These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
DeadDuck
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#461 - 2011-10-10 20:33:51 UTC
ToXicPaIN wrote:
today you can take down a SC with about 50Hurricans in less then 10minutes ...


Sorry it only works if the SC is using active hardeners. If is using passive, non cap dependant hardeners...GL with that. Oh and btw it helps if the SC is not receiving cap transfers also from their buddies. Blink
PCaBoo
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#462 - 2011-10-10 20:34:53 UTC
What a lazy and sad way of nerfing supers. Most will agree, some sort of nerf was required, but it seems like CCP's ignored pretty much every reasonable suggestion and imposed a bunch of half-assed ideas that noone wanted (Except logoff timer).

I'm glad I don't have a sc anymore. This would have put me into an emo-rage. :p
xxxak
Perkone
Caldari State
#463 - 2011-10-10 20:35:07 UTC
Taedrin wrote:
xxxak wrote:
Update:

This nerf = Win Subcap battle, Kill all supers on the field.

So with this nerf, supers can no longer defend themselves from subcaps, and supers are committed for 23 hours once they cyno in.

That means that if you have a 15 man super fleet (mid size alliance), plus 120 sub caps (mid size alliance), and if lose the subcap battle, you also just lost all your supers.

Kthxbai. No way a sane super pilot will commit now unless they are 150% sure that they have a winning fleet. EVE is dead.


Other thoughts:

1) Nerfing fighters makes carriers even more crap. This was unnecessary.
2) Supercarriers should at least be able to carry 20 FB + 20 fighters
3) The removal of the drone bay is a nerf to small alliances who are more likely to use a small number of "ninja" supercarrier tactics. Now those supercarriers can get tackled and killed much more easily by even a small/medium gang of subcaps.
4) Huge alliances that can field huge fleets (super cap gang+proper sub cap fleet) will be even more powerful.
5) Supercarriers are no longer good for anything but shooting POS mods and Sov mods. LOL.

The nerf should have been as follows:
1) Fix logoffski timer
2) DD can only hit caps
3) Small EHP reduction for supercarriers

Those three fixes alone would have been enough to start.

Can some Dev explain the decision to not even let SC carry 20 fighters??

Actually, looking more at the fighter nerf.... what can they hit now? POS mods? LOL. Huge stealth carrier nerf. Care to explain this one as well?


Exactly how it should be.

5 years ago, flying a capital without proper support made you a laughing stock. Why shouldn't flying supers without proper support ALSO make you a laughing stock? If you want to protect your supers, then bring the proper amount of support.

Therefore we have a sort of rock-paper-scissors formula for balance:
sub-caps beat supers
supers beat caps
caps beat sub-caps (could probably use some more work).


There is a difference between "proper support" and "losing = loss of 200 billion isk."

I agree that supers should not be used to hot drop on a roaming BC gang for ***** and gigs.

But I also don't think that a 200 vs 200 subcap battle where one fleet gets lucky in lag means that the losing fleet should also lose 10-20-30 supers, and meanwhile the supers literally don't have a chance to defend themselves.

[u]The nerfs to supercaps will cause more super pilots to join the largest alliances who can properly "support" their deployment, further concentrating firepower/wealth in EVE. The end result will be fewer "fun" fights, and will hurt EVE in the long run.[/u]

Akara Ito
Phalanx Solutions
#464 - 2011-10-10 20:37:54 UTC
xxxak wrote:
Taedrin wrote:
xxxak wrote:
Update:

This nerf = Win Subcap battle, Kill all supers on the field.

So with this nerf, supers can no longer defend themselves from subcaps, and supers are committed for 23 hours once they cyno in.

That means that if you have a 15 man super fleet (mid size alliance), plus 120 sub caps (mid size alliance), and if lose the subcap battle, you also just lost all your supers.

Kthxbai. No way a sane super pilot will commit now unless they are 150% sure that they have a winning fleet. EVE is dead.


Other thoughts:

1) Nerfing fighters makes carriers even more crap. This was unnecessary.
2) Supercarriers should at least be able to carry 20 FB + 20 fighters
3) The removal of the drone bay is a nerf to small alliances who are more likely to use a small number of "ninja" supercarrier tactics. Now those supercarriers can get tackled and killed much more easily by even a small/medium gang of subcaps.
4) Huge alliances that can field huge fleets (super cap gang+proper sub cap fleet) will be even more powerful.
5) Supercarriers are no longer good for anything but shooting POS mods and Sov mods. LOL.

The nerf should have been as follows:
1) Fix logoffski timer
2) DD can only hit caps
3) Small EHP reduction for supercarriers

Those three fixes alone would have been enough to start.

Can some Dev explain the decision to not even let SC carry 20 fighters??

Actually, looking more at the fighter nerf.... what can they hit now? POS mods? LOL. Huge stealth carrier nerf. Care to explain this one as well?


Exactly how it should be.

5 years ago, flying a capital without proper support made you a laughing stock. Why shouldn't flying supers without proper support ALSO make you a laughing stock? If you want to protect your supers, then bring the proper amount of support.

Therefore we have a sort of rock-paper-scissors formula for balance:
sub-caps beat supers
supers beat caps
caps beat sub-caps (could probably use some more work).


There is a difference between "proper support" and "losing = loss of 200 billion isk."

I agree that supers should not be used to hot drop on a roaming BC gang for ***** and gigs.

But I also don't think that a 200 vs 200 subcap battle where one fleet gets lucky in lag means that the losing fleet should also lose 10-20-30 supers, and meanwhile the supers literally don't have a chance to defend themselves.


This will make sure supers stay the **** away from fights as often as possible.
Dunno but... Win ?
Denuo Secus
#465 - 2011-10-10 20:38:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Denuo Secus
Great changes, this could lead to more mixed fleets (with different roles) and interesting fights. Only 3 (already mentioned) concerns:

Arrow (@Caps won't be able to hit sub-caps anymore): the proposed solution seems not balanced (btw: it's not balanced atm as well). Turret capitals (Dreads and Titans) are able to receive remote tracking support and ARE able to instapwn sub capitals. A Missile Dread or Titan cannot do this.

Arrow (@HP nerf) HP bonus of shield capitals isn't applied instantly. This + the absence of shield HP inplants is a huge disadvantage of shield capitals.

Arrow (@Fighter nerf): Carriers should be able to handle sub capitals better than Super Carriers IMHO. So a fighter nerf applied to Super Carriers only sounds better for me. It would give Carriers an additional bonus (role) over Super Carriers as well.
Casey CIA
Brute Force Solutions.
Sigma Grindset
#466 - 2011-10-10 20:39:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Casey CIA
If you limit the Fighter nerf to Super Caps, at least you give Carriers some sort of offensive subcap fleet role.

Carriers could even take a slight fighter bonus empowering them to provide some subcap fighting capability while still remaining fairly weak to super caps and large sub cap fleets, thus balancing out and providing a pvp offensive role that isn't over powered.

Edit: I am ok with the other changes
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#467 - 2011-10-10 20:40:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
Do not nerf shield tankers as they are already nerfed by lack of an equivalent to Slave implants.

If you slash 20% from ships like the Wyvern, it will be far weaker than the armor tanks which it is all ready far weaker than.

Reducing fighter damage to smaller targets also makes regular carriers less useful in wormhole escalations.
Alexander Oromov
Black Eagles.
#468 - 2011-10-10 20:42:35 UTC
As usual, everything that needs to be said has been said in the first 3 pages, then there's 20 pages of overanalytical crap from people who think too much.

The changes are great, the only problem I have with them is we're almost at the point where Thanatos > Hel

ScheenK
StatiC Ex.
#469 - 2011-10-10 20:42:39 UTC
Renan Ruivo wrote:
ScheenK wrote:
removing the focused dd would change alot, no longer will caps get insta'd in the beginning of the fight, and dreads will play the role they are intended for

bring back AOE dd, with shorter range, remain on field for 10mins and have an hourly cycle

ehp removal was not needed, you buffed the ehp on captials because it was needed now your taking it away when its needed most




So how will 18 titans on field, all using AoE DD one after the other affect the battle?


i think its a better solution to fleet fights, when 18 titans instapop the first 18 dread/carriers that are put into the field
Jooce McNasty
Islefive Consulting
#470 - 2011-10-10 20:43:43 UTC
I would suggest removing the limitations from the dread siege module. (let them be repped and have cap transferd to them) This coupled with a carrier support would allow for dread/carrier teams to become worthwhile, with a sub cap fleet. Still keep them locked in place and keep the timer at 10 minutes.
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#471 - 2011-10-10 20:44:02 UTC
Lan Caden wrote:
1 Titan = 90,000,000,000 ISK
1 Hurricane = 50,000,000 ISK

1 Titan = 1,800 Hurricanes
1 Titan = 1 Hurricane a day for 5 years

Do I get mad when I explode to one of these behemoths? No, I think, "well, that makes sense."

The log off change is great IMO. Supers will now have to be very confident in their subcap support before they expose themselves.

Just dying once, just one mistake is enormous--like you just lost a hurricane every day for the next 5 years, and there is no more "pull the internet cord" failsafe. Titans will explode more often, or at least be used less often since the log off change.

Please don't make it so they can't explode hurricanes, it's the whole reason I save money in this game. The idea that "one day" I can murder small fleet all by myself.


I should be able to fit estamel's invulns on a drake and murder a supercap fleet by myself

~ lan caden, 2011

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Large Collidable Object
morons.
#472 - 2011-10-10 20:44:32 UTC
I don't see anything wrong with fighters as they are - no matter if they're fielded from a Supercarrier or a Scrubcarrier.

Also Moros changes will take it out of line with other dreads, but then again, I don't really care - as long as I get easily chewed up by virtually any ship class on the field and get speedtanked by SCs, I'll keep my dread docked for another three years...
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Decaneos
Casalt Corp
CAStabouts
#473 - 2011-10-10 20:44:55 UTC
so ive only read the first few pages but they made me giggle, there missing the point sooo much, the whole point of nerfing the supercaps is so subcabs are actaully used, its to stop fleets just warping in with only supercaps and nothing else.

this way you need a better balace of ships incedently making big fleet battles more accesable to newer players and they dont need to of trained in supercapitals to be allowed to fight.
steave435
Perkone
Caldari State
#474 - 2011-10-10 20:45:09 UTC
David Carel wrote:
Akara Ito wrote:

If only Jumpf Freighters could jump as far as Supercaps and carry a lot of FBs in their cargohold to restock them between engagements.

Evelopedia wrote:
Jump Freighters have a base jump range of 5 Light Years.
Motherships have a base jump range of 4 Light Years.
Titans have a base jump range of 3.5 Light Years.

Evelopedia is wrong then. JFs, SCs, dreads and Rorquals all have 5 LY base jump range.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#475 - 2011-10-10 20:45:54 UTC
Most of this looks pretty good, and long overdue.

Outstanding issues, though I somehow doubt they'll get read at this point of the thread:

Rather than removing hitpoints, why not simply remove the rig slots, as this would have a roughly similar effect (supercap rig slots are only ever used for CDFEs or Trimarks) with the added bonus of un-skewing the Large T2 Rig market and removing the anomaly of the same sized rigs being used for battleships as titans? Aside from that, a flat hitpoint nerf across the board does little to resolve the shield vs armour disparity - in particular, the Hel is still vastly inferior to the rest of the range. Any chance the Hel can be granted a hitpoint-nerf amnesty? Or failing that, replace the Remote Rep bonus with something more appropriate?

Capital guns can still track and kill subcaps easily with assistance from tracking links. The logical solution would seem to be to treat remote assistance modules as e-war and so making supercaps "immune" to them in the same way as debilitating e-war modules (since a tracking link is basically a reversed tracking disruptor, this seems to make sense).

Dreadnoughts still look underpowered, while the 5 minute siege mod is good, it basically gives them a higher chance of avoiding a fight, rather than of winning a fight. Their role now seems to be to act as bait to get a hostile supercap force to come out and play so you can counter-drop with a subcap fleet. Random crazy idea - siege mode makes a warp disruptor into a heavy-dictor-style focused infini-point?

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

Orisa Medeem
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#476 - 2011-10-10 20:46:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Orisa Medeem
Here are my two cents:

TL;DR version: the nerf is a bit too big without really solving the problem with the N+1 counter.

1) the 20% EHP reduction seems to be too much with the concurrent changes. Looking back, it only took some small changes to turn the SCs into overpowered ships. don't make the inverse mistake.

2) even if it takes more development effort, I'd rather see the ewar immunity replaced by some form of ranked ewar system for all kinds of ewar, more or less like the jamming system works.

3) capital and supercapital ships should be a lot more strategic than tactical. I think it would be better to see a limit on how often a capital ship can jump based on the hull ship size (the bigger the ship, the less often it can do). A titan jumping at most once a week seems more ok to me. May need to adjust ranges a bit though.

:sand:  over  :awesome:

Woo Glin
State War Academy
Caldari State
#477 - 2011-10-10 20:50:33 UTC
my carrier ratting backbone
Ispia Jaydrath
Reib Autonomous Industries
#478 - 2011-10-10 20:51:25 UTC
CynoNet Two wrote:
I've noticed that the majority of people in favour of these changes write in nice, structured sentences with decent spelling. They tend to put forward a balanced argument and still point out where the nerfs may possibly to far, using logical reasoning.

However the majority of people against the changes rite in ..... horrible brokne english... .. . with generous levels of punctuation!!!!!! and spelllling that cums from........ the facebook skool of bashing ur....... hed agnst the keybaord lol?!?!1oneoneone/
MINUS TENN HUNDRAD ACCOUNTS CCP FK UUUU

Why is that?


I noticed this too. After clicking on some names, all the tears seem to be coming from russians, russian pets and noobcorp alts. I think this is a good sign.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#479 - 2011-10-10 20:53:22 UTC
xxxak wrote:
Taedrin wrote:
xxxak wrote:
Update:

This nerf = Win Subcap battle, Kill all supers on the field.

So with this nerf, supers can no longer defend themselves from subcaps, and supers are committed for 23 hours once they cyno in.

That means that if you have a 15 man super fleet (mid size alliance), plus 120 sub caps (mid size alliance), and if lose the subcap battle, you also just lost all your supers.

Kthxbai. No way a sane super pilot will commit now unless they are 150% sure that they have a winning fleet. EVE is dead.


Other thoughts:

1) Nerfing fighters makes carriers even more crap. This was unnecessary.
2) Supercarriers should at least be able to carry 20 FB + 20 fighters
3) The removal of the drone bay is a nerf to small alliances who are more likely to use a small number of "ninja" supercarrier tactics. Now those supercarriers can get tackled and killed much more easily by even a small/medium gang of subcaps.
4) Huge alliances that can field huge fleets (super cap gang+proper sub cap fleet) will be even more powerful.
5) Supercarriers are no longer good for anything but shooting POS mods and Sov mods. LOL.

The nerf should have been as follows:
1) Fix logoffski timer
2) DD can only hit caps
3) Small EHP reduction for supercarriers

Those three fixes alone would have been enough to start.

Can some Dev explain the decision to not even let SC carry 20 fighters??

Actually, looking more at the fighter nerf.... what can they hit now? POS mods? LOL. Huge stealth carrier nerf. Care to explain this one as well?


Exactly how it should be.

5 years ago, flying a capital without proper support made you a laughing stock. Why shouldn't flying supers without proper support ALSO make you a laughing stock? If you want to protect your supers, then bring the proper amount of support.

Therefore we have a sort of rock-paper-scissors formula for balance:
sub-caps beat supers
supers beat caps
caps beat sub-caps (could probably use some more work).


There is a difference between "proper support" and "losing = loss of 200 billion isk."

I agree that supers should not be used to hot drop on a roaming BC gang for ***** and gigs.

But I also don't think that a 200 vs 200 subcap battle where one fleet gets lucky in lag means that the losing fleet should also lose 10-20-30 supers, and meanwhile the supers literally don't have a chance to defend themselves.


200v200 fights don't lag any more, even on unreinforced nodes.

So that's OK then!

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
#480 - 2011-10-10 20:55:18 UTC
David Grogan wrote:
yup ccp will make fighters useless vs a single bomb. 400 sig radius will mean a single bomb with vaporize them

imagine this 400 sig radius jumps to 2000 when the fighter is mwd'ing about

1 bomb will instapop them

Oh god...you didn't...yes, yes you did. Reading comprehension. Train it.

"Shoot at anything that moves. If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway, it might move later."

"Do not be too positive. The light at the end of the tunnel could be a train." - Franz Kafka