These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kari Kari
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#581 - 2011-10-10 23:01:08 UTC
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.

What the hell is the point of owning a super carrier... if it aint even a supercarrier anymore but an over priced piece of sh**!

Awesome job CCP... you guys Fail again!
Kari Kari
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#582 - 2011-10-10 23:02:29 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
If you enjoyed these changes and things happening to spaceships IN SPACE I guerantee you'll love the rest of the stuff we have lined up for winter Big smile

Keep an eye out for the blogs.

Already cancelled all other subscriptions since EVE and CCP has gone to total sh**!
Lili Lu
#583 - 2011-10-10 23:05:18 UTC
Another comment on the comments, and another disclaimer

<-- not a goon and never have been, and killed my share of them Twisted

Whining that this is a buff for goons is misguided. It is a nerf to supers. (not a buff for riftersP ) Goon subcap fleets are fun to fight. Hell half the time they shoot each other P Conversely, supercap blobs have been wrecking the game. It had to stop.

Blobbage in general will always be in the game to some extent. Goon blobbage really only was a problem with 1400 sized fleets and that only occurred with NC allies. That ain't happening anymore (well, unless the rumored goon marriage to that soon to be less dashing DRF husband comes to pass). Frankly any large group will only create a countervailing equal sized coalition. But, if one side has an op ship class advantage, or moon min monopoly, now those are problems. Goons in rifters or Maelstroms or whatever they might prefer to fly these days are not equivalent to DRF op titan and sc blobs.

We should be hopeful that this ship nerf in conjunction with some other changes hopefully coming "soon" to sov mechanics will diversify, open up, and enliven the political circumstances in 0.0

Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#584 - 2011-10-10 23:09:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Unforgiven Storm
5 stars change.

Only some minor discussion points that CCP should address in these changes.

My questions for the Devs:

1 - Fighters nerf

By doing this you are nerfing the carriers. You are imposing an unnecessary penalty to carriers.
- Are you aware of this?
- is that your objective also?
- If not, can this fighter nerf be done in a way that don't affect the fighters deployed from a carrier?

2 - Moros boost

Moros will get a cap problem.
- Are you aware of this issue?
- There is a solution for it from your side or you are going to leave it like that?

3 - Minmatar supers

Minmatar supers are all inferior to the others of the same class...statistics help prove this point.
- Can you consider using this nerf to fix this issue, by not nerfing so much the ehp of minmatar supers?

4 - Supers

Super are EWAR invulnerable but they can still receive RSB and Tracking Links.
- Is that not also a form of electronic transmittion?
- What is CCP position about this issue?

5 - Dreads

I'm a dread pilot. I don't use a dread for the last 18 months for 2 reasons: siege time + paper ship! Siege time is fixed, but they are still paper and die to 1 DD and cannot tank 1 super, while in siege.
- Is CCP aware of this last issue?
- Do you consider improving the tank in siege mode so at least a dread can tank 1 DD and 20 fighter bombers (IN SIEGE)?

6 - Carriers

They need a little love. The fuel bay is too small. For example, if I want to jump 14 AU to rep a POS, do 3 cycles of triage and jump back, there is no space for the all the stront I need > 600 units use 1800m3 of space!
- Is CCP aware the fuel bay is small when the carrier is used for triage since stront space needs are huge?
- Can we expect some love here?

Unforgiven Storm for CSM 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. (If I don't get in in the next 5 years I will quit trying) :-)

Obsidian Hawk
RONA Midgard Academy
#585 - 2011-10-10 23:10:31 UTC
Kari Kari wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
If you enjoyed these changes and things happening to spaceships IN SPACE I guerantee you'll love the rest of the stuff we have lined up for winter Big smile

Keep an eye out for the blogs.

Already cancelled all other subscriptions since EVE and CCP has gone to total sh**!

no one cares about obvious alt posts. you will still be here and you will still be flying your caps.

Quit your whining and get back to farming out your 0.0 space.

Why Can't I have a picture signature.

Also please support graphical immersion, bring back the art that brought people to EvE online originaly.

#586 - 2011-10-10 23:12:43 UTC
You know what makes me the happiest about this change?

In fleet fights.
While there are supers on the field.

Big smile

Anything that pushes blob warfare closer to the Dominion trailer (fights within fights within battlefields within systems) is a good thing.

/me goes back to hiding in his wormhole.

-- -.-- / -.-. .-.. --- -. . / .. ... / - --- --- / . -..- .--. . -. ... .. ...- . / - --- / ..- -. -.. --- -.-. -.- / ... - --- .--. / .--. .-.. . .- ... . / ... . -. -.. / .... . .-.. .--. / ... - --- .--.

Holoband Research and Development
#587 - 2011-10-10 23:17:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Anile8er
I came up with some other good ideas for supercaps CCP.

1st: Super capital class ships will be unable to fit cloaks.

2nd: Super capital class ships will be unable to move or warp, they can only be cyno'd in and are then stationary.

3rd: Super capital class ships will be unable to use energy neutralizers.

4th: Super capital class ships will be unable to use EWAR mods.

Might aswell consider these options too for the patch.

Edit: troll for the slow people.
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#588 - 2011-10-10 23:18:16 UTC
Wow what a week for devblogs. Things are getting better with each one! Cool
Adhocracy Incorporated
#589 - 2011-10-10 23:19:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Memoocan
xxxak wrote:
This nerf = Win Subcap battle, Kill all supers on the field.

So with this nerf, supers can no longer defend themselves from subcaps, and 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 lose the subcap battle, you also just permanently lost 15 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.

This makes is aaaalll worth it.

Oh the delicious tears, how they flow. Good to see tactics and thinking will win the day.

Maybe people will finally start learning and come to know...true nullsec.
Caldari State
#590 - 2011-10-10 23:20:23 UTC  |  Edited by: xxxak
There is now only one somewhat viable use for super caps that I can see:

a) During a fleet battle, your huge, utterly superior (numerically) subcap fleet obliterates the enemy supcap fleet. You then cyno in your supers to assist the subcap fleet as you rapidly destroy the enemy structures after the battle is over. (Note, such a large subcap fleet can kill structures really really fast anyways. However, supers will speed things up. \0/ )

It is no longer possible to use supers (without massive, dominant, subcap support) in a system where there is a single hostile ship, as that hostile ship could be a covert cyno ship linked to a titan bridge. Such ship could easily allow a small group of HICs to land on your super fleet, which could then hold all supers down indefinitely until other subcaps arrive to kill the supers.

[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]

StarFleet Enterprises
#591 - 2011-10-10 23:21:45 UTC
I too want SP for Titan toons / super toons to be reorganized as I will no longer need them. Is this your plan for SP for PLEX ? This was asked at the last confrence in Iceland. It is all becoming clear now. I will take 16 SP toon reorganizations thanks. ..


kralz wrote:
CCP for real, when this goes live, can i have a pop up window asking me if i want to be refuned both isk for the carrier and capital mod skill books and every single SP i invest in them? all of my training is cap oriented with every account and every toon, this patch totally ruins my game...

carrier pve ruined...and no one is gonna buy carriers, so my bpos are worthless, SC are utterly worthless, wasted toon, just lemme go back about 2 years of sp and relocate skills and i may keep playing, i trained my skills on known ship pros and cons....note i fly a nyx....its really not fair that i should have 5 accounts totally screwed over because some whiny noobs cant compete.

its cool tho, goons have won the game indeed.

does CCP actually play the game? in any way? or is there some really strong drug in jove space us mere us cannot dare to try? i mean are u guys really really this stupid?

“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,"

State War Academy
Caldari State
#592 - 2011-10-10 23:24:01 UTC
+1 Centillion* for this. Make supercaps and titans a PART of a viable fleet, not the be-all-and-end-all of fleet fights. To the butthurt supercap pilots, you have a racial battleship skill at 5. Use it!

One thing I will say though - give Supercap pilots a viable way to keep their supers safe should they want to jump into a subcap, because these changes are really gonna bring the days of the battleship roaming gangs back.

*that's a one followed by 303 zeroes.

Commanding Officer of the Treacle Tart Brigade

Test Alliance Please Ignore
#593 - 2011-10-10 23:27:45 UTC
Supers/titans still immune to EWAR? Bummer. Would have given recons and their cheap T1 versions a role in fleet combat. Would also have been a simple and effective way to reduce the effectiveness of supers.

But, these changes should have a positive effect as well. Efforts appreciated, CCP.


#594 - 2011-10-10 23:29:25 UTC
CCP Tallest wrote:
Jack Dant wrote:
Sounds good, but will this also affect people who log off without aggression, and would normally dissapear within 1 minute?

If you have not registered aggression at the point of logoff, you will disappear as normal. This cannot be extended by post-logoff aggression.
Ah sweet, that answers my questions. I occasionally get disconnected jumping through gates, so it would suck to get disconnected with no aggression and get pounded on the other side ... well for me any way ... probably a lot of fun on the other side killing me Cool
John Hand
#595 - 2011-10-10 23:29:53 UTC
The Drone Bay nerf was not really needed. What should be done (if you want to nerf the bay anyways) is just make it smaller but still allow the the use of normal drones. So say 25 (as that is max with full DCU's) Fighter Bombers, 25 Fighters and 50 heavys which can be split up to allow for either more med, lights ect. At any rate having the bay like that would mean fewer drones total that the ship has to fight with, meaning a limit on the number of drones a super can field in a fight. I am assuming that was the intention of the drone bay nerf but you are going about it wrong.

Fighter nerf?
Did you mean Fighter bombers?
Really Fighters and Fighter bombers already have what they need to fight against what they were made for. FB's were made to fight against other caps and not much else. Reality.....FB's cant do much damage against battleships, so a nerf is not needed. Fighters were made to fight against battleships as they are useless against caps (ever see two carriers going at it?), well fighters can't hit battlecruisers very well at all.
So again, why a fighter nerf?

Removing drone bays from dreads seems kinda silly. Maybe you should remove the drone bays from the battleships too.
Drone bays on dreads and titans are the same size as some of the battleships (typhoon, Megathron, Domi, Geddon). Meaning they can only deploy heavy drones (or sentries) and really.....thats not a lot of damage. So that nerf is really pointless and not needed.

Other then those 3 issues, it all sounds ok. EHP nerf might be too steep but only time will tell on that one.
Silence iKillYouu
Girls Lie But Zkill Doesn't
Pandemic Legion
#596 - 2011-10-10 23:35:12 UTC
Wow I'm glad I sold my NYX.

Any news of regular carrier changes?

EVE Mail me i dont check forums often.

Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#597 - 2011-10-10 23:36:20 UTC
August Hayek wrote:
good nerf, but please:

1. buff dreads --> 20% more tank, better tracking
2. buff carriers --> 20% more tank, more fuel bay
3. let fighters as they are now, with the nerf they get somewhat useless

CCP, do this.
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#598 - 2011-10-10 23:36:48 UTC
Xue Slick wrote:
Simple solution... want less super capitals on the field... make them 4 times as expensive so there is less of them?

CCP, you have made it so easy to make ISK that any Joe can get one now.

Easy changes:

- Double the bandwidth required for fighter and fighter bombers. Half the DPS and helps with system lag.
- Reduce Super Carrier and Titans EHP by 20%
- Increase Dreads and Carriers EHP by 20% ( Will solve your DD problem )
- Reduce the Siege cycle to 5 minutes
- Remove the Drone bays as stated and buff damage to Dreads
- Rework the cost of Super Capitals so less people can get into them. 2x, maybe 3x the price?

Do it CCP.

Gallente Federation
#599 - 2011-10-10 23:36:49 UTC
The tracking penalty for the siege mod has got to go. Make dreads and carriers anti-BS platforms, while supers kill caps, BSs kill BCs, BCs kill HACs, etc.
Church of Boom
#600 - 2011-10-10 23:41:24 UTC
1 big concern... fighter weapon sig changes...

The impact the fighter weapon sig change will have on standard carriers. Carriers were usable for small raiding support and PvE Level 5 missions. This has the potential to dramatically impact their effectiveness in these roles. Both functions which have very little to do with fleet blobs. Please consider not having this sig change impact standard carriers.

If standard carriers didn't get the fighter nerf, I suspect it would add some additional flavor to fleet battles, as softer standard carriers could be used as anti-subcap.

In truth i'm not sure the fighter weapon sig change is necessary with the drone bay changes for supers. If killing all the fighters defangs the supers completely against subcaps; then a counter already exists. Once they are defanged, the logout changes ensure that a well run subcap fleet just earned itself a super killmail.

As the sig penalty currently stands described in the dev blog it apears to have many unintended side effects. If the intention is to also nerf Standard carriers please make that intention clear.