These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Isbariya
State War Academy
Caldari State
#661 - 2011-12-08 20:03:07 UTC
Ranya Delnas wrote:
Hey now i would be happy if you could only have 20 fighters/fighter bombers, or pre nerf stats, provided you could lock no subcaps other than dictors/HIC's Because im happy if all the caps kill eachother while the real pilots have an actually fun fight


shure if caps are the only way to gain sov and subcaps could not target capitals, for those not getting this statement, sarcasm !
Emmerik
NED-Clan
Goonswarm Federation
#662 - 2011-12-08 20:12:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Emmerik
Any news on the Shield Capital shield recharge after fleet bonus?
My Wyvern has about 50% left after the the most basic fleet bonus...
not counting links and/or a Levi as wing/fleet commander
Phunnestyle
Doomheim
#663 - 2011-12-08 20:33:54 UTC
Rixiu wrote:
Phunnestyle wrote:
Patch Fix out today, sooo why hasn't the Supers drone bay capacity been at least ammended to the manditory amount of 20 Fighter Bombers & 20 Fighters???????????????????

Need feed back CCP can't pretend you don't hear us & stick your fingers in your ears. Theres a immediate unjust issue & we would like it resolved.


You're the (<)1%, stop trying to force your will on the (>)99%!


LOL as I have said in the past you are an example of a fool!

Have also given example of:

A Lion cub wouldn't learn to hunt & kill from a snail, so
why should mainstream Subcap pilot who know absolutely nothing of mechanics in question & have no experience other than being hotdropped by supers, have the majority overwhelming say in what happens to them. Makes no sence. As has been shown time & time again from feed back from this thread & the original capital ship balancing thread, the fail change to the drone bay capacity is being strongly opposed by many various alliances in the EVE community for good just reason.

Super pilots are accustomed to all forms of pvp, subcap/capital & supercapital alike,so we are the best judges for what needs to happen to balance Supers.
If you've read before I like many other agree & congradulate changes such as pinging aggro timers & limiting Supers to Fighters & FBs. The nerf to Supers HP is acceptable as a lesser error, but is too generalized. Supers needed individual attention when it came to HP nerf/buff.

1 thing that is for sure is that Supers need a manditory drone bay capacity of room for 20 Fighter bombers & 20fighter. Theres no question about that in Super pilots minds. Would very much like feedback from CCP to if & when this ammendment is going to resume?

o7
MastahFR
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#664 - 2011-12-08 22:13:22 UTC
Bump again and again until CCP start to give us feedback.
We shield supercapital pilots are still waiting on your feedback on :
- Fleet bonus applying directly (so we don't start a fight with half our shield).
- The new deadspace invu
- Boosting the Hel (changing the bonus or/and boosting the tank) because this ship is currently a shame.
Ingwine
Krotongs
#665 - 2011-12-08 23:02:33 UTC
Also it would be nice that Triage II module would have some rep/rem rep bonuses..
CynoNet Two
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#666 - 2011-12-09 12:11:37 UTC
MastahFR wrote:
Bump again and again until CCP start to give us feedback.
We shield supercapital pilots are still waiting on your feedback on :
- Fleet bonus applying directly (so we don't start a fight with half our shield).
- The new deadspace invu
- Boosting the Hel (changing the bonus or/and boosting the tank) because this ship is currently a shame.


If only there was some kind of forum search function that meant you could find these answers yourself instead of wailing like a petulant child.
CynoNet Two
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#667 - 2011-12-09 12:22:25 UTC  |  Edited by: CynoNet Two
Phunnestyle wrote:

1 thing that is for sure is that Supers need a manditory drone bay capacity of room for 20 Fighter bombers & 20fighter. Theres no question about that in Super pilots minds. Would very much like feedback from CCP to if & when this ammendment is going to resume?

o7

Wrong. You do not speak for me or other supercap pilots. There are very valid balance reasons why the fighter bay is limited as it is posted throughout this thread. And I write this as someone who not only owns 3 supercaps, but builds several of them each month for others.

If you're still confused as to why supercaps are balanced in this way, I refer you to this.
MastahFR
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#668 - 2011-12-09 17:19:17 UTC
CynoNet Two wrote:
MastahFR wrote:
Bump again and again until CCP start to give us feedback.
We shield supercapital pilots are still waiting on your feedback on :
- Fleet bonus applying directly (so we don't start a fight with half our shield).
- The new deadspace invu
- Boosting the Hel (changing the bonus or/and boosting the tank) because this ship is currently a shame.


If only there was some kind of forum search function that meant you could find these answers yourself instead of wailing like a petulant child.


I know Tallest told us he might consider all that.
You did fail at reading my post. I was asking for a feedback about what he said : when, in how long, for what ship (and many more) CCP will actually change things ? So we can have a real feedback and not just "I might consider"...
Phunnestyle
Doomheim
#669 - 2011-12-09 23:59:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Phunnestyle
CynoNet Two wrote:
Phunnestyle wrote:

1 thing that is for sure is that Supers need a manditory drone bay capacity of room for 20 Fighter bombers & 20fighter. Theres no question about that in Super pilots minds. Would very much like feedback from CCP to if & when this ammendment is going to resume?

o7

Wrong. You do not speak for me or other supercap pilots. There are very valid balance reasons why the fighter bay is limited as it is posted throughout this thread. And I write this as someone who not only owns 3 supercaps, but builds several of them each month for others.

If you're still confused as to why supercaps are balanced in this way, I refer you to this.


1. There has been several pages + of valid reasons from a multitude of various alliances to why the supers drone bay should be a manditory capacity for 20 Fighter Bombers & 20 Fighters & not 1 reason why there shouldn't!
I cba to summon all those valid reasons just for 1 speacial needs character! Read what has been said, so you at least don't look ignorant!

2. Your a Goon so however many Supers/Titans you sell-have,doesn't make any difference when it comes down to knowing how & when to use them. Goons are widely considered for being terrible Super/titan users & know neither how or when to use them,hence goons sold off most of there super capital fleet. Going further into explaining why your troll post means next to nothing, Goons even lose Super capitals whilst under there own Cyno jammer. Thats facts right there. Fail, not all,but majority of DC are noobs, an you wisely stick to your canes/meals comps, as DC strength does not lay in quality,it lays in mass numbers as is widely known.

P.S. your links for ammendments are old news, we talk of further ammendments & benificial balancing, please do know what your blabbing on about b4 you waffle.
Charles Edisson
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#670 - 2011-12-10 12:23:37 UTC
Just have to face it. Supers are a tiny proportion of the game. Having anything in the ame that makes a small group of players too powerful is bad for CCPs remit of having as many subscribers as possible.
The only thing CCP will like about supers is that they cant dock so to have one you need a dedicated account. That's never going to change it's intentional.
Even if were to vote with our feet and leave or cancel subs this would be more than ofset by the new players they hope they will get.

To CCP you are just a source of money. We only got what we did in Crucible with the new content because too many areas of the player base had been treated like crap that total subscriber numbers were going down. Arrogant CCP made the assumption that they could treat the game like a matured company and sweat it for income with the absolute bare minimum of effort on their part.
Phunnestyle
Doomheim
#671 - 2011-12-10 16:06:59 UTC
Yes in alot of ways the masses of clueless nubs have been listened to on matters that they don't even understand, hence nerfing the Supers drone bay capacity LOL, but it would be the pinicle of stupidity if CCP kept kicking vets in the balls, as we are the ones who have stayed loyal, majority of new players come & go like the wind, we also have multiple accounts & spend more isk/money than multiple numbers of newer players. Is it really to hard to be benificial to all aspects of the EVE community.
Having older players gives a level of quality/experience & knowledge, wich would be sourly missed in EVE.
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#672 - 2011-12-10 18:59:33 UTC
CCP Tallest, please do not let the ammount of spam being posted about supercarrier bays distract from the chimera's lack of CPU to be properly fitted.

Thanks,
Zarak1
Baki Yuku
Doomheim
#673 - 2011-12-10 23:29:21 UTC
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:
CCP Tallest, please do not let the ammount of spam being posted about supercarrier bays distract from the chimera's lack of CPU to be properly fitted.

Thanks,
Zarak1

Its not just the Chimera its the Nidhoggur too.. boosting PG on Nidhoggur was stupid and unneeded... what it really needed was more CPU to be able to fullfill its role as shield support carrier as it is supposed to be a carrier to support both shield and armor which right now is not possible.
HelPilot of20Years
Doomheim
#674 - 2011-12-11 15:41:54 UTC
Baki Yuku wrote:
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:
CCP Tallest, please do not let the ammount of spam being posted about supercarrier bays distract from the chimera's lack of CPU to be properly fitted.

Thanks,
Zarak1

Its not just the Chimera its the Nidhoggur too.. boosting PG on Nidhoggur was stupid and unneeded... what it really needed was more CPU to be able to fullfill its role as shield support carrier as it is supposed to be a carrier to support both shield and armor which right now is not possible.


A very important point that has been mitigate throughout the years either by 1.) shitfitting carriers, or 2.) not using shield cap fleets (99% solution).
Now that CCP Tallest has invited us to a discussion about capitals and the need for them to be balanced, these points are salient to this thread.

Also: to repeat what mastah has been saying: HEL. 15 minute meeting in an office with a few people who have actually played eve and the problems will be solved.

Time for that 15 minute meeting has come.

In all seriousness, this is what just happened in front of our eyes - one guy makes a long, polite post arguing in favor of a particular buff to the ship and it gets implemented posthaste. I for one, fear that this is a corporate call to appeasement of the minority Hel pilots, and our ship will subsequently be ignored under the guise of 'its already been addressed'. I just saw a rigged Hel go for build price in sell orders, that is what we in the law enforcement world call 'a clue'.

Sincerely,
- A Hel pilot who has left his alliance, and safed-up/unsubbed until this 20 bil tomb is made spaceworthy.

...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
CynoNet Two
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#675 - 2011-12-12 11:01:01 UTC  |  Edited by: CynoNet Two
Phunnestyle wrote:

1. There has been several pages + of valid reasons from a multitude of various alliances to why the supers drone bay should be a manditory capacity for 20 Fighter Bombers & 20 Fighters & not 1 reason why there shouldn't!
I cba to summon all those valid reasons just for 1 speacial needs character! Read what has been said, so you at least don't look ignorant!

Funny... a cursory glance through some recent pages shows these posts:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=468876#post468876
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=472485#post472485
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=400642#post400642
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=487642#post487642
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=427970#post427970
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=416940#post416940
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=400592#post400592

All from people offering reasoning or alternatives to make supercaps less effective versus subcaps.

Just because you're fantastic at selective reading and skimming over other peoples' reasons does not mean that they don't exist. Please note that this next part is not for your attention, as I know you will just skim over it and handwave my points away without providing any logical reasoning.
Feel free to skip over it and mash the reply button to hurriedly post something about how terrible goons are because they don't understand complicated things like capitals and fighting without 10,000 ships in a fleet.

EVE has always been balanced in a rock>scissors>paper fashion where one ship or fleet style is always effective against another, and is in turn weak against something else. In some cases this is done by letting people fit the same ship for different roles, but not for all of its roles at the same time (see: RR/drone Dominix vs Sentry Dominix vs max-dps blaster Dominix, etc). Supercaps, like any other ship in EVE, need to have a weakness.

1. Supercarriers bringing both bombers and fighters at the same time let them fight both capitals and sub-capitals at the same time. A smaller fighter bay forces a trade-off between the ability to fight capitals or sub-capitals, but not both roles at full effectiveness at once.

2. A large fighter bay means that even if they don't pack both kinds, it is alot of redundancy and severely restricts the tactical option for an opposing sub-cap fleet to engage them by killing off drones. It's one thing to destroy 40 fighter/bombers on a single supercarrier, it's completely another thing for them to destroy 4,000 on 100 supercarriers.
A skilled stealth- or smart-bombing run on a poorly managed supercap fleet can cause a significant reduction in their damage, and that's exactly how EVE should be. Punishing one side for a mistake and rewarding the other for a successful and well-executed idea. If the supercarriers could just launch another few thousand drones and continue as-is it would severely diminish this hard counter, no matter how well it was pulled off.

3. Due to ISK inflation, supercaps have effectively reached the status that regular caps were in 4-5 years ago. Powerblocs need a fleet of them to compete in any serious territorial fashion. And if you cast your mind back to 2006, an alliance that deployed capitals without proper support deserved to lose them. The reasons above mean that a supercap fleet needs a respectable support fleet to counter sub-caps in exactly the same way.

Phunnestyle wrote:

2. Your a Goon so however many Supers/Titans you sell-have,doesn't make any difference when it comes down to knowing how & when to use them. Goons are widely considered for being terrible Super/titan users & know neither how or when to use them,hence goons sold off most of there super capital fleet. Going further into explaining why your troll post means next to nothing, Goons even lose Super capitals whilst under there own Cyno jammer. Thats facts right there. Fail, not all,but majority of DC are noobs, an you wisely stick to your canes/meals comps, as DC strength does not lay in quality,it lays in mass numbers as is widely known.

1. Your primary point here seems to be that you're heavily biased against my ingame faction, and that this is a valid basis to balance ships upon. I assume pointing out that you're posting under an NPC corp alt would be lost on you, as you clearly don't want to discuss any possible history of your own alliance and what they may have done in the past.

2. If you're talking about this fight, the ships were reimbursed by a GM after we were hotdropped by ev0ke lighting multiple cyno's under our online jammer. The GM was even nice enough to rep all our POS mods too!
Perhaps we'd lose less supercaps in that way if only we stopped fighting people with magical Cheetahs and infinite ferrogel...

Phunnestyle wrote:

P.S. your links for ammendments are old news, we talk of further ammendments & benificial balancing, please do know what your blabbing on about b4 you waffle.

*waves away other persons post as 'old news', claims to talk about balancing despite posting nothing of content aside from personal bias*

Heh. You don't work for Fox News, do you?
Phunnestyle
Doomheim
#676 - 2011-12-12 17:14:55 UTC
I have posted with My main, if having a alliance & name is really that important to you, then your free to guess wich toon it is. I have no need or intention of saying!

What you've done there is right an aweful lot, but mean very little, dissapointment is felt by myself!
Thought you would actually talk the talk rather than as has been done by your pall Vincent & a few others, just chat aimless LOLness.
So the links you gave where links to comments wich are objective to the Ammendment to the Supers drone bay of 20 FBs & 20 Fighters, & according to you these arguements if you can really call them that, where supposed to be valid where they LOL, so when a horde of other people explained away there pathetic objections, showing why the Supers should have a manditory drone bay of 20/20 that also ment nothing to you ofc LOL. You didn't happen to see those particular multitude of comments did you, basically you have to read loads of valid comments to get to the rubbish your refering to,so please read!
What you have evidently failed to realise is every single one of those pathetic objections E.G. Vincents where absolute & utter rubbish, in all comments against the ammendment, they could not give a valid reason for why Supers shouldn't have a manditory drone bay of 20/20. & they all ended up looking more ignorant than when they started there stubborn process of troll quality posts.
All they could do was make fail comments like "your still in the mindset that Supers are Solopwnmobiles" by your buddy Vincent.
If this trash is what you think is supposed to hold water then you are worse than the few other idiots that thought they where in the right on this matter. All you are is the latest noob to say Supers shouldn't have the ammendment to the drone bay,but yet again without a valid reason.

Your so called valid reason now consists of waffling on about how we want thousands of drones ROFL hell you must have triple sight so the numbers look longer than they actually are.

We justly ask for the Ammendment of room for (20 fighter bombers & 20 Fighters) this may look like thousands to you ROFL but it damn sure is room for 40 total for the rest of us. Id ask what your smoking if I was a junkie.
Phunnestyle
Doomheim
#677 - 2011-12-12 17:22:59 UTC
stagz wrote:
Waukesha wrote:
Roboticus420 wrote:
Phunnestyle wrote:
Vincent Gaines wrote:
So I ask again, why do you need more than 15 fighters?



Nyx is the only super able to have 35,so your quote is narrow minded just in those regards,as you would be refering to the other supers as 10Fighters GTFO of here troll
1stly Supers will have optimal amount of fighters due to being intercepted by Subcaps, it happens often enough now, but after the patch alot more Subcap fleets will have the ballz & new compositions to play with to go ballz deep on Supers.
2ndly Fighters are easy enough to take out in various ways. You your self should know that MM has a good bomber wing (the only good thing they have) and 1 of the focus's especially after the patch is going to be to take out Fighters. Alot of alliances if they havn't already are making bomber wings. At least with 20 Fighters you have the numbers out there for a majority to survive and still be somewhat effective.

In the Original patch comments, when some clueless noobs posted about decreasing the drone bay, there wasn't any serious opposition to it. The reason for that is beacuse no1 thought that such stupid comments would be listened to by CCP so didn't think anything of it. Rediculious to think that it was changed & we are now trying to sort the mess out.
Thats what happens when you listen to people who have no idea of the mechanics in question, but only wish to pass biased opinions of how they can make a super as useless as possible to benifit there particular aspect of game play. Listen to the Super pilots, they deserve the benifit of the doubt as alot of us experience every aspect subcap/capital & supercapital alike.

A lion cub wouldn't learn to hunt & kill from a snail, the snail has no experience or knowledge involving those regards.
This analogy applys to Supers, why should those who have no experience or knowledge of mechanics in question have a resounding say over Super pilots. Doesn't make any sence!

Need room for 20 Fighter Bombers & 20 Fighters in drone bay CCP <-- plz read & plz do.



Signed


Signed





signed


We don't ask for too much, only what is right!
This just a tiny quote of a massive discussion for the Ammendment.
Phunnestyle
Doomheim
#678 - 2011-12-12 17:27:23 UTC
Phunnestyle wrote:
Vincent Gaines wrote:
Sameyaa wrote:

Not really, when i get fueled i dont need my own alt, its done by a alliance hauler or corp hauler. In any case only a hauler is needed. takes less than 5 mins.

To refit i need to:
1) Have a useless alt sitting in my staging system that has a carrier (yes we all have free carrier alts laying around)
2) Login super (needs 30 secs)
3) Take all drones from drone bay of alt carrier, put needed fighters/fbs
4) Undock, get in fleet, warp to super
5) refit 1or2 fb/fighter at a time because for aeons/wyverns they will not have the free room to move fb/fighters in groups.
6) warp carrier back to station, refit drone bay like it was before (which in itself is annoying)
7) Logoff super, and sit at pos with an alt to make sure it disappeares without aggression.

You see where i'm going with this? does it remind you of something? maybe fueling a pos would be easier.



hmm... let's compare things to a subcap pilot.

logs in
spins ship
oh look a fleet
load new ship
check fittings
adjust and swap fittings as needed
load ammo
undock


your time it took to have a rorqual or carrier swap out fighters/bombers takes less time than it takes for a subcap to prep for a fleet battle. You are just lazy.

Your corp, your FLEET, should be there supporting your super. There are carrier pilots that would LOVE to do that. Why? because then they have a reason to use a carrier other than POS repping...hell, let a carrier pilot be your bish and haul your crap + keep you alive if needed. like a squire. heh.


If I was to give an example of a stubborn fool bent on doing things for the benifit of only there own aspect of gameplay within the EVE community, I would give you Vincent.

Absolutely everything you say is hularious supercarrier syndrome rage. You are grasping at straws, everything you say is complete & utter biased rubbish, I mean do you even think about it before you blurt out this garbage. If your not trolling, then if I was you I would seriously consider seeing your GP.

Basically you would have us logg in, takes 30+ seconds,use a carrier,rorq,orca itty 5 etc to adapt our fit to what was needed, taking into account some people may only have a (dedicated) alt capable of either carrier or mb an itty 5, so that can take anywhere from 5-15mins say.
Now saying that our target was still there 15+mins later, we are finally ready to jump in. Now we face according to you, having to bring our Rorq, orca etc bridge it with our supers so we have our remaining compliment of Fighter Bombers handy as well as spare Capital Armor/energy transfer handy. LOL

Now say we got that far and the rorq, orca hadnt been melted within seconds. We then have to cross our fingers & hope that when we landed in system we didn't get bumped 50+km away from rest of the fleet. According to you,we are then supposed god forbid, to slowboat while possibly bubbled to refit & adapt to a possible ever changing situation. Supers very slow you know vincent, you possibly don't know,as you clearly state in everything you say,that you know very little. These needlessly complicated changes are resolved by a manditory 20 Fighter bomber & 20 Fighter drone bay capacity.
You are trying to make something out of nothing, and your only making yourself look damn stupid.This is among the list of reasons & justifications for the rightful amendment to the Super drone bay to 20 Fighterbombers & 20 Fighters, they are all given over the last several pages that you are in stubborn denial about.
Yet again you fail to see the full implications of what you blurt out!


This also is what your fellow goony wanted us to do, an thought was acceptable!
I feel a goony ass whooping coming on again tbh =) everyday process XD
Svennig
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#679 - 2011-12-12 17:45:43 UTC
Keep spamming phunnestyle. I'm sure being an annoying ass will do loads to make CCP consider your argument carefully.
Venustas Blue
Spartan Industries
#680 - 2011-12-12 17:50:58 UTC
Svennig wrote:
Keep spamming phunnestyle. I'm sure being an annoying ass will do loads to make CCP consider your argument carefully.


His arguements arn't just his, they are alot of peoples arguements and common sence.
I mean what are you trying to point out Svennig, your comments have always seemed kinda mehhh.