These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Proposal - Stackable effects to make supercapitals viable and balanced

Author
Swanky nutjob
Holding Inc.
#1 - 2015-03-04 13:59:50 UTC
So here's my idea:

CCP has built themselves into a corner with Supercapitals. The problem - and the common misconception is - that they need to be balanced in line with existing ships and in existing mechanics. A way out of this is to change the game mechanics themselves and then balance Supercapitals.

Objective:

  • To make the different classes of capitals, specifically Super capitals an element of the sub cap fleet meta.
  • To create a system whereby those without super capitals are able to counter super capitals effectively using fleet design and tactics
  • To encourage - practically force - those with super capitals to employ support fleets when using them in engagements.
  • Make it easier in future to balance ships.
  • To allow lower SP players to shape the outcome of battles featuring Capitals and Super Capitals.


Part 1: Change mechanics to allow stackable effects

We already have elements of this in EVE, but the core change here is to approach the problem by allowing ships to be able to stack effects rather than apply them individually to a target vessel. At the moment what stacks and what does not is not aligned but if they were, could mean a change in how certain very large and expensive ships are used.

The easiest way to describe this proposal is to use an example (numbers are arbitrary and just an example and we assume Super Capitals lose their EWAR immunity):

A Nyx has a Sensor strength of 100
A generic multispectrum sensor jammer has a strength of 1 on an unbonused ship
You'd need 100 rifters fitted with multispectrum jammers to jam that Nyx.
Doesn't this change existing EWAR ships? No, they already have bonuses, they're just reworked to fit into this system. You might only need 10 Falcons to stop a Super capital targeting.

A Nyx could have a Warp Core Strength of 100.
A Warp Scramber has a strength of 2.
You'd need 50 Warp Scramblers to hold that Nyx in place.
I hear you say what about HICs?! There infinite point just gets a default strength of 100 or whatever it needs to be balanced at. The idea is that 100 warp scrambling Rifters could also be used.

Using this sort of mechanic, a Supers EWAR immunity is removed but they remain powerful, yet a fleet of subcaps could in theory both hold it in place and remove it's ability to do damage. In turn the supercap is required to have a subcap fleet to protect it. Warp core strength and EWAR are just a couple of examples of stacking abilities which could lead to super capitals being used with protective sub cap fleets. The added benefit here is that very low SP players become valuable. Right now in a capital or super capital engagement, low SP players are practically ignored due to the ships they're limited to flying, unless they're in a dictor.

Part 2: It would be a fair amount of work wouldn't it?
The downside is the amount of work needed to move to this scale, because you can't have one system for one set of ships and one for another - which is the current problem. Every other ship/module in EVE would need to fit into this scale but it would also add to potential diversification of fleet doctrines and more dynamic fleet battles. Many modules, skills and ships would remain exactly as they are with the exception of an additional set of balance variables and stacking effects. It would require revisiting how sensor strength/resolution works and EWAR would stack but the potential benefits possibly outweigh this. Allowing a 1000 Rifters to pin down and blind a super, knocking it's targeting range to 10cm and then slowly killing it would become possible.

It wouldn't really affect small gang fights and how those play out right now, which is important as this seems to be the one area of EVE where ship balancing appears to be working. The big question is how ECM would work. Cycle times would still be applicable but does the stacking effect remove the all or nothing method in which some elements of ECM works once two or more ships apply the same effect to a target?

Part 3: Fine tuning of Capitals
Capitals and Super Capitals still need to remain powerful however once this system is adopted they could more easily be tuned to fit in with the fleet meta. It would simply be a case of tuning variables to how strong or weak you want them vs subcapitals or other capital ships. It would be no different to balancing a ship of any other class. The core change has already taken place i.e. they're all susceptible to sub capitals if not protected. The more specialised - usually T2 - ships you can field, with higher skilled pilots, the fewer sub capitals needed to neutralise a Capital.

Outcome
With the new Sov mechanics in mind, where more smaller scale fights will take place, Supers will still have a place. Only now as a central element of sub capital fleets. They would need support from Sub capitals as they can be countered by sub capitals. Low SP players would no longer be a spare wheel in these sorts of fights and those with unsubbed space coffins could potentially get to use them more frequently.
Arden Elenduil
Unlimited Bear Works
#2 - 2015-03-04 14:02:21 UTC
Yes, let's make supers even less useful than they already are and will be.
Have you been following the news lately?
Swanky nutjob
Holding Inc.
#3 - 2015-03-04 14:49:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Swanky nutjob
I agree, the current changes do make them less useful. In this system they would be more useful in localised fights, which is the point.

Also, rather than try and score internet points, shooting down what could be a viable idea, how about you suggest something or build upon my proposed solution to the elephant in the room?
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2015-03-04 15:10:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
This really isn't an idea that should be debated as a change to supercarriers, unless it only works on supercarriers

Since ECM would stack on non supers as well, it's basically a complete rework of the ECM system.

Swanky nutjob wrote:
In this system they would be more useful in localised fights, which is the point.


This in no way makes supercaps better on a local scale. You are removing their ewar immunity, but they gain nothing from your proposal to compensate. Why do you think they are more useful in localised fights by losing ewar immunity?

This is right after the two successive kicks in the nuts that was the fighter assign removal, and the removal of structure grinding from Sov.

And what exactly is a supers role in a subcap fight supposed to be anyway? Fighters just get shredded, FB's are useless, and they can't use anything below a fighter.

Giant immobile super slow platforms for TP? Or giant rep platforms for repping archons? I really don't think you understand the topic you are trying to change.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#5 - 2015-03-04 15:25:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
People are complaining about supercapitals a lot lately. The problem - and the misconception is - that people think supercapitals need to have some sort of purpose or reason to exist. A way out of this is to stop, take three steps back, look at the entire picture in a way that does not consider the time or money people have put into acquiring these ships and instead focuses on the continued health and improvement of the game and its metas as a whole.

Supercaps don't need to be relevant. They need to be irrelevant so that CCP can safely remove them from EVE or at least safely redesign them from the ground up to be completely different and not be cancer.

Death to all supers.
Arden Elenduil
Unlimited Bear Works
#6 - 2015-03-04 15:26:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Arden Elenduil
Swanky nutjob wrote:
I agree, the current changes do make them less useful. In this system they would be more useful in localised fights, which is the point.

Also, rather than try and score internet points, shooting down what could be a viable idea, how about you suggest something or build upon my proposed solution to the elephant in the room?


Very well, since you insist.

Swanky nutjob wrote:
Objective:

  • To make the different classes of capitals, specifically Super capitals an element of the sub cap fleet meta.
  • To create a system whereby those without super capitals are able to counter super capitals effectively using fleet design and tactics
  • To encourage - practically force - those with super capitals to employ support fleets when using them in engagements.
  • Make it easier in future to balance ships.
  • To allow lower SP players to shape the outcome of battles featuring Capitals and Super Capitals.



The main problem with this is that you're trying to shoehorn caps and supers into a role that they were never intended to fill.
Making them an element of the subcap fleet meta is just silly, simply because they wouldn't be any use in a subcap fleet. They're simply not mobile enough. That and their roles require a completely different area of operations compared to other subcaps.
The only exception to this is the carrier in its triage form, which is intended to support fleets, however, you again have the disadvantage that it's not mobile.
All other caps, dreads, supers and titans are meant for either anti-capital warfare or long range logistics (titan bridge). And dreads for instance, again, have to be sitting still to be useful.
See where I'm going with this?

As a result, following the recent changes, most capitals, and especially will become completely useless in sov warfare, which is only 1 of 2 areas where they're currently useful. (bashing structures and killing caps/supers)
You're simply not going to counter a multitude of fast moving gangs capturing points all over the constellation in supers. There is no way.

That said, I don't know how experienced you are in capital and supercapital warfare, but it's already pretty much mandatory for supercapital fleets to have a support fleet. The only exception for this is when a gank happens, and those are over quickly.
There are more than enough instances of a superfleet getting caught with its pants down and getting absolutely massacred, simply because they didn't have the required support to clear off bubbles.
-A- lost their supers back in the day of the HBC in Catch because their subcap fleet couldn't clear bubbles quickly enough. Black Legion lost supers because they didn't have the support required to clear off bubbles. Even more recently, Pandemic Legion was forced to tank until downtime (and lost a titan) because they didn't have the support fleet to clear off bubbles...

Furthermore, I don't see in any way possible how this would make it easier to balance ships in the future...
The meta shifts constantly, and Eve players will always min-max to find the best possible setup. So balancing will be ongoing, and simply re-balancing a single ship class is not going to make things easier to re-balance the rest.

And if you think low-SP players don't already have a chance to influence a major battle? You'd be dead wrong.
Again, Brave Newbies vs Pandemic Legion.
Which of these 2 got stuck with their supers due to the actions of the biggest newbie corp (I consider this as a compliment) in Eve?
I figured....

On a side note, the side with the most numbers usually also has the most supers, and this will simply hurt smaller groups a LOT more than the bigger groups, because of the numbers game.
Swanky nutjob
Holding Inc.
#7 - 2015-03-04 16:36:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Swanky nutjob
I did state pretty clearly that it was about aligning balancing variables, that doesn't prevent a constant shift in the meta.

Yes, I am experienced in cap warfare but the idea is to move away from the huge capital blobs and instead see more common use, across the smaller, more common fleet battles the new sov system is encouraging.

You have valid points, but I did state that further balancing to make them viable in sub cap fleets is something to be addressed and it's probably on CCP's radar. You also didn't actually suggest any solutions, which is really what is needed in this discussion. It's fine to find holes in an idea but at least provide ideas with your counterpoints.

Anhenka wrote:


Since ECM would stack on non supers as well, it's basically a complete rework of the ECM system.
.


Yes, that was mentioned in my original post. This isn't a bad thing.

Anhenka wrote:


This in no way makes supercaps better on a local scale. You are removing their ewar immunity, but they gain nothing from your proposal to compensate. Why do you think they are more useful in localised fights by losing ewar immunity?

This is right after the two successive kicks in the nuts that was the fighter assign removal, and the removal of structure grinding from Sov.

And what exactly is a supers role in a subcap fight supposed to be anyway? Fighters just get shredded, FB's are useless, and they can't use anything below a fighter.

Giant immobile super slow platforms for TP? Or giant rep platforms for repping archons? I really don't think you understand the topic you are trying to change.


So if you read what I wrote, I did say that they'd need balancing post this change. In the up coming changes they have no role in in their present state.

The loss of EWAR immunity is simply a method to have them fly with sub cap support, which is, as I wrote, stated quite clearly. This isn't a proposal for a final outline in how supercapitals should be used in future but the start of a way out of the corner CCP have built themselves into.

Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
People are complaining about supercapitals a lot lately. The problem - and the misconception is - that people think supercapitals need to have some sort of purpose or reason to exist. A way out of this is to stop, take three steps back, look at the entire picture in a way that does not consider the time or money people have put into acquiring these ships and instead focuses on the continued health and improvement of the game and its metas as a whole.

Supercaps don't need to be relevant. They need to be irrelevant so that CCP can safely remove them from EVE or at least safely redesign them from the ground up to be completely different and not be cancer.

Death to all supers.


I totally agree with your first paragraph but Supercapitals are a thing and they will not go away, redesigning them to fit in with improving the health of the game is paramount. By forcing them to operate with sub cap fleets but also making them vulnerable to sub cap fleets is a start. Later on they could be changed into a T2 equivalent - whatever CCP do someone will get pissed.

But at the end of the day, thousands of players own them, they will not be deleted or removed. The best we can hope for is for them to be changed into a meaningful but not necessary ship.

The approach should be pragmatic and objective rather than statements about their removal, which will never happen.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2015-03-04 16:44:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
You don't read very well do you?


WHY WOULD I BRING A SUPERCAP ALONG TO A SUBCAP FLEET IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Supercarriers are terrible at killing anything subcaps other than HIC's, which are nearly immobile, have large sigs, and cannot recieve reps when pointing.

So all of your herfblurf about "supers working in a subcap fleet" is pointless since supercarriers are basically useless against subcaps.

You argue they need to be "balanced" because they overperform in a role they are not even used in.

You then say that they should lose immunity to ewar because it would help them in a subcap enviroment without actually addressing the pat where it's a direct nerf with no return, and that people don't use supers against subs anyway.

If you want your idea to be taken seriously, you need to add something in that would mean people have a reason to actually deploy supercarriers against subcaps.

Because at the moment, the effect of your change could be summed up as "I don't have any reason to use supercarriers against subcaps, and after this change, I still don't, so nothing has changed"

Balancing is done by adding sticks AND carrots. Saying "We know these ships are underpowered, so shall balance this by hitting it repeatedly with a stick until we know it's in an even poorer state, but you are just going to have to trust me to come up with a carrot later" is a one way trip to the trash bin for any proposal.
Swanky nutjob
Holding Inc.
#9 - 2015-03-04 16:47:42 UTC
On the contrary, I read quite well and simply pointed out, that I already pointed this out. Supers would need a further balance to put them into a role. I did state this, so I'm confused about who has the reading comprehension issues.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#10 - 2015-03-04 17:01:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Swanky nutjob wrote:
On the contrary, I read quite well and simply pointed out, that I already pointed this out. Supers would need a further balance to put them into a role. I did state this, so I'm confused about who has the reading comprehension issues.


So your proposal is a change designed to take a ship that's useless and not used in a role, and then change things so they are more useless in that role?

And just handwave all the side effects off as "It will need changes later, but that's completely unrelated to my proposal"?

See balancing changes tend to go "problem -> change -> solution".

What you have here is a proposed "change" that is unconnected to a problem, and doesn't lead to a solution.

Swanky nutjob wrote:

  • To make the different classes of capitals, specifically Super capitals an element of the sub cap fleet meta.

  • You posted this as your very first and primary objective, and then proceeded to ignore it for the rest of your thread. Which considering the rest of your thread was an unconcealed "nerf supers" whine about how supers are immune to subs despite the part where supers are A: useless against most subs and B: get pinned down by subcaps and require being saved by another subcap fleet on a regular basis, means you ignored the only part of your thread with any substance.

    So lets get back to square one.

    How do you plan on making Super Capitals an element of the sub cap fleet meta?
    Swanky nutjob
    Holding Inc.
    #11 - 2015-03-04 17:19:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Swanky nutjob
    An unconcealed whine to someone who wears tin foil maybe, but as a super owner it's simply starting a meaningful discussion on how to approach how they're used in the future.

    So to address your question, and I'll try and do it in a civilised manner which cannot be misconstrued as a unconcealed whine for those wearing 2 tons of bacofoil: The idea is to remove certain mechanic restricting or breaking items, replace them with parameters like all other ships, which in turn can be used to further balance supers into something usable in the future. The point is that supers in their present state cannot be balanced because they don't fit the present mechanics, so the idea is to change the mechanics so they can be balanced.

    A question to you is why should supers have EWAR immunity? Why, if they lose it and then in return gain enough stats in the right areas to require vast numbers of sub caps to counter, is some sort of trade off needed?

    Supers will be addressed by CCP, so instead of them going into it ham fisted like Pheobe or breaking ship balance (so variation is somewhat limited except in small gangs) in Tiercide, it's probably useful to put some options on the table for them to consider. I too feel that the current changes made by Fozzie and Rise to break up the use of capitals was poorly thought out but it's better to come at this with solutions and discussion than simply be truculent. CCP will not read your comments.

    How about, before you hit 'Post', you make sure to add a solution or something constructive to this discussion instead of being pointlessly antagonistic? I realise you're trying to score internet points here but being abrasive isn't exactly helping is it?
    Anhenka
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #12 - 2015-03-04 18:14:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
    Supercarriers get Ewar immunity because it is the defining attribute of Supercapitals. If you want to remove it, then the question is what you give them in return. And no, a system where they get permajammed by two blackbids is not an acceptable substitution.

    If I were to suddenly presume that I knew better than CCP's long term plans for rebalancing, and that I wanted to create a situation where supercaps both had a reason to be deployed, and were no longer immune to subcaps, here is how I would do it.

    I'm not actually proposing this btw, I'll be waiting to see what CCP actually does instead of assuming I know best about everything

    Well step 1 would be to actually give people a reason to use supercaps in a situation where they could be shot at by subs.

    Since after the proposed changes go into effect the only use for Dreads will be killing POS's and carriers, and the only use of Supercaps will be killing capitals that are killing POS's, supercaps will need another role if there is to be any point using them for something other than a quick massive force gank to kill bads shooting a POS with dreads.

    Since supers will only be used in situation where you come in, smash the enemy capitals, and get out, we first need a reason to actually field supers in the first place.

    I'd first give a bonus to the cycle time of an Entosis mod based directly on the size of the ship it's attached to.

    A supercarrier would take around say 5 minutes, 10 minutes for carriers, scaling up to half an hour for frigates.

    This would give a direct reason for people to field capitals and supercapitals postpatch.

    In the current situation, large groups of supercarriers are basically useless against subcaps, while subcaps can easily pin down but not kill supercarriers, requiring the supercap side to call in subcap reinforcements to bail them out.

    If I were to decide that supercaps need to be vulnerable to masses of subcaps, I would also say that subcaps need to be at least semi vulnerable to supercarriers.

    I would then take away the Ewar Immunity of supercaps, give them a ridiculously high base sensor strength since a single t2 fit scorp with 6 jams and two lowslot amps (leaving two mids for a cap booster and MJD, and a 4 lowslot + rigs armor tank, highs for smarties) can get over 70 points of ECM, so your 100 points of sensor strength is rather low, and then massively reduce the volume and production requirements of fighters, while upping their tracking and lowering their speed.

    I would drop fighter volume down to around 500m3, and the construction costs to about the same 1/10th of current, which would allow supercarriers to carry multiple waves of fighters and have a chance of actually fighting off subcaps, instead of their current single wave.

    This would mean that given sufficient ECM, a subcap fleet could jam out a supercarrier fleet, but that in exchange for supercarriers losing their immunity to subcaps, subcaps lose their near total immunity to supercarriers.

    Damps are a more difficult issue, giving supers crazy high max lock range keeps them from being shut down by a few bonused range damps, but I can't really see a way of making scan resolution damps work without adding in special partial resistances to scan res damping that don't exist anywhere else.

    But your proposal only demands that further vulnerabilities be added to of a class of ships which are already useless against subcaps, have had their ability to assist fighters removed, and have had their primary purpose (grinding non POS structures) be completely removed by the changes.

    Your thread is not a reasonable proposal, because your "reason" is that your are unhappy that small groups of subcaps are unable to kill groups of supers with immunity.

    TLDR: There is none, it's a wall of text counter proposal for a less **** system than your "nerf supers" rant. But it's still a **** proposal, because we do not know what role CCP plans to have supercarriers hold in a post patch Eden.


    But your proposal, in which 2-3 ships in t1 cruisers can jam out or damp out a supercarrier while a supercarrier is unable to respond in any meaningful way, is just trash that reeks of entitlement. "I don't want to bring dreads. I don't want to shoot fighters or fighter bombers. I don't want to bump the supercaps apart. I don't want to bring neuts. I don't want to need to bring enough DPS to kill them. I don't want to bring dictors or hictors in order to tackle supercarriers. I don't want to bring anchored bubbles."

    "CCP, nerf supercarriers so that I can kill them with any fleet, that I don't need any special way of tackling them, so that I may jam them or damp them into useless with one or two ships, please CCP, make them even more useless than the spiked bat pounding you just gave them, and leave them no role or point in existing remaining"

    Now that I have given a proposal, explained how they would be changed, and why, and to what effect, how about you step up to the plate and actually tell us:

    How do you plan on making Super Capitals an element of the sub cap fleet meta?
    Swanky nutjob
    Holding Inc.
    #13 - 2015-03-04 19:48:00 UTC


    For the sake of clarity, do you understand what someone means when they state figures are arbitrary? Where are you pulling out the 2-3 blackbirds figure? At least you are finally being constructive but still fail to get that an underlying mechanical overhaul and figures at this stage are utterly irrelevant.
    Anhenka
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #14 - 2015-03-04 20:22:27 UTC
    Swanky nutjob wrote:


    For the sake of clarity, do you understand what someone means when they state figures are arbitrary? Where are you pulling out the 2-3 blackbirds figure? At least you are finally being constructive but still fail to get that an underlying mechanical overhaul and figures at this stage are utterly irrelevant.


    The 2-3 blackbirds figure was based on the part where a 5 jam BB with 2 signal amps using racial ewar gets a bit over 60 points of jamming at over 100Km optimal.

    2-3 jamming blackbirds is therefore 120-180 point of cumulative jamming, well exceeding your base quote of 100 sensor strength for a Nyx.

    I agree though that the numbers are irrelevant, because the fundamental proposal is flawed. You idea does not promote your stated intended result of promoting supercapitals as part of a subcap fleet. Quite the opposite by making them highly vulnerable to subs without giving them any method of working with or against subcaps.

    You title says you want a "Proposal - Stackable effects to make supercapitals viable and balanced". This assumes that supercapitals are currently overpowered, and unbalanced in their capabilities.

    Do you believe that supercaps are going to be overpowered once the new sov system rolls out?

    If so, why? Cause I'm not seeing any overpowered part, especially after the torrent of recently announced nerfs.

    They won't hit subcaps well at all, they won't be used to grid sov structures, they wont be used to capture stations, they can't be used to bash POS's, they can't assign drones, they can't have more than 50 drones assisted to them, and they have their naturally slow scan res. Their main weapon system is destroyed by a few waves of bombs or targeted fire by subs, and they can only carry one flight of FB's and one flight of fighters.

    I suppose it's "balanced" if you think "balance" means they die easily to subs, and dread, and titans, and they can't defend themselves, and the only thing they can hit is other capitals.

    But that's sure as hell not "viable" for anything except surprise dropping on people using dreads to bash POS's.
    Asuka Solo
    I N E X T R E M I S
    Tactical Narcotics Team
    #15 - 2015-03-04 20:37:35 UTC
    Swanky nutjob wrote:
    I agree, the current changes do make them less useful. In this system they would be more useful in localised fights, which is the point.

    Also, rather than try and score internet points, shooting down what could be a viable idea, how about you suggest something or build upon my proposed solution to the elephant in the room?


    How about we slaughter the viable elephant in the room, reject your dumbass proposals for what they are, and start a new game building upon what used to be Eve, where super capitals hold true to their namesake without taking sub caps into consideration?

    Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!