These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Blake Zacary
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#361 - 2011-10-10 19:37:38 UTC
When will this be deployed on sisi for testing ?

Are the future changes intended to encourage blobs is this why time dilation is being pushed so much or can we expect more changes that will promote tactics.skill and imagination into pvp,instead of just gathering en masse and pressing F1 ?
Akara Ito
Phalanx Solutions
#362 - 2011-10-10 19:37:59 UTC
SXYGeeK wrote:
CCP Tallest wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
xxxak wrote:
After further thought, I am more and more disturbed that a super carrier cannot carry a full flight of fighters and FB.

Can a Dev explain why this was considered necessary?


preventing SCs from having overly large reserves of fighters/fighterbombers means they can be defanged by shooting their fighters, providing more interesting types of combat


Bingo. That is exactly why.


fighter and fighter bombers are large in volume.
Having a bay that can not contain even 1 full flight of each option will force the supercarrier pilot to decide if it's fighter or bombers before leaving their control tower.
and make logistics of moving the spare fighters around a real pain.

I think it would be acceptable to give the pilot the choice of having all of one type in order to replace some as they are lost, or the versatility of one flight of each.


If only Jumpf Freighters could jump as far as Supercaps and carry a lot of FBs in their cargohold to restock them between engagements.
Draculina Alucardi
New.Lab.Era
#363 - 2011-10-10 19:38:35 UTC
gimme a good reason, to do not stop training a SC pilot, and not canceling the account which i made specially for it, to use it for PVE and sometimes for PVP (i mean superbs);
CCP please take away the drone bay from carriers too, so we could use them only for moving stuff and RR fleet <3
ToXicPaIN
Xynodyne
The Initiative.
#364 - 2011-10-10 19:39:04 UTC
Daedalus II wrote:
Bratwurst0r wrote:

- Carriers: now here it gets hairy. thy can't kill caps as it is (intended), now they have a hard time with subcaps too (fighters?). Give them fighter boni, but better yet, don't nerf fighters

I agree with this. What exactly are the carriers supposed to do? They are too weak to fight other caps and too blunt to fight subcaps. Are they reduced to pure logistics ships or what?


it looks like there only expensiv logistics with no tank , nothing more , nothing less
Sir HappyPants
Caldari Innovations and Research
#365 - 2011-10-10 19:39:34 UTC
All the debate over 1 full flight of fighter bombers and fighters is pointless. If fighters can no longer hit anything BS and smaller, then we just need to stuff fighter bombers in the drone bay all the time. Fighter Bombers can hit caps and structures for full damage for the most part. Nerfing fighters just made them completely obsolete.
Member of the #TweetFleet   @thisurlnotfound
Lu Yuan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#366 - 2011-10-10 19:41:10 UTC
Did you'z ever consider its not the supers or the capitals that need nerfed its all the rest of the ships ingame need a boost...,.. caus most r useless to some certain extent
Sarrgon
Avalonians United
#367 - 2011-10-10 19:41:17 UTC
Also what I think a lot are forgetting is the effect this will have on the mineral market. For how many of them are now going for caps and super caps, with a big reduction in the demand for caps of any kind, means a lot more minerals that will remain on the market and prices will crash. Needs to be some sort of balance in there to equal it out. Or Eve's economy will be worse then what it is now.
Anile8er
Holoband Research and Development
#368 - 2011-10-10 19:42:06 UTC
steave435 wrote:
Nagapito wrote:
demonfurbie wrote:

the sc should be able to have 20 fighters and 20 bombers in its drone bay, seeing thats all it can use now anyway
the fighter change is a little too drastic, a triple extended shield rigged rokh thats being painted cant be hit if the changes go3
it also hurts the less used carrier.

CCP Tallest wrote:

Increase signature resolution to 400

Why you say that you need to paint a ship that already as a sig radius higher then 400? BS's have a sig radius higher then 400, so I dont understand this problem with the fighters. In my opinion, FB should have a higher sig resolution, like 1000! They are not meant to shoot sub-caps!!!

demonfurbie wrote:

less ability for the bigger ships to kill the smaller means more people in smaller ships


I like the way you realize the objective but still in denial!

You don't understand how tracking works, sig is just a multiplier to tracking. This change cuts the fighters tracking down to one third of what it used to be.


CCP feels fighters should only be effective in capital combat.... because carriers don't fill a support / anti-support role in this game.

I was hopeful when CCP's CEO sent the "I'm sorry for doing stupid things to this game letter", now I just feel broken inside.
BeanBagKing
The Order of Atlas
#369 - 2011-10-10 19:43:03 UTC
First reactions...
Quote:
We are increasing the signature resolution on fighters so that they deal less damage to smaller targets.

As a carrier pilot, I hope this isn't enough to affect the damage fighters do to battleships. Smaller targets sure, fine, but IMO carriers are a good in between for the subcap/supercap line. They should be able to do a good amount of damage to both without being OP. I'm not a super pilot, so I'll let someone else comment on that, but I don't think the amount of damage a fighter from a carrier can do to a battleship should be changed.

Quote:
We are also completely removing the drone bays of titans and dreadnoughts.

Underlined the part I'm concerned with. Dreads aren't like supers, they can't launch 20 of (X) drone type, and they don't have a huge bay that can hold hundreds of (X), (Y), and (Z) drone. I'm not a titan pilot, but I would think the same would go for them. Perhaps reducing some of the drone bays into the 100m3 or below range, but not completely removed. I think this change should be dropped. The rest of the (dread) changes I agree with, it'll make dreads much more useful.

Quote:
Logging off should not be a viable tactic

Does this affect other capital/subcapitals as well? I like this part though.

The only real part I don't like is what the fighter change will do to a normal carrier. I think it's intended to be an additional nerf to supers and prevent them from welping subcap fleets, but I don't think a change to carriers is needed. They weren't addressed anywhere in this dev blog. I know from first hand experience that subcap fleets can and will take down a carrier very quickly. I urge CCP to address and revisit what may be an unintended change to standard carriers.
Kuhn Arashi
State War Academy
Caldari State
#370 - 2011-10-10 19:43:28 UTC
Question:

Now that Dreads and Titans do not have drone bays, will the need for Capital drone bay parts be needed in their construction?
If not, you just made capital ships a little cheaper, by how much I don't feel like calculating.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Concern: Fighter resolution.

Understandable that you want to limit Supercarrier effectiveness against subcaps. However In the same blog you said we should bring carriers to deal with subcaps.

I know that carriers can still use smaller drones, but those are easily taken out with smartbomb blobs from the supers the subcaps are supporting, and easily taken out with a bomber run.

Carriers main weapons should still be fighters, and fighters deployed from carriers should be able to fight battleships at the very least. If this does not occur when these changes are put out, carriers will be resigned to supporting supercaps as rep fleet instead of supporting subcap and dread fleets.



PAGAN585
The Dark Resistance
#371 - 2011-10-10 19:43:50 UTC
And now what am i going to do if i want to be that guy that only has rep drones in my sc drone bay?

you cant keep taking the option of being a bad pilot out of the equation.

also as many have stated the hel is a piece of garbage.
there really is no good reason to upgrade from a nid to the hel if you are a minmi purist.
Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
#372 - 2011-10-10 19:44:05 UTC
Metis Laxon wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:
while i agree with most of teh changes, why are you screwing the moros again? no drones. your joking right?


Keep in mind: Hybrids are being overhauled. in this same patch.

Wait and see the latter dev blogs on them before complaining that they have broken your Gallente submarine.



yeh i have thought about that, but unless there getting a massive boost to hybrids. blasters are god dam useless at even shooting a pos, much less fleet fights, rails are so meh on damage currently its laughible, you have just made the moros worthless, next to a rev, instant ammo swaps, ammo taht dosnt run out. the same dps.. ok why am i bothering with a moros again?

rest of teh changes make sence, but this one to me dosnt.

OMG when can i get a pic here
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#373 - 2011-10-10 19:44:31 UTC
Lu Yuan wrote:
Did you'z ever consider its not the supers or the capitals that need nerfed its all the rest of the ships ingame need a boost...,.. caus most r useless to some certain extent
No, because that just leads to power inflation and even more balance issues.

The problem is that (super)caps are too good.
The proper solution to that problem is to make them less good.
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#374 - 2011-10-10 19:45:13 UTC
Right on target CCP right on target. Specially the log off mechanics. CoolCool


+10
Aunt Tom
Dark Voodoo Cult
#375 - 2011-10-10 19:45:23 UTC
Well, nice changes for an usual pilot. Sub-capital battles became definitely more interesting.

But what about err.. "unusual" pilots? Who learnt skills during a years and payd a lots of isk to receive a Very-Large-Structure-Grinding-Machine?

At least give supercapitals the docking ability - after refining the Nyx one can build tons of funny Hurricanes.

Next. Moros without drones is ridiculous. In combination with 'balancing' Nyx and Erebus, gallents will have only one playable ship - Thanatos. After this step you definitely need to boost gallentians because there will be no way to nerf them more

And finally. Am I right that Leviathan without drones, doomsday and with ugly capital launchers became an absolutely useless ship?
Camar
Zappy Bois
#376 - 2011-10-10 19:45:47 UTC
David Carel wrote:
0.008 with 4x Serpentis Tracking Link, 0.009 with 2x Serpentis TC, both with Tracking Speed.

But you can't always cynoout (cap <70%), and you have reduced neut resistance. Hell yeah.

lol faction TC
kasai zenpachi
Circle Of Chaos
#377 - 2011-10-10 19:46:29 UTC
I like most of the changes but i think the removal of the drone bay from dreads is a mistake and they do need a tracking bonus other than that a great start.
I can hear the Russian's drinking themselves stupid over the lost of their one and only advantage. Big smileBig smile
Needa3
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#378 - 2011-10-10 19:46:38 UTC
i like how everything is blamed on supercaps where the real issues is the subcap fleets.

blob alliances blob by nature, if you want to win the fight you need something that can kill their RR abilities
small groups cant do anything either cause they need to fight up your face where they can be easily tackled and countered

their is no more tactics involved, just the biggest number = win

the game is so far from being a sandbox .... and CCP fails at seeing it and the CSM gladly keeps CCP blind as their supporters benefit the most out of this ******** nerf. Guess being part of a certain group really helps in this game
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#379 - 2011-10-10 19:47:11 UTC
Draculina Alucardi wrote:
gimme a good reason, to do not stop training a SC pilot, and not canceling the account which i made specially for it, to use it for PVE and sometimes for PVP (i mean superbs);
CCP please take away the drone bay from carriers too, so we could use them only for moving stuff and RR fleet <3




Supercaps will still be incredibly powerful ships, with ten times the tank and more DPS than any other ship class, plus EW immunity. "Normal" capitals will still be chaff in the breeze to supers.

If that's not enough reason, then I don't know what to say.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Metis Laxon
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#380 - 2011-10-10 19:47:40 UTC
Smoking Blunts wrote:
Metis Laxon wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:
while i agree with most of teh changes, why are you screwing the moros again? no drones. your joking right?


Keep in mind: Hybrids are being overhauled. in this same patch.

Wait and see the latter dev blogs on them before complaining that they have broken your Gallente submarine.



yeh i have thought about that, but unless there getting a massive boost to hybrids. blasters are god dam useless at even shooting a pos, much less fleet fights, rails are so meh on damage currently its laughible, you have just made the moros worthless, next to a rev, instant ammo swaps, ammo taht dosnt run out. the same dps.. ok why am i bothering with a moros again?

rest of teh changes make sence, but this one to me dosnt.




Hmm, but you are still just comparing to existing hybrids. The change would have to be relatively drastic for them to 'fix' hybrids in the first place.