVE Online (RL) money and time won't and shouldn't guarantee victory, it might only improve your odds. People getting killed in their expensive ships by cheaper gangs is normal in EVE. In fact making a profit from killing pilots is a sport in EVE.


Quote:
And in other news, since so many people take offense with ships that are able to launch very different and many types of drones, we maybe should nudge CCP in the direction of dominix and ishtar? CLEARLY an overpowered ability, according to the last few pages in here.
The fact remains that SC just provided to be too much to allow them to use regular drones. But the Dominix and the Ishtar are far more limited by their own stats.
wanking monkey girl
Doomheim
#2342 - 2011-10-23 00:25:00 UTC
ships costing so much in man hours. isk and skill time ccp think about rewarding the hard work of you're loyal eve fans and addicts

E war immunity
take away the ability to receive remote links and remote sebo's

nurf changes ( the balance)

hp hit
suprts do have a lot of hp but they are dieing at a good rate balance the ship below is the case of the aeon
the aeon is the most tanked ship in the game over that of a titan they need a balance.
hel looks the best out of all the ships but its unable to tank

Doomsday
one more great change but with the planed change allow them to use less fuel then 50k each time, given they are only able to hit large capital size ships.
or give them a script allow them to use a aoe dd but with a limited damage

agro timer
again most of us agree on this change on part . but a solo hic or dic should not be able to hold any ship in place for hours after someone have logged off have it extended but not unlimited.

as many have pointed out with the agro timer you will see many more die in the weeks and month that follow..

but also fix the self destruct fix it so ships with aggression can not selfdestruck.

sc drone bay
let them have 20 fighter bombers and 20 fighters and a small drone bay with about 500m3.
super carriers in combat cannot refill on stranded drones lock the function with the agro timer.
solo super carrier moving about will have some deference granted for a limited amount of time.

if you go ahead with the changes listed.
turn the super carriers in to advanced carrier and let them dock at lest their going to be used and made after the nurf, at the moment we have so meny super carrier that their not uncommon so move them to the next level.

IF the planed changes are introduced allow them to dock and turn the super carriers in to advanced carriers.
let advanced carriers dock.
Subrahmaya Chandrasekhar
#2343 - 2011-10-23 00:52:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Subrahmaya Chandrasekhar
Hey Guys,

So I really am not qualified to assess the impact of these changes, but I can tell you this: For years I have been training with certain things in mind, not totally scientifically, but using my intuition. I've attempted to prepare and guide myself on a path that might allow for future benefits. Now CCP in their infinite wisdom is using METAGAMING to manipulate things I began to hope for years ago (using the drone bays to help defend a lone dreadnaught, for instance).

When you mess with EVE, you mess with people. Real people in the real world, and the thousands of hours they have spent using your product, thinking about your product, and planning their lives around your product.

Sub
Alexandria Aesirial
Outback Steakhouse of Pancakes
Deepwater Hooligans
#2344 - 2011-10-23 04:15:22 UTC
CAN SOMEONE TELL ME THE DPS ON THE REVAMPED MOROS????

It's only blobbing when you lose, otherwise it's good fleet comp.
Shadowsword
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2345 - 2011-10-23 06:05:19 UTC
Mioelnir wrote:

What he is arguing is basic risk vs reward. You want the reward of a 20b killmail? Bring 20b in ships. Any ships. Even ignoring insurance and putting a fleet bs at an average 200 million, thats 100 fleet bs. I HIGHLY doubt you will find a supercap that got caught by 100 bs and lived to tell the tale.


You're basically saying that an Estamel fitted BS should be able to solo your deadspace carrier, then.

And what about a 50-titans blob? Should it be killable only by a a blob of 15 000 BS?

The flaws of your reasoning are obvious.



Eve's power curve is based on diminishing returns. You pay double to have something that perform 10% better. Get used to it.
Veronica Kerrigan
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#2346 - 2011-10-23 06:50:07 UTC
Dirk Tungsten wrote:
Evil Celeste wrote:
Dirk Tungsten wrote:
Evil Celeste wrote:
Dirk Tungsten wrote:


lol some people just are clueless. After this patch a single dictor and bunch of frigits will be able to over a period of time able to kill a super/titan, its just insainly stupid this whole new dynamic in the winter patch.


And this is how exactly it should be!
Supercarriers must have their support fleet, if they are going solo, they deserve to die.


Pure stupidness.


If you are looking for solopwnmobile yes. If you are loking for balanced pvp enviroment with alot of variety, then its best way.


Is best way lol, your insaine, a bunch of fail in shield tanked blaster prophecys with a dictor are able to kill a super after this patch, an the super is unable to do anything about it. If you dont have a dynamic well structured fleet compisition and good plan you neither deserve to kill a super/titan or should be able to. This patch is carebearing it down, so nubs in there fail mishmash fleets can down supers/titans. Supers/titans wont be fielded solo, an they wont be fielded in a system for more time than it takes them to jump out again after this patch. Supers/titans will purely be used to counter drop a capital target or lesser number of capital targets, wich yet again defeats the purpose of this patch supposedly being able to balance out super/titan fleet fights. Will do completely the opposite.



Or you could organize some friends to save you, have tea while you wait for them to travel by gate all the way across the cluster, come back, realize you still aren't through shields in a max EHP aeon, take a power nap, then come back in time to see said shield tanked blaster prophecies get annihilated by the lone daredevil that managed to get there ahead of everyone else. Ah well, if you want to lose your Aeon that's your decision...Roll
Will DestroyYou
#2347 - 2011-10-23 10:24:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Will DestroyYou
If we must continue with (laggy/mindless/boring/dumb) blob warfare then I guess these fixes are as good as any...

Blobs are boring and I wonder when CCP will wake up to the fact. But let's face it, the CSM does not speak for the grunts - their "fixes" are in their own interests, and their "fixes" are what CCP is basing everything on.

somewhat off-topic, but related to the above point:
Alliance leaders should not even be candidates for the CSM - it should be made up of grunts for CCP to get *valid* feedback on what *most* people want. The priorities of an alliance leader are rarely the same as that of their grunts. (note: this is not directed at any particular CSM members, just a general observation of the problems with the system - how this could be done, I have no idea)

back to the main topic:
SC's/Titans are not even the source of the problem --- Alliance/NAP sizes are. Fix the source of the problem - permanently with something like this. It may not be the perfect solution, but somenting along the lines of the basic ideas behind it would make EVE much more fun for the general players, and make any overpowerred ships much less of an issue.

0.0 should be filled with many different entities, not just 2 or 3 huge ones. Fights should be fun, not tedious.

EVE used to be fun before alliance and NAP sizes got too large. All other problems stem from this one point.
Samanta Raiolaser
SPTC-IC
#2348 - 2011-10-23 14:42:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Samanta Raiolaser
First of all, please stop with those references to RL ships and RL money. This is a game, the only thing that should be considered is the effort that is put by someone into something.

While some people believe that having an wider recruiting policy with the goal of beeing able to field bigger fleets, others might set their goals to keep an smaller alliance with a considerable supercapital force. That alone shows that you have options in EVE and those options may affect the outcome...

When you break down to those 2 kinds of players (groups, alliances, coalitions...w/e) you will have to agree with me that its easier to the group with more dudes to acquire and field an supercapital fleet and still bring neuting BS, logistics, heavy tacklers.... its also waaay easier to defend cyno jammers, wich is an very important aspect of sov wars...

Two little things to add:

Risk vs Reward:
When you talk about risk vs reward beeing risk the cost of a ship, you might want to keep it to build costs (in minerals, time, pos fuel, sov bills, the risk of losing it all during the build process..).
You cant say that crap about fully estamel fit because this doesnt change the build costs/effort of said spaceship. Thats why there are tier 1 to 3 battleship I.E., beeing the tier 3 more expensive, with an smaller insurance payout, but with better stats and slots configuration.

You can have almost the same amount of officer stuff in a subcap and make it an utterly expensive fit, but that doesnt change the fact that they can be built everywhere, and with a freighter worth of minerals you can make lots of ships. Thats not even close to what you need to build any supercarrier.

About skill intesive "end game" ships:
You can fly an t1 fitted hurricane with an 5 days old char. Does it worth it?
When you scale it up to a supercarrier, you need lots of level 5 skills to fly it, and another load of lvl 5 to make it worth flying. In fact, to have the only the most valuable skills to fly it properly, it takes exactly 18 months. You can spin it whatever way you want it, but supercarriers with crappy skills arent welcome in any alliance (other than carebearing)... thats a fact. If you cant apply the bang for the buck, cant jump as far as your fleet, cant soak up enough damage, cant RR enough..... you should not be using it.

So, IMO: Yes you should take into account both price tag and skill req. when you look at versatility of any ship in some degree .By nerfing that hard the capabilities of supercaps to fight supcaps that balance its very far to beeing fair.



BTW 2.3 k posts and like 6 dev posts.... Is that the new, improved, customer friendly CCP?
Its nice to talk among us etc... But how is that beeing translated to the actual "balancing"... its a mistery... same ol' same ol'


PS.: ctrl+c before posting, pro
Shadowsword
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2349 - 2011-10-23 16:08:42 UTC
Samanta Raiolaser wrote:
First of all, please stop with those references to RL ships and RL money. This is a game, the only thing that should be considered is the effort that is put by someone into something.
...
Stuff


And even with those nerfs the supers will still be the most powerfull ships by a wide margin, so what are you complaining about?


Let's speak about effort put by the pilots.

I know one supercap pilot who, years ago, built himself a Wyvern. He did it all with the assistance of only one other player, so I'd have to agree that he deserved a bit of overpoweredness. And supercaps were still rare back then, only a half-dozen total for the whole of TCF. So it didn't matter if it was overpowered or not.

Now, take one random supercap pilot from an alliance like Shadow of Death. Odds are that the supercarrier/titan in question has been built with money coming from moon goo, or from renters. How much effort really comes from the pilot? Or even his corpmates? The answer is: not much, most of the task doesn't take active participation. And now that supers are that common, their balance really matter.
Trader 99
The Black Hornets
#2350 - 2011-10-23 16:33:09 UTC
In eve all ships have roles and when you get to the biggest damage dealers in the game it seems only logical that they would be very vulnerable to subcaps.People keep talking about the cost of these ships but i think cost is irrelevant its about balance and having a super or a titan doesnt mean you should get to have your cake and eat it.
John Hand
#2351 - 2011-10-23 17:16:08 UTC  |  Edited by: John Hand
Will DestroyYou wrote:
If we must continue with (laggy/mindless/boring/dumb) blob warfare then I guess these fixes are as good as any...


Laggy blob warfare is a thing of the past, Something people seem to keep forgetting when there posting, TiDi FIXED LAG! The only "lag" your ever going to see now is your computers own inadquicies to see the mass of drones. Turn off drone models and other effects when a fight over 50 people is going to happen....game runs real smooth after that.

Will DestroyYou wrote:

SC's/Titans are not even the source of the problem --- Alliance/NAP sizes are. Fix the source of the problem - permanently with something like this. It may not be the perfect solution, but somenting along the lines of the basic ideas behind it would make EVE much more fun for the general players, and make any overpowerred ships much less of an issue.

0.0 should be filled with many different entities, not just 2 or 3 huge ones. Fights should be fun, not tedious.

EVE used to be fun before alliance and NAP sizes got too large. All other problems stem from this one point.


CCP can't balance player relations, thie big NAP's ect that you are bitching about come from the PLAYERS, not CCP. If you want to break up the big NAPs then either wait for them to turn on themselves, or go fight against them yourself and make your own big coalition to wipe them out.

The only reason were even seeing this "nerf" at all is because the PLAYERS banded together and make a big super cap fleet. There is NOTHING stopping anyone else in the game from doing the same, getting together and encouraging people to train for supers.

Supers are fine as they are, there not OP or anything of that sort, its when there in large numbers and all blue to each-other that causes them to be "OP". If there wasn't a big coalition of super cap pilots all together and instead were fighting others, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Samanta Raiolaser
SPTC-IC
#2352 - 2011-10-23 17:34:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Samanta Raiolaser
Shadowsword wrote:

Now, take one random supercap pilot from an alliance like Shadow of Death. Odds are that the supercarrier/titan in question has been built with money coming from moon goo, or from renters. How much effort really comes from the pilot? Or even his corpmates? The answer is: not much, most of the task doesn't take active participation. And now that supers are that common, their balance really matter.


Well, I can only speak for myself.

My SC was bought with my own isk. But I would never have got to that amount if our battleships, logis, etc... wasnt full reimbursed on CTA's. CTA's that got us moons, sov to rent... Those same moons and systems now allow my alliance to continue growing and aiming for bigger objectives. They provide me content (pew pew) and I give them my time. Sounds fair to me.

Nothing comes for free. If your alliance can hand out SC's for free for regular grunts (which I doubt any alliance does) It means that someone at some point have gone for all that trouble that is necessary to build one. The rules and mineral requirements are the same for everyone, but the way that alliances handle in house built supers are up to them. Even if the corp just give you the isk and you buy it from someone, that isk comes from somewhere... maybe that 10% tax... Which means that everyone in said corp has put some of their own time to acquire said ship. Thats pretty obvious, simple, and thats nothing wrong with it.
doombreed52
TunDraGon
Goonswarm Federation
#2353 - 2011-10-23 21:03:41 UTC
I may not fly capital ships but before you go crazy just listen

The fighters seem to be a bit unbalanced between them the einherji seems to be hands down the best better tracking orbiting speed and so forth. The dragonfly has the best chance of survival but other then that nothing much, the firbolg has the best raw damage with thermal but nothing else to say about it, the templar seems to have nothing going for it besides a bit better armour which doesn't make up for it and being the only one that can deal EM damage. it just seems a bit odd to me that it would be this way and the regular drones are kinda the same way not many Amarr or caldari ones seen at all besides EWar but that shouldn't be counted in the first place about this. it seem like the only useful drones and fighters are the gallente and minmatar for raw damage and maneuverability respectively.
Monikerina
Macross Space Defense Squadron
The Conglomeration of Ill Advised Ideas
#2354 - 2011-10-24 06:48:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Monikerina
Meh. I edited my whole post because I give up.


I'll TL; DR it.

CCP tosses out cap rebalances that have opposite effect of that intended.


CCP freaking out and doing everything they can to buy back loyalty. Seems like a lot of these things will be knee jerk reactions.


Hilmar and Zulu still sound arrogant and unapologetic to me. I still remember Zulu's rage post during Monoclegate.

I'm not on CCP bandwagon yet. In fact, I doubt I ever will be again. I feel right now like this is insult to injury, dozens of changes rushed out to buy favor with us.

7 years of Eve O just feels like 7 years of my life wasted at this point.
Nyla Skin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2355 - 2011-10-24 08:34:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Nyla Skin
John Hand wrote:


CCP can't balance player relations, thie big NAP's ect that you are bitching about come from the PLAYERS, not CCP. If you want to break up the big NAPs then either wait for them to turn on themselves, or go fight against them yourself and make your own big coalition to wipe them out.

CCP however has attempted to dabble in reasons why people fight, and having failed to do so. They should not do that and fix what they have attempted so far (moons).

Quote:

The only reason were even seeing this "nerf" at all is because the PLAYERS banded together and make a big super cap fleet. There is NOTHING stopping anyone else in the game from doing the same, getting together and encouraging people to train for supers.

Yes there is, its called ISK.

Quote:

Supers are fine as they are, there not OP or anything of that sort, its when there in large numbers and all blue to each-other that causes them to be "OP". If there wasn't a big coalition of super cap pilots all together and instead were fighting others, we wouldn't be having this discussion.


No they are not fine. Nobody is saying they shouldn't have a purpose. But they should not be the 'ultimate ship' that makes everything else obsolete. That is why a BLOB of them is a problem. These changes giving them actual vulnerabilities are a step in the right direction.

Also they should get destroyed more often, which is why fixing the logoffski problem is important. If they are not getting destroyed often enough, the pileup of supercaps just warps the whole game out of joint.

In after the lock :P   - CCP Falcon www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies
UR13L
Perkone
Caldari State
#2356 - 2011-10-24 09:27:34 UTC  |  Edited by: UR13L
A few ideas i was thinking about:

- Instead of changing the siege module, maybe make a new module for it, say an "assault module" or something:

disable jump drive, but the dread can still move
enable the dread to be RR'd w/ no active tank bonus
increase tracking, slightly decrease DPS output
no EW immunity with new assault mod, and better scan res than siege
leave siege mod the way it is for shooting structures

- at least 5 small drones for dreads. they add negligible dps

- An overall +1 or 2 to warp strength for all capitals

- Nerf the DD so it does dmg according to sig rad (someone like 50 pages ago mentioned it)

full dmg vs supers
1 mil or so dmg vs regular caps
less vs BS and down etc

- people hardly utilize carriers anymore, other than suicide triage fit, in combat since a titan can one shot it. Hardly anyone uses
even faction mods on them either because of this as well

- Nerf fighter bombers further w/ worse sig res, so they dont annihilate regular caps as quickly (still full dmg on structure or supers), or require a siege like state for a mom to use t hem, and then they should only use them and no fighters.


Id like to see regular capitals not be so overpowerd by fighterbombers and doomsdays so that people will fit them well and field them on a standard battle field in conjunction with subcaps and supers complementing each other.

E: another option for the DD is to make it do its dmg over time , say 5-10 seconds
Magic Crisp
Amarrian Micro Devices
#2357 - 2011-10-24 11:38:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Magic Crisp
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.


Dear CCP Tallest (btw tallest by what means? ;) ),

I'd like to ask three things, which i'm thinking most about these upcoming changes,

First, I think fighters should only be nerfed, that they shouldn't greatly affect carriers as they are currently. Carriers do need fighters, and to hit BSs, and to a size, cruisers. This is the way eve works, you can hit your current size, one down a bit, and two down pretty slightly. Carriers are very nice in this regard

Second, the matar carriers really need love, becuase they are such a hybrid breed right now, that makes them really hard to make use of, and the usage statistics of the ship(s) really reflect this.

And at last, about the dreads. I really do feel dreads are not really being used in fleet fights because they are nothing bot expensive killmails now. We only undock our dreads, when it's definitely we won't get resistances at POS bashings. The reason for this, is they are unable to recieve logistics support. It doesn't really matter how much self-tanking boost they got by entering siege mode, they don't even have the slightest chance to survive a fleet battle. Maybe if we could field dreads, which were able to receive some kind of logistics support (like cap transfers only, or from SCs only, or from scripted cap transfer only, or using scripted siege mods, whatever, i'm just a player), we could deal with cap fleets somewhat better. Maybe.

I hope I'll get some answers for these suggestions/ideas.

Best regards,
Magic
Sigras
Conglomo
#2358 - 2011-10-24 23:32:56 UTC
Magic Crisp wrote:
I really do feel dreads are not really being used in fleet fights because they are nothing bot expensive killmails now. We only undock our dreads, when it's definitely we won't get resistances at POS bashings. The reason for this, is they are unable to recieve logistics support. It doesn't really matter how much self-tanking boost they got by entering siege mode, they don't even have the slightest chance to survive a fleet battle. Maybe if we could field dreads, which were able to receive some kind of logistics support (like cap transfers only, or from SCs only, or from scripted cap transfer only, or using scripted siege mods, whatever, i'm just a player), we could deal with cap fleets somewhat better. Maybe.

I hope I'll get some answers for these suggestions/ideas.

Best regards,
Magic

Ive long said that the best fix for dreads is to remove its tanking bonus in siege, nerf its EHP a little, add a bit of resist across the board in siege, and allow it to receive RR

After that change, you can keep the siege module at 600 seconds as a nerf to what may now be an overpowered ship.
HelPilot of20Years
Doomheim
#2359 - 2011-10-25 02:17:56 UTC
CCP Tallest wrote:
The poor performance of Minmatar capital ships is being looked at and was already being looked at before the blog was posted....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.


Will these two semi-related portions of your post be executed inclusively and before the SISI mirror expires?
SISI should always be free anyway, bittervets might re-sub if they knew their ships were space-worthy. You know, so we can see what you've done and not what you've said.

The 20/20 F/FB compromise and dread boost is enough. EHP reduction is a crime against humanity.
A drone SP reimbursement is due for SC pilots if they prefer IMO, considering the months of training wasted on what in many cases is a character who is permanently stuck in a ship they were told would require said skills.

...designed for [u]one purpose and one purpose only[/u]. ”Imagine a swarm of deadly hornets pouring from the devil’s mouth. Now imagine they have autocannons.” -Unknown Hel designer
Tore Vest
#2360 - 2011-10-25 09:49:32 UTC
All CCP wants to do... is poke ppl in the eye with nerf nerf nerf NERF !!
And... Why in h... is plex prices so high in Jita ? Evil

No troll.