These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Balancing Feedback: Capital Ships

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#221 - 2011-11-11 21:44:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Iam Widdershins
Akara Ito wrote:
Levistus Junior wrote:
Thinking at alliance level, putting the ISk equivalent of a supercarrier in dreads on the filed (that;s 13 at roughly 20 bil a fitted SC vs. 1.5 bil a fitted dread) you achieve:
-about 10 times more DPS (that can shoot POSes too)
-about 2/3 EHP (13x2 mil EHP=26 bil EHP
-you can only reduce the incoming DPS by killing dreads, which is more difficult than killing bombers.
-dreads are insurable (meaning you can probably lose 2-3x the equivalent ISK value in dreads before you get the same net loss as for a supercap).



All these things wont work because the limiting factor in EVE are people.
If you have 100 Supers in Fleet you cant replace them with 1300 Dreads for Obvious reasons.

No, it does work, because the original complaint was "BAWWW MOTHERSHIPS ARE NO GOOD ANY MORE"

Besides, on an alliance level, ISK barely even matters for this kind of thing.

Addendum: The point is, at least now dreads and moms each have a role that they can fill; Motherships don't take away the role of Dreads, and vice versa. Throughout this argument the only point that has been nailed home is that CCP achieved what they wanted with these changes.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Cheekything
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#222 - 2011-11-12 00:07:35 UTC
Arkady Sadik wrote:
Awesome, thank you!

CCP Tallest wrote:
* There need to be deadspace shield invulnerability fields equivalent to the A-Type EANM modules
One of the biggest problems here is that shield faction modules are exorbitantly more expensive than the corresponding armor modules. E.g. there is no "Imperial navy EANM" equivalent for shields for 30m, say. CN invuls are better, but they're also at 300m.


At the same time armour needs an active ENAM version too :P
LORD DRAGUIL
Big Willy Rental's
#223 - 2011-11-12 01:12:24 UTC
Based on feedback, the following changes have been made in addition to the previously proposed changes. They will most likely come to SISI on Monday or Tuesday.

Supercarriers
* All supercarriers: dronebay +25000 (5 extra fighters/fb)

Thanks for the bone but the proposed changes are way too much ,
1) log off tactic fixed (only one really needed to kill a supercarrier).
2) No drones other than fighter or fighter bomber, Woot cant defend itself against fast moving BS and lower.
3) hit point nerf see above statement






Wanna throw a bone try letting them carry full set 20/20 fighters and bombers, and dockable..


Shocked
Demon Azrakel
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#224 - 2011-11-12 02:35:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Demon Azrakel
Sigras wrote:
if the nid doesnt shield tank, why are you complaining about not being able to fit shield mods . . . I only assumed if you were using shield mods, youd want a shield tank so you could spider tank if you got attacked . . . can you please tell me the practicality of using shield transporters on an armor tanking carrier?


Actually, if you are running a triage carrier on a Nid atm, and the fleet you are repping is fit with shields, you need to run an armor tank. If, however, the fleet is armor tanked, you need to run a shield tank. This is all due to CPU and PG considerations. This makes the ship interesting to fly (I am actually training a character right now for that purpose).

CCP Tallest wrote:
Greetings

Please post your feedback about capital ship balancing in this thread.

Thanks.
Your Tallest.

Update (10/11/11): Based on feedback, the following changes will be made in addition to the previously proposed changes. They should hit SISI on Monday November 14th or Tuesday the 15th.

Supercarriers
* All supercarriers: dronebay +25000 (5 extra fighters/fb)

Shield supercapitals
* Shield nerf changed from -20% to -10% (shield recharge rate also changed accordingly)
** New values should be 90% of current TQ value

Naglfar
* +2500 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)


Nidhoggur:
* 7,5% bonus to armor and shield transfer amount per carrier level instead of 5%.
* +30000 PG
* +2500 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)


Stupid Quote limit

Supercarriers: Makes sense, what you proposed was kinda an over-nerf. I could even understand upping them to take 20/20 or 25/20 for the nyx. Also, if you want to consider there to be a tradeoff between fighters and fighter bombers, make sure that (all) fighters can actually hit a battleship sitting still properly.

Shield Supers: Meh, does not fix the basic issues. Be very careful when introducing deadspace invuls and shield slave equivalents as well as fixing boosters. Do not forget that, if you do, armor needs a crystal equivalent.

Naglfar: Was not aware of an issue, I doubt this will have a significant effect

Nid: Looks fine, nice that it will not get screwed over by neuts quite so much. You may be able to run a self rep + remote rep armor carrier now. Not sure if I am happy about that, was kinda looking forward to running the Nid with self shield and remote armor reps, but w/e. Was part of what made the ship unique.

CCP Tallest wrote:
Hel:
* 7,5% bonus to armor and shield transfer amount per carrier level instead of 5%.
* +5000 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)


Still Terrible, try giving it room for 50 fighters + fighter-bombers. People may have a reason to use them. Maybe give it a bonus to fighter damage and change nyx to only give a bonus to fb damage. Be creative.

CCP Tallest wrote:
XL autocannons:
* +50% falloff


Was needed to keep them more like their smaller cousins. I doubt that this will make them OP or anything though.

CCP Tallest wrote:
Titan tracking issue:
* "Immune to all forms of Electronic Warfare" will also make you immune to remote "electronic assistance", that is: remote tracking enhancers and remote sensor boosters.


About time.

EDIT: Did I miss the bit where you gave the Chimera another 20% CPU?
Nuskoginus
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#225 - 2011-11-12 05:07:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Nuskoginus
CCP Tallest wrote:
Greetings

Shield supercapitals
* Shield nerf changed from -20% to -10% (shield recharge rate also changed accordingly)
** New values should be 90% of current TQ value

Naglfar
* +2500 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)

Nidhoggur:
* 7,5% bonus to armor and shield transfer amount per carrier level instead of 5%.
* +30000 PG
* +2500 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)

Hel:
* 7,5% bonus to armor and shield transfer amount per carrier level instead of 5%.
* +5000 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)


Maybe the shield buff is a bit too heavy. Just some numbers for you:

Situation now on Tranquility:

[Aeon, New Setup 1]
Damage Control II
Energized Regenerative Membrane II
Centum A-Type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
Centum A-Type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
Corpus X-Type Armor EM Hardener
Corpus X-Type Armor Thermic Hardener
Corpus X-Type Armor Kinetic Hardener
Corpus X-Type Armor Explosive Hardener

[empty med slot]
[empty med slot]
[empty med slot]
[empty med slot]

[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]

Large Trimark Armor Pump II
Large Trimark Armor Pump II
Large Trimark Armor Pump II


[Wyvern, New Setup 1]
Brokara's Modified Power Diagnostic System
Brokara's Modified Power Diagnostic System
Brokara's Modified Power Diagnostic System
Damage Control II

Pith X-Type Photon Scattering Field
Pith X-Type Heat Dissipation Field
Pith X-Type Ballistic Deflection Field
Pith X-Type Explosion Dampening Field
Caldari Navy Invulnerability Field
Caldari Navy Invulnerability Field
Caldari Navy Invulnerability Field
Shadow Serpentis Sensor Booster

[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]

Large Core Defence Field Extender II
Large Core Defence Field Extender II
Large Core Defence Field Extender II

Both setups have no Implants and as you can see I have fitted only Dread Guristas Invuls and no Offices Invuls.
If you compare the EHP it is 33.8 mil (Wyvern) vs. 34.6 mil (Aeon). Now lets take into account that you reduce 20% armor, 20% structure and 10% shield. The situation is that the Aeon falls below 29 mil EHP and the Wyvern stays at 31 mio EHP. But there are two big differences. 1. the Wyvern has better resists than the Aeon which means it can be easier supported and it has their passive tanking abilities because of the passive shield recharge that stays at 3300dps.
And now lets say that the effect of slave sets will work for shields as well.
This would push the Aeon to a maximum of 43 mil EHP and the Wyvern to 46,5 Mio. Again lets take a look at the the passive shield recharge and it has increased to 5000 DPS. This means that nearly 10 Battleships can open fire on this new designed Wyvern forever without having any chance to kill until the next downtime.
So my suggestion would be that the shield supers need some love but not that much. Probably just drastic minimize the shield recharge rate for Wyverns, Hels, Leviathans and Ragnaroks and remove this crap that the shield needs to load up again if you have shield boni from gang and you jump into another system or join a fleet.
SuperBeastie
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#226 - 2011-11-12 06:19:06 UTC  |  Edited by: SuperBeastie
Nuskoginus wrote:
CCP Tallest wrote:
Greetings

Shield supercapitals
* Shield nerf changed from -20% to -10% (shield recharge rate also changed accordingly)
** New values should be 90% of current TQ value

Naglfar
* +2500 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)

Nidhoggur:
* 7,5% bonus to armor and shield transfer amount per carrier level instead of 5%.
* +30000 PG
* +2500 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)

Hel:
* 7,5% bonus to armor and shield transfer amount per carrier level instead of 5%.
* +5000 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)


Maybe the shield buff is a bit too heavy. Just some numbers for you:

Situation now on Tranquility:

[Aeon, New Setup 1]
Damage Control II
Energized Regenerative Membrane II
Centum A-Type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
Centum A-Type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
Corpus X-Type Armor EM Hardener
Corpus X-Type Armor Thermic Hardener
Corpus X-Type Armor Kinetic Hardener
Corpus X-Type Armor Explosive Hardener

[empty med slot]
[empty med slot]
[empty med slot]
[empty med slot]

[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]

Large Trimark Armor Pump II
Large Trimark Armor Pump II
Large Trimark Armor Pump II


[Wyvern, New Setup 1]
Brokara's Modified Power Diagnostic System
Brokara's Modified Power Diagnostic System
Brokara's Modified Power Diagnostic System
Damage Control II

Pith X-Type Photon Scattering Field
Pith X-Type Heat Dissipation Field
Pith X-Type Ballistic Deflection Field
Pith X-Type Explosion Dampening Field
Caldari Navy Invulnerability Field
Caldari Navy Invulnerability Field
Caldari Navy Invulnerability Field
Shadow Serpentis Sensor Booster

[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]

Large Core Defence Field Extender II
Large Core Defence Field Extender II
Large Core Defence Field Extender II

Both setups have no Implants and as you can see I have fitted only Dread Guristas Invuls and no Offices Invuls.
If you compare the EHP it is 33.8 mil (Wyvern) vs. 34.6 mil (Aeon). Now lets take into account that you reduce 20% armor, 20% structure and 10% shield. The situation is that the Aeon falls below 29 mil EHP and the Wyvern stays at 31 mio EHP. But there are two big differences. 1. the Wyvern has better resists than the Aeon which means it can be easier supported and it has their passive tanking abilities because of the passive shield recharge that stays at 3300dps.
And now lets say that the effect of slave sets will work for shields as well.
This would push the Aeon to a maximum of 43 mil EHP and the Wyvern to 46,5 Mio. Again lets take a look at the the passive shield recharge and it has increased to 5000 DPS. This means that nearly 10 Battleships can open fire on this new designed Wyvern forever without having any chance to kill until the next downtime.
So my suggestion would be that the shield supers need some love but not that much. Probably just drastic minimize the shield recharge rate for Wyverns, Hels, Leviathans and Ragnaroks and remove this crap that the shield needs to load up again if you have shield boni from gang and you jump into another system or join a fleet.



so as they currently are
Aeon 54m ehp
with slaves and zet 5000 10% armor
Wyvern 43m
kva3000 6% shield

-20% & 10%

Aeon 43.2
Wyvern 38.7

Also if you think passive recharge matters when it comes to a super capital fight you are sadly mistaken I'd rather have ehp Also if you take into account these energy neut fleets people fly with now days can neut out you titan or super carrier in under a minute making all the hardeners on shield supers turn off while A aeon eanm are just as effective and it also has all kinds of free mid slots that make it more versatile

Now on top of all that the way that shield bonuses are applied is broke so

10% leadership bonus
Aeon 47.52'
Wyvern 38.7 of 42.57

Than because the Wyvern does have better resists it get less of a bonus from the siege warfare link shield harmonizing due to diminishing returns than a aeon would from a armored warfare link passive defense.

[center]SuperBeastie's Third Party Service My in-game Channel is Supers Third Party[/center]
Svennig
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#227 - 2011-11-12 06:30:44 UTC
Sigras wrote:
if the nid doesnt shield tank, why are you complaining about not being able to fit shield mods . . . I only assumed if you were using shield mods, youd want a shield tank so you could spider tank if you got attacked . . . can you please tell me the practicality of using shield transporters on an armor tanking carrier?


Repping POS. Repping stations. Repping iHubs. Repping the shield-based subcap support fleet if needed. Repping chimeras in the gang (if you have any). Repping any nags or phoenixes. Repping any whyverns or rags or levis. But mostly, repping structures. That most-boring of tasks which you need to go as quickly as humanly possible.

And you need to do this from a capfleet that is overwhelmingly armor. Archon is armor. Thanatos is armor. That's the two most popular carriers. Aeon is armor. Nyx is armor. That's the two most popular SCs. Erebus is armor. Avatar is armor. That's the two most popular titans.

The Nid's bonuses make it explicit: It's the carrier with the best reps and can be used to rep "outside the gang", i.e. repping shield from an armor gang, or repping armor from a shield gang (for incapped POS mods say, or an armor cycle of a sov timer). The thing is, while you can do a "shield gang repping armor" nid fit quite easily without any buff from tallest (although your EHP is significantly lower), you cannot do an "armor gang repping shield" nid fit without completely compromising the ft by utilising two fitting mods.

And it's not due to powergrid issues, it's due to CPU.
LacLongQuan
Doomheim
#228 - 2011-11-12 11:44:19 UTC
Nuskoginus wrote:

Both setups have no Implants and as you can see I have fitted only Dread Guristas Invuls and no Offices Invuls.
If you compare the EHP it is 33.8 mil (Wyvern) vs. 34.6 mil (Aeon). Now lets take into account that you reduce 20% armor, 20% structure and 10% shield. The situation is that the Aeon falls below 29 mil EHP and the Wyvern stays at 31 mio EHP. But there are two big differences. 1. the Wyvern has better resists than the Aeon which means it can be easier supported and it has their passive tanking abilities because of the passive shield recharge that stays at 3300dps.
And now lets say that the effect of slave sets will work for shields as well.
This would push the Aeon to a maximum of 43 mil EHP and the Wyvern to 46,5 Mio. Again lets take a look at the the passive shield recharge and it has increased to 5000 DPS. This means that nearly 10 Battleships can open fire on this new designed Wyvern forever without having any chance to kill until the next downtime.
So my suggestion would be that the shield supers need some love but not that much. Probably just drastic minimize the shield recharge rate for Wyverns, Hels, Leviathans and Ragnaroks and remove this crap that the shield needs to load up again if you have shield boni from gang and you jump into another system or join a fleet.

this is the problem if shield has slave. plus woth a cap pool of SC, stop complaining you dont have enough cap to run a few hardener
Akara Ito
Phalanx Solutions
#229 - 2011-11-12 11:58:05 UTC
SuperBeastie wrote:

so as they currently are
Aeon 54m ehp
with slaves and zet 5000 10% armor
Wyvern 43m
kva3000 6% shield

-20% & 10%

Aeon 43.2
Wyvern 38.7

Also if you think passive recharge matters when it comes to a super capital fight you are sadly mistaken I'd rather have ehp Also if you take into account these energy neut fleets people fly with now days can neut out you titan or super carrier in under a minute making all the hardeners on shield supers turn off while A aeon eanm are just as effective and it also has all kinds of free mid slots that make it more versatile

Now on top of all that the way that shield bonuses are applied is broke so

10% leadership bonus
Aeon 47.52'
Wyvern 38.7 of 42.57

Than because the Wyvern does have better resists it get less of a bonus from the siege warfare link shield harmonizing due to diminishing returns than a aeon would from a armored warfare link passive defense.


So, the Aeon has 10 % more ehp now.
Its an Armot Tank its supposed to have more EHP in general and the advatage here is only 10%.
If shield slaves would be used for the Wyvern it would get 56% more ehp, thats means about 65m compared to 47.5m for the Aeon.
That would kill the balancing a lot more than those 10% difference we have now.
Baki Yuku
Doomheim
#230 - 2011-11-12 13:26:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Baki Yuku
Akara Ito wrote:
SuperBeastie wrote:

so as they currently are
Aeon 54m ehp
with slaves and zet 5000 10% armor
Wyvern 43m
kva3000 6% shield

-20% & 10%

Aeon 43.2
Wyvern 38.7

Also if you think passive recharge matters when it comes to a super capital fight you are sadly mistaken I'd rather have ehp Also if you take into account these energy neut fleets people fly with now days can neut out you titan or super carrier in under a minute making all the hardeners on shield supers turn off while A aeon eanm are just as effective and it also has all kinds of free mid slots that make it more versatile

Now on top of all that the way that shield bonuses are applied is broke so

10% leadership bonus
Aeon 47.52'
Wyvern 38.7 of 42.57

Than because the Wyvern does have better resists it get less of a bonus from the siege warfare link shield harmonizing due to diminishing returns than a aeon would from a armored warfare link passive defense.


So, the Aeon has 10 % more ehp now.
Its an Armot Tank its supposed to have more EHP in general and the advatage here is only 10%.
If shield slaves would be used for the Wyvern it would get 56% more ehp, thats means about 65m compared to 47.5m for the Aeon.
That would kill the balancing a lot more than those 10% difference we have now.


No it would not because you can kill the tank of any shield tanked cap/super with neuting quiet fast. But you cant do this against a aeon because of the nature of her tank being passiv (no cap consumed). All it would mean is that you'd need to apply different tactics against shield tanked supers if you want to take them down fast.. if you do you will kill them faster then aeons and nyx's if you dont it will take longer and you suffer heavier losses seems fair to me. Different ships and design different tactics.
Nuskoginus
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#231 - 2011-11-12 15:09:50 UTC
Baki Yuku wrote:

No it would not because you can kill the tank of any shield tanked cap/super with neuting quiet fast. But you cant do this against a aeon because of the nature of her tank being passiv (no cap consumed). All it would mean is that you'd need to apply different tactics against shield tanked supers if you want to take them down fast.. if you do you will kill them faster then aeons and nyx's if you dont it will take longer and you suffer heavier losses seems fair to me. Different ships and design different tactics.


The tactic is always the same. You neut the super, their hardeners go offline and you kill it. There is no difference between shield tanked and armor tanked ships.
Mauryce
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#232 - 2011-11-12 15:57:05 UTC
1-. Dont allow BuffFleets and hp-implants effects apply on Supers and Titan. Them you can easy rebalance SC Hp with no risk to affect subcaps tank performance..

2-. Remove the possibility to fit remote repairs on Supers. Keep RR task only for carriers.

Proposed Hel bonus have no future in blobs-warfare based on massive Hp and dps.


S!
Vilgan Mazran
Outback Steakhouse of Pancakes
Deepwater Hooligans
#233 - 2011-11-12 15:59:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Vilgan Mazran
As many have already stated, I think removing the effectiveness of slaves on supercaps is a better change than adding a shield equivalent to the slaves. That creates problems with stuff like bait drakes in low sec (where you aren't worried about your clone) getting even more silly. Maybe reduce the armor EHP nerf to 10% as well if you remove slaves for supers.

Lots of complaints about nid capacitor compared to archon. Given their significantly better rep ability, the new ratio suggested seems to make sense. Doesn't seem to be a need to boost it further.

Triage II module remains underwhelming. Lots of places to boost it a bit further imo, just pick one and go with it. Minor bonus to local rep duration or amount or remote duration or amount, boost scan res further, etc. Not suggesting all of the above, just a bit more of a boost. 20% lock range bonus just seems confusing because it isn't terribly relevant.

edit> oh yeah, please no passive shield invuln. Armor/Shield having differences is a good thing imo.
Phunnestyle
Doomheim
#234 - 2011-11-12 22:45:26 UTC
PhunnestyleSchool of Applied KnowledgeCaldari StateLikes received: 25
#2421 Posted: 2011.11.06 20:08 | Edited by: Phunnestyle

Limiting SCs to only being able to take 20-25 fighters/fighter bombers is totally fail,what idiot thought of that really, Some1 with no idea of how Supers will actually be used after the patch. Alot of out of touch people obviously had these half arsed idea's. With only enough room for 20-25 Supers will only have fighters,they will have no fighter bombers, this is reality & fact. Fighters will be ONLY used as manditory with target painters in the mids. So why CCP did you create Fighter bombers if there not going to be used due to this failure of sight. Need enough room for 20fighters & 20fighter bombers OR if drone hold capacity is going to be half it is now, then you should be able to deploy 10fighters or 10fighter bombers & double up the damage. Honestly so fail...... Listen to the the Pilots that actually fly the ships day in day out, We want a nerf also, but 1 wich will refine down supers not make certian niche aspects such as fighter bombers a no go area. (sigh)

If slaves where going to be taken away (IF) then supers should damn well get that 20% overall natural EHP back.
Demitrios
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
OnlyFleets.
#235 - 2011-11-13 03:29:33 UTC
Well i was going to have a play with the new settings, but then kenzoku decided to ruin that when i logged out.

fun.
Gol'dar
Dar Inc.
#236 - 2011-11-13 16:04:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Gol'dar
Iam Widdershins wrote:

Addendum: The point is, at least now dreads and moms each have a role that they can fill; Motherships don't take away the role of Dreads, and vice versa. Throughout this argument the only point that has been nailed home is that CCP achieved what they wanted with these changes.


so, what is "the" role for the supercarrier after this patch?

damagedealing?
it's should be the role of the boostet dread (the moros can field more dps than a nyx)

capital fights?
yes, but with some restrictions. You can field 6-8 dockable + insureable dreads for one supercarrier -> 60-80k dps or 10k dps. And before "Apogrypha" there were full capital fleets. So, the supercapblob will be relieve by the possible much bigger dreadnoughtblob.

capital support?
it's the role of the carrier.

logistic?
yes, the supercarrier has got 2,5M m³ shiphangar and 50k m³ corporate, but you need a dockable carrier also. And a carrier can jump more farther than the supercarrier. One idea: can we switch the jump range of carrier and super carrier? So, the sc can be the long range corp/alliance-logistics at least.

@ CCP Tallest,
150k or 25k more drone bay is'nt enough. With carrier 5 you can field 20 fighter or fighter bomber. 150k are only 30 fighter or fighter bomber. So you can split to 15/15 (reduce structuregrinding-ability, increased defence-ability). Or you decide before the jump for damage or for defence. You don't have enough corporate hangar to refit on the battlefield. 20/20 for two full squads without any reserve should be the minimum.
Is there a plan to rebuild the ship-blueprints or to implement capital energy neutralizer to compensate the new t2-hic-bubble?

---

Too all the sc-nerfer (remove ecm-invulnerability, nerf more ehp, remove fighters too, that's not going too far ect.) in this threat: what bonus should be avaiable for a ship, that can't dock? A ship, that cost five times of the 3rd expensive ship (jump freighter). An honest answer would be nice.
Fenix Zealot
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#237 - 2011-11-13 17:03:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Fenix Zealot
CCP Tallest wrote:
Greetings

Please post your feedback about capital ship balancing in this thread.

Thanks.
Your Tallest.

Update (10/11/11): Based on feedback, the following changes will be made in addition to the previously proposed changes. They should hit SISI on Monday November 14th or Tuesday the 15th.

Supercarriers
* All supercarriers: dronebay +25000 (5 extra fighters/fb)



This is like putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound. its stupid and pointless

It also fails to address the problem with supers to begin with.

Let me help you out ccp:

The problem with supercarriers was that they had rediculous ehp, and in large blobs, they could not be killed quickly enough. Additionally, they could drop out 20 bombers and crush capitals, then turn around and drop 20 fighters and dice apart support. NEVER WAS THERE AN ISSUE WITH SUBCAPITAL DRONES beyond maybe a little lag. subcapital drones are only marginally effective in fleet fights. enough to be noticed but not to wtfbbq stuff. they are too slow and/or too easily killed. which is fine really. subcap drones are also countered by smartbombs here or there or bombs (which are present in almost every fleet fight now)

leave the drone bays at 125000 m3 and give supercarriers subcapital drones again.... giving them another 5 fighters (wyvern/aeon 30 and nyx/hel 35) just gives them 20 fighter bombers again, plus 10-15 fighters. It makes them less effective in blob fights, but 50 supercarriers will still create issues in the same way as before, ESPECIALLY IF YOU KEEP ADDING MORE DRONE BAY SIZE

Seriously why is this not obvious? this is a clear example of ccp panicing about supers and just tripping over themselves to correct an issue they obviously didn't understand. Again let me reiterate. normal drones had nothing to do with why supercarriers were overpowered!...

one more time. NORMAL DRONES HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SUPERCARRIERS BEING OVER POWERED. it was the ability to field fighters AND fighter bombers plus way too much ehp.

so why now are ccp scaling back the drone bay nerf and adding more fighters to the mix...?

Just put the drone bays back at 125000 (maybe more for the nyx/hel) and just give them subcapital drones again.....


Picture this scenerio:

- 2 massive fleets engage in an epic battle. one side starts to lose stamina so they deploy 20 supercarriers fit with fighter drones. The other side wavers slightly but with some observation and confidence deploys their 10 supercarriers with fighter bombers fit.
- Now we have 2 fleets engaged, one with 20 supers fielding fighters and a slightly weaker subcap fleet, vs a slightly stronger subcap fleet sporting 10 supers and FB. Who will win?
- The 10 fb supers have to race against time to destroy or force away the 20 fighter supers which are making mincemeat of their support fleet. If the 10 fb supers fail to be effective in time, their support dies and they die to the blob. if they do enough damage quickly enough, the 20 hostile supers go down, and their sentry/heavy drones rebolster their mangled support fleet for the rest of the fight.

**(keep in mind that 20 t2 sentry drones and near perfect skills only brings 2 ish battleships worth of dps. vs 20 fighters which brings 4-5 battleships worth of dps)
**(also keep in mind that sentry/heavy drones are extreemly vulnerable to being alpha'd and bombed in laggy slow to react environments whereas fighters are not so vulnerable)
SuperBeastie
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#238 - 2011-11-13 18:32:56 UTC  |  Edited by: SuperBeastie
Fenix Zealot wrote:




**(keep in mind that 20 t2 sentry drones and near perfect skills only brings 2 ish battleships worth of dps. vs 20 fighters which brings 4-5 battleships worth of dps)


I see what you mean that's so broken!!! Why would people ever think that a ship that costs 363 times as much as a scorpion should be able to do four times as much damage ccp please lower their damage back to battleship levels!

but not vidi levels because they can hit 2500 overheated and that is more than a super carriers fighters

[center]SuperBeastie's Third Party Service My in-game Channel is Supers Third Party[/center]
The Economist
Logically Consistent
#239 - 2011-11-13 19:01:14 UTC
What exactly is the CCP vision for SC's with these changes?

How do you see them fitting into eve and the general capital/alliance playing field?

I'm assuming there must be a coherent plan and general concept of their role and useage post patch, beyond "they're too good, let's neuter them".

Given the dread changes coming, where do you expect we'll see SC's and doing what?


My guesses would be: "on the forums" and "being sold".


I could of course be talking out of my arse and missing some crucial point; but what advantages will such expensive un-dockable ships confer after the nerfs? What's their new raison d'etre?
Sameyaa
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#240 - 2011-11-13 19:32:54 UTC
Gol'dar wrote:
yesterday I tested my Nyx against Baddon and Tornado. It is a pain - fighter bomber against subcaps. The Tornado with 2 LSE and 3 medium CDFE has a signature radius of 266.

in short: the Tornado can sig/speed/shieldtanking my Nyx (FB 5) easily.

Your Tyrfing hits (Tornado), doing 7,5 damage (without 2 TP)
Your Tyrfing hits (Tornado), doing 27,9 damage (with 2 TP)

And the Tornado was unbonused. With the new T2 Ganglinks (+35% Bonus) there is nearly no damage on the Tornado (300+ m/s speed without ab/mwd and <200 signature radius). But ok, you can refit your supercarrier for fighter (in before the fight and in your staging system of course)

Your Einherji is well aimed at (Tornado), inflicting 123,0 damage (without 2 TP)
Your Einherji is well aimed at (Tornado), inflicting 126,2 damage (with 2 TP)

No changes in damage, but with 2 TP you got more hits, without TP more misses. But If you fit for fighter, the supercarrier is useless against structures and 2 sets (FB + F) are not avaiable.

The devblog from 2011-10-05 says, supercarrier are to powerfull against subcaps. Now, supercarrier are helpless against subcaps. The new T2 warp disruption field generator will bring heavy Interdictor out of neutralizer range (36km für the HIC-bubble?). Only 4 officer neutralizer can neut the HIC on a range above 34km+. So, the supercarrier can't kill and can't neut the HIC. Fine. OK, you say "bring more supportfleet". Supportfleet for what? For an expensive, bold tagged "X" on a shiphull, that can't doing anything better than other, more cheaper ships? Full insureable, dockable and cheap Dreadnoughts will bring almost the same DPS (bye bye DPS-star supercarrier) on a structures and can additional shooting a POS. For what I got a second char? For a nondockable ship, that is only immune against ewar and expensive, apart from that it's only useless?

The history of supercarrier is great. Introduction as an I-Win-ship, nerf to uselessness, buffing to a dps/ehp-monster, now nerfing to uselessness again. With this stats on sisi, please remove the supercarrier from the game, convert all fighter bomber to fighter, remove the fighter bomber skill und move the minerals and mods from the ex-supercarrier to a station. In this case, the ex-supercarrierpilots has got an adittional useable carriercharacter on their accounts.

summary supercarrier nerf:
- nerf ehp (was ok)
- removing of drones (why no separately drone bay?)
- only fighter (useless against structures and almost useless against frig-/cruiser-/bc-sized ships) OR fighter bomber (useless against subcaps)
- introduction of 36km T2-HIC-Bubble
- No-introduction of new neutralizer to compensate the new hic-bubble
- introduction of Tier3-BC (with t2 ganklinks very low sigradius, but battleship-DPS for 60M fullfitted)
- dreadnought-buff (dockable, full insureable, cheap, nearly same dps)
- logoffski-change (it's ok, but in addition to all other points it is a heavy nerf too)

only my opinion as a bittervet



^^ Agree