These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

EVE Information Portal

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.

New dev blog: Capital ship balancing

First post First post First post
CCP Masterplan
C C P Alliance
#541 - 2011-10-10 22:05:16 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
Lykouleon wrote:
Just to clarify, is the Orca being considered a capital ship by the changes to the DD?

Looks to me like they are referring to Rorqual and not Orca

Correct. The Rorqual is a valid target, the Orca is not

"This one time, on patch day..."

@ccp_masterplan  |  Team Five-0: Rewriting the law

Zero Fun Allowed
#542 - 2011-10-10 22:06:16 UTC
point and case is this: if i dont need caps to eliminate a capital ship threat to my sov i wont field them.

if i cant defend my caps from sub caps effectively using weapons native to the caps themselves they are a huge liability and i will just stick to using sub caps for my goals.

i just dont get the complaining i am really really lost. a small nano gang and ruin a carriers day, sabers, vaga's and drams will demolish a ratting carrier in no time, and already all those ships can speed/sig tank a carriers fighters.

nerf supers a bit, buff dreads ALOT. dont kill the moros by making its guns **** the cap even more...didnt think it was possible to ruin the moros any worse...proved wrong on that point yet again...

these nerfs will affect the market hugely as well. i wouldnt be suprised if prices of everything from jump fuel, minerals and pos's all the way to bpo's and jump freighters drops hugely, i know personally my 35 billion isk investment in cap bpo's is wasted now. who the hell is gonna fly/and loose a who is gonna buy one. the fighters patch makes regular carriers worse them worthless. cant hit pos, much less damage on sov structures, cant hit sub caps, cant rat.....ok guys only bring ur carriers out to rep stations. thats why u spend 1.5 billion isk on ur new archon, for a really shiney big, slow, station repair service. triage carriers ftw....

if this patch goes live as proposed i know of 6 accounts that will be unsubbing immediatly, eve has never been and should never be a noob friendly game, grow up or go home. roll big and heavy and stay in empire, dont fly what u cant afford to loose...and the logs show nothing u wont be getting reembursed we(the gms) are sorry for your loss.
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#543 - 2011-10-10 22:06:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Tefeyel
Vereesa wrote:
As a capital pilot with a dreadnought and a max trained battle carrier rusting in lowsec I was glad when I saw that CCP was rebalancing supers. the logoffski mechanic changing is great, really. that was half of what makes the supers broken, mixed with their high EHP. Nerfing both is excessive. All you need is a ibis popping a civilian rail into the side of a logged cap and its not going to dissapear so you have all the time in the world to kill them.
Pretty sure a decent bs/cap gang could take them apart pretty quickly as long as they have someone agressing each ship (hell one ship could warp from logged ship to logged ship resetting the timers with a HIC watching local to see if anyone's logged on and tackle them if they do).

Oh noes, you wouldn't be able to hotdrop solo with your supercap on random subcaps or subcap fleets with no risk whatsoever.

Don't log off in space with aggression, just log off in a POS? Cloak if you have no POS? Wait for aggression to come off? Get a subcap support fleet?
Caldari State
#544 - 2011-10-10 22:07:14 UTC
CMUX wrote:
Of all the dreadnoughts currently in existence, the versatile Moros possesses perhaps the greatest capacity to fend off smaller hostiles by itself while concentrating on its primary capital target


Also, are you going to remove the Capital Drone Bay requirement from Dreads and Titans manufacturing?

Good question
Goonswarm Federation
#545 - 2011-10-10 22:07:44 UTC
@CCP: Will the loss of 20% EHP also come with an adjustment to the respective supercarrier BPO's, thus make them use less components? As it happened with removal of the clone bay
Peter Powers
Terrorists of Dimensions
#546 - 2011-10-10 22:08:28 UTC

first of all, i welcome most of the changes proposed,
however there are a few details that are kinda off.

a) removing non-fighter drones from supercarriers,
while that might seem desireable, its a bad choice.. non-fighters dont have too much of an impact to real fleet fights,
since they are deployed there rarely - however it totally kills alot of the npc stuff you can do with a SC
while that might sound desireable to a few, its simply unfair - if you are stuck in one ship that cannot be changed,
you should have a bit of variety in the things you actually can do.
Either you allow a set of drones to be kept (just limit the amount of fighter/fighter bombers to one set of one type (+ a hand full of spares), so you can either have fighters or bombers in that category, but still regular drones
OR allow supercarriers to dock.

b) the nerf hits all supercapitals the same way, which means you do not take the current imbalance between shieldsupers in account. there is a reason why the more successfull alliance all are full armor with the supers, and thats simply because armored supers are superior to shield supers - since you are actually looking at the supers balance NOW would be a good time to get shields back in line with armors.

besides that
+1 on the changes (IF you manage to take the concerns i mentioned into account) - your catalogue for 3rd party applications

StarFleet Enterprises
#547 - 2011-10-10 22:09:09 UTC
So when can I get a GM to put my aeon in an outpost so I can refine it ? Should I start my petitions now ? Supercap ratting ship is no longer so Yo I need to refine it. :) Yes I am serious. Thanks while it lasted.

“Out of clutter, find simplicity. From discord, find harmony. In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity.” --  Albert  Einstein  "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means,"

GreGh Rakrot
Red Branch
#548 - 2011-10-10 22:12:40 UTC  |  Edited by: GreGh Rakrot
Ganthrithor wrote:
good stuff

Basicly what he said, changes in right direction although some arent really needed imo and there are some other tweaks needed.

POS guns need buffing, they need this even know with 10 min siege now with 5 min cycle there is even less chance any dread will ever be in danger of getting killed by POS.

Moros needs capacitor rebalanced if these changes go through.

EHP nerf isnt really needed since it was only problem because supercaps were unkillable when they logged off, with new log off mechanics it doesnt really matter if it has 20% EHP more, it will die.

Fighters nerf isnt really needed either, or at least not so drasticly.

Removal of drone bays on SCs, you dont need to remove it completely its a bit too much. Just give them ALOT smaller drone bay where you cant field endless waves of drones.
buck herrick
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#549 - 2011-10-10 22:14:50 UTC
omg, omg, omg.

coupled with the 'other' changes yet to be announced in full detail, this is just spectacularly awesome-sauce.

i wish i hadnt sold my other toons, oh well, lets see how this plays out then i may try to buy them back.
Zero Fun Allowed
#550 - 2011-10-10 22:17:05 UTC
ecm burst is omni directional mod, not the projected ecm burst of a super carrier.
Red Teufel
Feign Disorder
#551 - 2011-10-10 22:17:26 UTC
i'm glad to see these changes. FCs will have to employ more tactics rather then bridge supers = win. and i can allready tell you how much machs will go up in price after this ;).
Gallente Federation
#552 - 2011-10-10 22:18:31 UTC
Some good changes here.
Fighters Increased signature resolution to 400 is too big of a nerf especially to normal carriers.
A nerf to Titans using tracking computers would be nice, currently they track subcaps too well.
#553 - 2011-10-10 22:19:31 UTC
Massive stealth carrier nerf is LAME. CCP should try making dreads truly better instead of relatively better vs now crippled carriers. Moros still sucks (even worse than before?) and Machariel prices are about to go through the roof as null-sec citizenry discover they can no longer effectively carrier-rat, nor for that matter hit anything at all of importance with their carriers.

Does CCP have ANYONE in their employment capable of fully thinking through the consequences of the changes they come up with? Feels like they are run by 12-year olds.
StarFleet Enterprises
#554 - 2011-10-10 22:21:30 UTC
Glad I liked BF3 ..9 eve accounts 135 a month....BF3 50 bucks once play the brakes off it..Sold..Thanks CCP your going to save us all some money :) Love you guys.

“Out of clutter, find simplicity. From discord, find harmony. In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity.” --  Albert  Einstein  "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means,"

Kersh Marelor
Federal European Industry Science and Research
#555 - 2011-10-10 22:25:35 UTC
Stupid changes proving CCP is still detached from the game and doing more of theory-crafting than looking at the issues at hand.

1. HP Nerf
Just how is a super-cap too hard to kill atm? It obviously is time consuming if done with some 50 BSes, not so much when using 10 supers. Are you trying to say with those changes htat supercarriers should be generally vulnerable to some random mid sized BS gang? the reason for the HP buff was the fact everyone could kill those ships without great effort. You want those times to come back?
They are easy to kill really IF you bring a proper tool to get the job done.
With those changes we may go a step further and make a gift for all the gankers by making freighters more vulnerable - after all they are hard to insta-pop with 15 BSes atm, so should be changed, aye?

2. Fighters and drone bays
This fighter change is a nerf to carriers really... any reason behind that other than you just not realizing what the hell you're doing? However removing all drones other than fighters and fighter bombers from SCs is good and must be done.

3. Dreads
Good idea about siege module and stuff - but really doesn't fix the issue if super carriers and titans can jump in, RF the station in a few minutes and get out. Who needs dreads for that even with a shorter timer? Suggested fix: ban super-caps from locking and engaging structures making them CAPITAL KILLERS. Dreads then get the thing they are most lacking atm - a purpose.

4. Agression timer
Great change - this ensures supers cannot just randomly jump in and forget about having proper sub-cap support.

I think you are giving in to all the whiners willing to get a super-cap KM with their nano roaming gang and alliances not able to adapt to modern eve-warfare. I really like how you want to boost the role of sub-caps and it really must be done. But making supers easier to kill is not the way. The beatiful thing about EVE is that everything has its purpose and role. Super-caps were designed to do massive fleet stuff and killing capitals. Carriers were designed as support for capital/sub-cap fleet. dreads are damage dealers and powerhouse of the sov grabbing entity. It seems you now want to totally demolish that principle instead of fixing the areas where it went horribly wrong (supers taking dreads place, carriers/dreads becoming baits for super gangs, supers not caring about anything due to log-off machenic).

So... tl:dr version:
- only Fighters and Fighter Bombers on super-carriers, (20+10 for most, more for the Nyx),
- supers are not able to target and punish structures (making Dreads golden standard for that job),
- leave HP alone since supers should be killable by capital/super-cap/massive sub cap fleets - not random gangs,
- leave Fighters alone,
- maintain changes proposed to Remote ECM Burst, Siege Module, DD, log-off timers (solving the 'too hard to kill even with 4-5 supers' issue),
- give the promissed new titan super weapons (yeah, some of us still remember that promise, you know).
Goonswarm Federation
#556 - 2011-10-10 22:25:51 UTC  |  Edited by: iulixxi
Adapt or die people ... nerfs are needed to balance things around.

Also would love an official answer to this:
@CCP: Will the loss of 20% EHP also come with an adjustment to the respective supercarrier BPO's, thus make them use less components? As it happened with removal of the clone bay + a decrease in Capital Drone Bay requirements? (to be inline with the reduced drone bay)

THORN Syndicate
Northern Coalition.
#557 - 2011-10-10 22:25:55 UTC
Obsidian Hawk wrote:
Final thought, normal carriers should have a bonus that reduces the sig of fighters.

That is a good idea.

"Sir I keep firing our planet destroying super weapon but I can't seem to hit that x-wing!"

Vile rat

The Scope
Gallente Federation
#558 - 2011-10-10 22:26:12 UTC
Fiberton wrote:
Glad I liked BF3 ..9 eve accounts 135 a month....BF3 50 bucks once play the brakes off it..Sold..Thanks CCP your going to save us all some money :) Love you guys.

The Order of Merlin
Federation of Respect Honor Passion Alliance.
#559 - 2011-10-10 22:28:50 UTC
I'm pretty much in support of the changes made, I own both a SC and Titan and I think they're a generally good change.

I would still encourage CCP to do something about the shield bonus on the Levi as it's quite obvious the armor tankers have a huge advantage as they get their extra HP instantly while the Levi had to charge up the shields to their full capacity plus once you jump to a new system you're back to square one and have to begin again.

Also I would have gone a little further and made it to SC's could use Fighter Bombers ONLY.

This would have made it unnessessary to change the fighters stats and wouldn't have nerfed Carriers.

Still hoping to see the spool up timer things for jump drives make an appearance soon too.
S0utherN Comfort
#560 - 2011-10-10 22:29:39 UTC
re-balancing the capitals is needed i do agree with you on that however the ways in which you (ccp) have chosen to do so are crap.

first and for most super caps do have a bit of an excessive hp and the only way to effectively compete with them is to use the same class ship to combat them making it possible to kill one with sub-capital class ships does need to happen however taking away their ability to defend them selves against the sub-caps by removing their smaller drones will lead to the same current issues that plague the dreadnaught.

secondly the Dreads do need a fixed fixing them in the proposed manner also makes them defenseless against sub-caps which is further hindered by only being able to target 2 targets in siege mode and compounded by the fact that once in they are committed until all enemy ships are destroyed or they are. considering the dread class ship can not hit a sub cap with their weapon systems currently taking away their drones will only make it worse and they will still sit on the sidelines under used for the time to come as they will be easy prey for any sub cap fleet. As for the Moros the proposed rate of fire bonus will only further make the ships cap unstable as the hybrid weapons use capacitor to fire effectively taking one of the best dreads and making it the one of the worst. as everything including super capitals will be able to speed tank them until the capacitor is empty at witch time the ship will be easy prey.

while the titian class ships can hit a battleship class changing the super weapons to not hit anything but a capital class ship makes sense. removing its drone bay will also leave them utterly defenseless to a sub-cap fleet.

this is all further compounded by the fact that once warp/jump scrambled by a heavy interdicter an entire capital fleet could be killed by a fleet of t3s with out being able to fight back ......

now how is that smart?

are you trying to loose subscriptions?

while i do agree that they ships should be kill-able removing their ability to fight or fend off lesser ship should be there other wise whats the point of having one?

if you cut too deep into the hp and the ability for super capitals to fight then they will be no more than a trophy ship and no longer used in the game in which case you might as well let them back into high sec and able to dock them there so they can be just that all they well be after those changes

An over grown Trophy